/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220111.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, January 11, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 2

                            Headlines

11578243 CANADA: Supplements Contain Toxic Heavy Metals, Suit Says
ABBOTSFORD, BC: Sumas Prairie Residents File Flood Class Action
ACACIA NETWORK: Williams Files New Appeal in Wage-and-Hour Suit
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Mancilla BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
AGILIS ENGINEERING: Cydylo Sues Over Illegal No-Poach Agreement

AGILIS ENGINEERING: Mamigonian Sues Over Unfair No Poach Agreement
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Dewse Suit Removed to S.D. California
ALJ REGIONAL HOLDINGS: Harris Labor Suit Pending in N.D. Ga.
ALKE LLC: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
AM DRYWALL: Vasquez Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices

AMAZON.COM INC: Suarez Sues Over Job Application Rejection
AMERICAN AUTO: 10th Cir. Flips Dismissal of Hood TCPA Class Suit
AMORA LLC: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ANCHOVY PROJECT: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ANDERSON COUNTY, TN: Knox County Dismissed From Accord Class Suit

ANTHEM COMPANIES: Denied Workers Overtime Pay, Says Harris Suit
APPLE INC: Diep Computer Fraud Suit Moved From D. Md. to N.D. Cal.
AQUA FINANCE: Fails to Properly Pay Credit Analysts, Espinoza Says
ARCHON INC: Saiyed Labor Suit Appeal Transferred to 3rd Cir.
ARKANSAS: Faces Suit Over Criminal Failure to Vacate Statute

AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Faces Deck Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
BAKETIVITY CORP: Penafiel Sues Over Factory Workers' Unpaid Wages
BANKSIA HILL: Faces Class Action Over Aboriginal Children Detention
BARTON MYERS: Anderson Suit Removed to C.D. California
BAYER AG: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Monsanto Takeover

BERKELEY LIGHTS: Kirby McInerney Reminds of February 7 Deadline
BERRY GLOBAL: Vaughns Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
BIOREFERENCE LABORATORIES: Liang Files Discrimination Class Action
BLUE FORCE: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BOB BAFFERT: Bettors Urge Judge Not to Dismiss Derby Class Suit

BP EXPLORATION: Court Denies Bid for Summary Judgment in BELO Suit
CALIFORNIA FISH: Torres Sues Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
CALIFORNIA: CCC & SCC Violated Coastal Act, Court Finds in Pappas
CAMBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT: Summary Judgment Order in Schultz Affirmed
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Dismissal of Leszanczuk Class Suit Affirmed

CAT5 COMMERCE: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHANNEL CRAFT: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHEGG INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of February 22 Deadline
CHURCH & DWIGHT: Falsely Represented OTC Zicam, Vance Suit Says
CLAIMS RESOLUTION: Court Revoked Class Suit Representative Status

CNY CONSTRUCTION: Denial of Bid to Certify in Facade Suit Flipped
COCOFLOSS INC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS: Juan Monteverde Investigates Merger
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Quesada Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Texas
CREATIVE CONTINGENCIES: Darden Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid OT

CREDIT BUREAU: Faces Hia FDCPA Suit Over Unfair Collection Letter
CRODA INC: Baker Challenges Dismissal of Negligence Suit
CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Conriquez Sues Over Technicians' Unpaid Wages
DAVID'S LOFT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Smith et al. Claim
DESKTOP METAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of February 22 Deadline

DMD MANAGEMENT: Spencer Has Until Jan. 12 to File Class Cert Reply
DOMINION VOTING: O'Rourke Appeals Sanctions Award in RICO Suit
EMBASSY RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Gym Trainers Slam Gender Discrimination
EQUITY ADVANCE: Abante Rooter Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California

FMA ALLIANCE: Linkenberg Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
FOOD FOR LIFE: Brown Sues Over Foods' Protein Per Serving Claims
FOOD FOR LIFE: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Protein Claims
FORREST CITY CORRECTIONAL: Thomas Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas
FREDERICK E. SOLOMON: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

FUNTREPRENEUR INC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
GAOTU TECHEDU: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Jan. 31 Deadline
GAP INC: Suarez Slams Illegal Dismissal Over Background Checks
GARDEN CITY: Cervantez Sues Over Denied OT Pay, Breaks, Paystubs
GEICO CASUALTY: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Davis Insurance Suit

GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Faulty 8-Speed Automatic Transmissions
GEORGIA: District Court Certifies Prisoners Class in Harris v. GDC
GOOGLE LLC: California Crane School Files Antitrust Class Action
GUIDEPOINT GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Jones Says
HAWAII: Home Lands Beneficiaries' Class Action Suit Pending

HIDRATE INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
HISTOPATH DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 PCR Tests
I.V. DOC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ILLINOIS FARMERS: D. Minnesota Certifies 2 Classes in Taqueria Suit
INSTADOSE PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 28 Deadline

INSTADOSE PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of February 28 Deadline
INTERNATIONAL BANK: Court Dismisses Zhan Suit Without Prejudice
JAAC CORP: Faces Garcia Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
JL DARLING: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JON DAVLER: Denial of Bid to Nix Judgment in Bocardo Suit Reversed

KE HOLDINGS: Gainey McKenna Reminds of February 28 Deadline
KE HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Reminds of February 28 Deadline
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Lawyer Suit Moved From N.D. Tex. to W.D. Pa.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Richardson Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa.
L'OREAL USA: Price Appeals Reconsideration Bid Ruling in Fraud Suit

LASIK INSTITUTE: Williams' Bid for Attorneys' Fees & Costs Denied
LEE ENTERPRISES: Goldsmith Appeals Suit Dismissal to 8th Cir.
LIFE SPECTACULAR: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LIFETRADE FUND: March 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
LITERARY GOODS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

LOOMIS ARMORED: Can Compel Arbitration in Scott Labor Class Suit
LUXOTTICA RETAIL: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Ariza Fraud Suit
LYFT INC: Liner Slams Misclassification, Seeks Unpaid Benefits
M. MALIUGINA STORE: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MARATHON DIGITAL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Feb. 15 Deadline

MEDALLION FINANCIAL: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Claims
META MATERIALS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of March 4 Deadline
MICHIGAN: Faces Class Action Over Lead-Contaminated Water
MITEK SYSTEMS: Class Action Says Firm Uses Improper Facial Scans
MORGAN STANLEY: Settles Data Security Class Action for $60MM

NATIONAL GAS: Metzler Slams Pre-recorded Telemarketing Calls
NATWEST MARKETS: Manipulates Secondary Cash Market, Suit Says
NCAA: Issue for Interlocutory Appeal Certified in Johnson Suit
NEOPHOTONICS CORP: Parshall Balks at Merger Deal With Lumentum
NEW ENGLAND: Court Sides With Mintz in Immigrant Bond Lawsuit

OLD NAVY: May 31 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
ORGANOGENESIS HOLDINGS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
ORGANOGENESIS HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
PADDYWAX LLC: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
PALISADES INSURANCE: Brown Files Suit in N.D. New York

PANKOW OPERATING: Court Denies Sachs' Bid to Remand Wage Complaint
PARTS AUTHORITY: Shortchanges Drivers' Reimbursements, Says Suit
PAYSAFE LIMITED: Robbins Geller Reminds of February 8 Deadline
PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA: Snee Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Fuller Appeals Ruling in Hogan Securities Suit

PJ NORTH: Faces Davis Suit Over Unpaid OT for Delivery Drivers
PRATT & WHITNEY: Tucker Sues Over Illegal "No-Poach Agreement"
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces DayQuil False Advertising Class Action
PURDUE PHARMA: Wyoming Set to Receive Opioid Settlement Payout
PURITAN'S PRIDE: Loses Summary Judgment v. Mueller

R.C. BIGELOW: Class Certification Bid Filing Due May 3
RAYMOND HANDLING: Faces Marquez's Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
RED APPLE: Appellate Div. Affirms Dismissal of Flynn Class Action
REDWIRE CORPORATION: Robbins LLP Reminds of February 15 Deadline
REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of February 8 Deadline

ROBERT BOSCH: Faces Class Action Over Titanium Drill Bit Products
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Robbins LLP Reminds of February 15 Deadline
ROCHE LABORATORIES: Faces Suit Over Malaria Drug Side Effects
ROCK BORDELON: Holland Seeks to Extend Class Cert Filing Deadline
ROI SOLUTIONS: Court Grants Stenulson Leave to Amend Wage Complaint

S.C. JOHNSON: Sued Over Ziploc Unbeatable Freshness Claims
SABI TRUCKING: Faces Almendarez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
SAKE HIBACHI: Williams Appeals Judgment in FLSA Suit to 5th Cir.
SALESFORCE.COM INC: Averts TPC Class Action in the Netherlands
SCHUTZ CONTAINER: Underpays Machine Operators, Balderas Suit Says

SCWORX CORP: Announces Settlements of Securities Class Action
SECURCAPITAL CORP: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
SF HILTON: Non-Managerial Employees Win Class Certification
SHELLBACK TACTICAL: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SIPS BY: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

SKANSKA AB: Faces Class Action Over Pensacola Bay Bridge Outage
SNYDERS-LANCE: Vazquez Files Suit in E.D. New York
SPECIALIZED LOAN: Hurster Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
SPIRAFLEX: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SPRUCE 1209: Appeals Court Affirms Certification Order in Chernett

STEAK N SHAKE: Brown Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
SUN COMMUNITIES: Denial of Class Cert. Bid in Yamaoka Suit Affirmed
SUN-MAID GROWERS: Court Stays Velasquez Suit
SXSW LLC: Seeks Resolution of Federal's Duty to Defend Class Suit
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Ct. Modifies Class Certification Schedule

TD AMERITRADE: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Klein Suit
TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD: Ceasar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TERRASLATE PAPER: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TERRY TUSSEY: Hampton Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas
TI GROUP: Class Status Bid Filing Due Jan. 31

TOSHIBA CORPORATION: Wins Bid to Strike Economist's Second Report
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Ct. Resets Class Cert. Deadlines in Hakeem
TRILLER INC: Faces Biometric Data Class Action in New York
TROJAN TUBULAR: Tom Wagoner Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA
TRUCK INSURANCE: Court Denies 50-40 Brewing's Bid to Remand Suit

TRUE SELECT: Larson Seeks to Certify Class of Home Care Workers
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Calabrese Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action in Nevada Seeks Uber Pool Refunds
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class-Action Lawsuit Calls for Uber Pool Refunds
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Grosse Sues Over Attempted Assault Incident

UNITED SERVICES: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Spielman Suit
UNITED STATES: Declaratory Judgment in Brito v. DOJ Partly Affirmed
UNITED STATES: Navy Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Red Hill Spill
UNLIMITED POTENTIAL: West Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA, OPPA
URBAN GARDEN: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

VAN'S INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Misleading Waffle Product Labels
VECTOR STRUCTURAL: Cajamarca Sues Over Unpaid OT for Brick Layers
VENTURE SOLAR: Perrong Files TCPA Suit in D. Connecticut
VERIZON BUSINESS: Underpays Salespeople, Hogue Suit Alleges
VICTORIA'S SECRET: Lizama Remanded to St. Louis Cty. Circuit Court

WALGREEN BOOTS: Hall Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
WESTMINSTER PINES: Case Management, Sched Order Entered in Noriega
WILDCAT INVESTMENTS: Scheduling Entered in Foley Class Suit
WOLFGANG'S VAULT: Court Breaks Up Classes in Copyright Suit
WORLD WRESTLING: Appeals Sanctions Ruling in McCullough PI Suit

WORLD WRESTLING: Kyros Law Appeals Ruling in McCullough Suit
XPO LAST: Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Amended in Green Suit
ZENDESK INC: Juan Monteverde Investigates Momentive Global Merger
ZOOM VIDEO: Victims Get $15 for False End-to-End Encryption Claims
[*] Affected Families Urged to Join Forces Over "Land Grabs" Suit

[*] Food Industry Must Reach Balance in Consumer Product Labeling
[*] Parents of Dyslexic Kids in NZ Should Consider Class Action
[*] U.S. ATM Cash Withdrawal Class Action Settlements Reached $67-M

                            *********

11578243 CANADA: Supplements Contain Toxic Heavy Metals, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM SABATH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 11578243 CANADA, INC. d/b/a BLACKOXYGEN ORGANICS and
BLACKOXYGEN ORGANICS USA, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00061-DG-PK
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 5, 2022) is a class action complaint against the
Defendants for the manufacture, marketing, and sale of BlackOxygen
branded nutritional supplements.

The case involves the marketing and sale of BlackOxygen branded
nutritional supplements The Products were specifically marketed for
use by adults, children, and pregnant or nursing women. The
Products contains unsafe levels of toxic heavy metals that render
them unsafe and unfit for their intended use. Plaintiff and each
proposed class member are purchasers of the products, the lawsuit
alleges.

Mr. Sabath purchased the Product from a distributor located in New
York. Mr. Sabath purchased the Product because he believed it was
fit for use as a nutritional supplement. However, the Product Mr.
Sabath purchased was not fit as a nutritional supplement due to its
dangerous nature. Mr. Sabath would not have purchased the Product
or would have paid significantly less for the Product had he known
that the Product was unfit to perform its intended purpose.

BlackOxygen extracts mud from a bog that it claims is rich in
fulvic acid. BlackOxygen then dries the mud, processes it, and
sells the resulting product in powder and pill form. The specific
products at issue in this action are BlackOxygen Tablets and
BlackOxygen Powders.

The Products offer no medical benefits to humans. Worse, the
Products are dangerous for human use and consumption, the Plaintiff
contends.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue, Third Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7011
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: jdiamond@bursor.com
                  tfisher@bursor.com

ABBOTSFORD, BC: Sumas Prairie Residents File Flood Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth McSheffrey and Simon Little, writing for GlobalNews.ca,
report that two residents of the Sumas Prairie have proposed a
class-action lawsuit seeking damages for personal loss and
destruction caused by November's catastrophic flooding.

Representative plaintiffs and business owners Caroline Mostertman
and Ted Dykman allege local authorities and the province failed to
adequately warn residents of the impending disaster, limiting their
ability to save their belongings.

"The defendants also failed to implement emergency measures and
warnings when they knew or ought to have known that a flood
impacting the Sumas Prairie was the foreseeable consequence of the
weather preceding the Sumas Flood," reads the Statement of Claim.

The claim was filed in B.C. Supreme Court by lawyer
Anthony Vecchio of Slater Vecchio LLP, a Vancouver-based firm that
specializes in class action and personal injury litigation. It has
not yet been certified by a judge.

The defendants -- the City of Abbotsford, Fraser Valley Regional
District and Province of British Columbia -- all declined to
comment, saying the matter is before the courts. Emergency
Management BC, however, said it takes the "health and safety of
British Columbians seriously in emergency situations."

The lawsuit also lists three unnamed companies as defendants, all
of which are in charge of monitoring for floods or initiating
emergency responses.

On Nov. 14, southern B.C. was hit by record-breaking rainfall that
contributed two days later to the breach of the Sumas Dike in two
places.

The ensuing floods swallowed homes and vehicles in Sumas Prairie,
drowned countless acres of farmland, destroyed crops, killed
livestock, and displaced thousands of people.

Elsewhere in the province, five people were killed in rain-related
mudslides, critical infrastructure was destroyed, and entire
communities were evacuated.

While a complete estimate of damage has not yet been calculated,
the Insurance Bureau of Canada pegged the estimated insured damage
at least $450 million.

Abbotsford Mayor Henry Braun has estimated the damage to his city
-- which includes Sumas Prairie -- to be well over $1 billion.

The lawsuit claims that Mostertman, who co-owners a farm, winery,
distillery company, as well as plant and fish nursery, suffered
extensive personal property damage that could have been mitigated,
at least in part, with sufficient warning.

Dykman, a dairy farmer, lists his alleged damages as including, but
not limited to, five vehicles, several electric pumps, motors, hay
and grain.

Neither the plaintiffs nor their lawyer could be reached for
comment. The proposed class action is meant to represent all people
who owned or had an interest in property in the Abbotsford area
affected by the flood.

For it to be successful, the plaintiffs must prove "grossly
negligent failure" on the part of the governments and companies
listed. Unless gross negligence exists, the province's Emergency
Program Act protects governments from civil liability related to
measures taken, or not taken, in an emergency or disaster.

"I think what is clear from the suit is there are a number of
serious questions that need to be answered," said lawyer Kevin
McLaren of Hammerco LLP in Vancouver. McLaren is not involved in
the case, but specializes in class action lawsuits.

"I think that's the most important part of any process that comes
out of this, is understanding what happened and making sure that it
doesn't happen again."

The plaintiffs are seeking general, special and punitive damages,
in addition to relief for the legal costs of the class action
itself. The defendants must respond to the claim within 21 days of
being served. [GN]

ACACIA NETWORK: Williams Files New Appeal in Wage-and-Hour Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Justice Williams has filed another appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled JUSTICE WILLIAMS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. ACACIA NETWORK HOUSING, INC., Defendant, Case No.
155960/2018, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County
of New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Williams
sought a review of the Court's May 14, 2021 Decision and Order,
denying his motion for class certification in this matter involving
wage and hour claims. That appellate case was assigned Case No.
2021-02107, and was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, on June 11,
2021.

Th present appellate case is captioned as JUSTICE WILLIAMS et al.
v. ACACIA NETWORK HOUSING, INC. et al., Case No. 2021-04807, in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, First
Judicial Department, filed on December 29, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JUSTICE WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Michele A. Moreno, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082

ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Mancilla BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALEX MANCILLA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, INC., Case
No. 2021 CH 05732, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on December 29, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-06908 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Biometric Information Privacy Act by failing to maintain a publicly
available retention schedule, failing to obtain written consent and
release from employees before obtaining their biometric identifiers
or information, and disclosing biometric identifiers without
obtaining consent.

Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. is a plastics pipe company, with
its principal place of business in Hilliard, Ohio. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         James K. Borcia, Esq.
         TRESSLER LLP
         233 South Wacker Drive, 61st Floor
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 627-4000
         E-mail: jborcia@tresslerllp.com

AGILIS ENGINEERING: Cydylo Sues Over Illegal No-Poach Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW CYDYLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff 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, MAHESH PATEL, ROBERT HARVEY, HARPREET WASAN,
STEVE HOUGHTALING, THOMAS EDWARDS, GARY PRUS, FRANK O'NEILL,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01730 (D. Conn., December 29, 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.

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:                                   
                                  
         
         Daniel J. Krisch, Esq.
         HALLORAN SAGE LLP
         225 Asylum St.
         Hartford, CT 06103
         Telephone: (860) 522-6103
         E-mail: krisch@halloransage.com

                - and –

         Jason A. Zweig, Esq.
         KELLER LENKNER LLC
         150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4100
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 741-5220
         E-mail: jaz@kellerlenkner.com

                - and –

         Zina Bash, Esq.
         KELLER LENKNER LLC
         111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500
         Austin, TX 78701
         Telephone: (501) 690-0990
         E-mail: zina.bash@kellerlenkner.com

AGILIS ENGINEERING: Mamigonian Sues Over Unfair No Poach Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMDEN H. MAMIGONIAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AGILIS ENGINEERING, INC.; BELCAN ENGINEERING
GROUP, LLC; CYIENT, INC.; PARAMETRIC SOLUTIONS, INC.; QUEST GLOBAL
SERVICES-NA, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, PRATT &
WHITNEY DIVISION; MAHESH PATEL; ROBERT HARVEY; HARPREET WASAN;
STEVEN HOUGHTALING; TOM EDWARDS; GARY PRUS; and DOES 1-20,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01721 (D. Conn., December 27, 2021) is
a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, for damages and injunctive relief
for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Beginning in 2011 and continuing until at least 2019, six
outsourcing firms and a powerful defense contractor entered into an
illegal agreement (the "No Poach Agreement") not to hire one
another's aerospace engineers and other skilled workers.

Allegedly, the intent and effect of the No Poach Agreement was to
reduce competition for the services of Engineers, and thus to fix
and suppress their salaries, benefits, and professional
opportunities. Simply put, Defendants conspired to drive down the
compensation they had to pay their employees, harming those
individuals to enrich themselves, says the suit.

The Plaintiff asserts that Defendants' agreements unreasonably
restrained trade and are per se unlawful under federal law.

Mr. Mamigonian was employed as an engineer for Defendant Pratt from
2014 to 2019. Mr. Mamigonian was injured in his business or
property by reason of the alleged violations.

The Corporate Defendants are engineering companies in the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert M. Frost, Jr., Esq.
          FROST BUSSERT LLC
          350 Orange Street, Suite 100
          New Haven, CT 06511
          Telephone: (203) 495-9790
          Facsimile: (203) 495-9795
          E-mail: rmf@frostbussert.com

               - and -

          Kellie Lerner, Esq.
          William V. Reiss, Esq.
          David B. Rochelson, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          900 Third Avenue, Suite 1900
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 980-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
          E-mail: klerner@robinskaplan.com
                  wreiss@robinskaplan.com
                  drochelson@robinskaplan.com

ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Dewse Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Allison Dewse, an individual, on behalf of
herself, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Albertsons
Companies, Inc., The Vons Companies, Inc., Does 2-100, inclusive,
Case No. 37-02021-000-40943-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on Jan. 5,
2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00013-BEN-RBB to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.

Albertsons Companies, Inc. -- https://www.albertsonscompanies.com/
-- is an American grocery company founded and headquartered in
Boise, Idaho.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun A Markley, Esq.
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC LLP
          225 Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 325-0492
          Fax: (619) 325-0496
          Email: smarkley@nicholaslaw.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mara D. Curtis, Esq.
          REED SMIRH LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 457-8216
          Fax: (213) 457-8080
          Email: mcurtis@reedsmith.com


ALJ REGIONAL HOLDINGS: Harris Labor Suit Pending in N.D. Ga.
------------------------------------------------------------
ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Annual Report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 20, 2021, that a
collective action complaint filed on April 18, 2021 filed by Lois
Harris, an employee of Faneuil (a subsidiary of ALJ Regional
Holdings, Inc.) in Georgia, is still pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Harris alleges, on behalf of herself and other current and former
non-exempt Call Center Agent employees who received
nondiscretionary bonuses for periods in which they worked overtime
hours, that Faneuil violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by
failing to include nondiscretionary bonuses in the regular rate of
pay when calculating the overtime rate for Harris and other
similarly-situated persons. Faneuil has engaged counsel to defend
it in this action.

ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. is a holding company based in New York.

ALKE LLC: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alke, LLC. The case
is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Alke, LLC doing business as:
SymplBrush, Case No. 1:22-cv-00068 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 5, 2022).

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

Alke, LLC doing business as SymplBrush --
https://www.symplbrush.com/ -- is the science-driven dental company
designed to be smarter, faster and better.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AM DRYWALL: Vasquez Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
------------------------------------------------------
ENRIQUE GOPAR VAZQUEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AM DRYWALL, INC.; and DOES
thru 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21 CV392565 (Cal. Super.,
Santa Clara Cty., December 22, 2021) is a class action seeking from
the Defendants' rest period penalties, unreimbursed expenses,
accurate itemized wage statements, all wages due upon termination,
other penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the California
Labor Code and the Business & Professions Code.

The Plaintiff and the proposed class have been classified as
non-exempt employees by Defendant. Defendant hires employees who
work as hourly employees and are paid on an hourly basis.

AM Drywall, Inc. is a California-based dry wall contractor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura B1Vd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 1436
          Telephone: (818) 990-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
          E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                  kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com

AMAZON.COM INC: Suarez Sues Over Job Application Rejection
----------------------------------------------------------
Genevieve Suarez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com
Sales, Inc., Amazon.com Services, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
22-cv-00022, (S.D.N.Y., January 3, 2022), alleges violation of her
rights under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York
Executive Law Section 296(15) for discriminatory criminal
conviction screening policies and practices used by Amazon to deny
employment to otherwise qualified job applicants and hirees.

In September and October 2021, Suarez applied for several open
full-time positions with Amazon at its Newburgh, New York
distribution center, including loader, helper, and driver. She
claims that Amazon rejected her for each position for which she
applied based on a background check that revealed a prior criminal
conviction where she was convicted for Welfare Fraud in the 5th
Degree, a misdemeanor which was been brought in June 2015, more
than six years before her employment applications were submitted to
Amazon. Suarez claims to have paid the restitution in full and
never served any jail time.

She contests that her misdemeanor did not bear any direct
relationship on the positions for which she applied with Amazon and
that conviction rendered her presumptively disqualified to work for
Amazon, in violation of New York correction laws. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher D. Watkins, Esq.
     WATKINS LAW
     5 Paradies Lane
     New Paltz, NY 12561
     Tel: (845) 419-2250


AMERICAN AUTO: 10th Cir. Flips Dismissal of Hood TCPA Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEXANDER HOOD, on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff-Appellant v. AMERICAN AUTO CARE, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company; BEACON FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC,
a Florida limited liability company; JESSIE BRITT, an individual;
KYLIE BRITT, an individual; DAVID GLENWINKEL, an individual; ROYAL
ADMINISTRATION SERVICES, INC., a Florida corporation; CARGUARD
ADMINISTRATION INC., a Kansas corporation; MATRIX WARRANTY
SOLUTIONS, INC., a Nevada corporation, d/b/a Element Protection
Plans; EGV COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a Omega
Auto Care, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-1157 (10th Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the district
court's order dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint for lack of
personal jurisdiction and remanded for further proceedings
consistent with its Opinion.

Introduction

AAC, a Florida limited liability company whose sole office is in
Florida, sells vehicle service contracts that provide vehicle
owners with extended warranties after the manufacturer's warranty
expires. Mr. Hood, a Colorado resident, appeals the dismissal for
lack of personal jurisdiction of his putative class-action claim
against AAC in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado. In light of Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial
District Court, 141 S.Ct. 1017 (2021), however, the dismissal
cannot stand. So long as AAC's marketing in Colorado was
essentially the same as its marketing in Vermont, the telemarketing
calls to Mr. Hood related to AAC's marketing in Colorado.

Background

Mr. Hood's complaint alleges that AAC violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and invaded Mr. Hood's and the
putative class members' privacy by directing unwanted automated
calls to their cell phones without consent. Shortly after
purchasing a used car, Mr. Hood began receiving prerecorded calls
to his cell phone claiming that his car warranty was about to
expire and offering to sell him an extended warranty. Although he
was then residing in Colorado, the calls came from numbers with a
Vermont area code. He had previously lived in Vermont, and his cell
phone number had a Vermont area code. Mr. Hood was able to trace
one such call to AAC. The complaint alleges that AAC "uses
telemarketing to sell vehicle service contracts nationwide,
including in Colorado by calling Colorado phone numbers."

Several defendants moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal
jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). After
reviewing the complaint and the parties' arguments and affidavits,
the district court granted the motions. Although it determined that
Mr. Hood had alleged sufficient facts to establish that AAC
purposefully directs telemarketing at Colorado, it held that the
call to Mr. Hood's Vermont phone number did not arise out of, or
relate to, AAC's calls to Colorado phone numbers.

Discussion

AAC argues (1) that purposeful direction must be shown by
suit-related contacts -- so its calls to Colorado residents at
Colorado phone numbers cannot support personal jurisdiction for Mr.
Hood's claim based on a call to a Vermont phone number; (2) that
the second requirement contemplates a causal connection between a
defendant's forum contacts and the suit -- but its calls to
Colorado phone numbers did not give rise to its call to Mr. Hood's
Vermont phone number; and (3) that subjecting it to burdensome
litigation in Colorado, where its contacts are weak, would violate
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Each argument fails, the Tenth Circuit opines. The argument
regarding "purposeful direction" -- the first requirement -- is
implicitly rejected by Ford, and the argument regarding "arise out
of or relate to" -- the second requirement -- is explicitly
rejected. The Tenth Circuit also determines that AAC has not shown
a violation of traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.

A. Relationship Between the Claim and Forum Contacts

The test for satisfying the second requirement is whether the
plaintiff's claims "arise out of or relate to activities" that the
defendant purposefully directed at residents of the forum. AAC
interprets that language as requiring a causal connection between
the plaintiff's claims and the defendant's activities purposefully
directed at forum residents. The district court agreed. Although it
found that AAC purposefully directed telemarketing at Colorado
residents, it concluded that there was "an insufficient connection
between the forum and the underlying controversy -- a phone call to
a Vermont area code -- to allow the Court to exercise specific
jurisdiction here."

The Tenth Circuit concludes that Colorado can exercise jurisdiction
over Mr. Hood's claim against AAC. Even if AAC's call to Mr. Hood
was not a direct result of its telemarketing efforts directed at
Colorado, Mr. Hood was still injured there by activity essentially
identical to activity that AAC directs at Colorado residents. If
AAC places telemarketing calls to sell service contracts to Vermont
and Colorado residents alike, it does not matter that they called
Mr. Hood from a list of apparent Vermont residents rather than a
list of apparent Colorado residents. The Tenth Circuit might not
apply that proposition if there was a substantial relevant
difference between calls placed to residents of the two states. But
here Mr. Hood alleged that other Colorado residents received the
same type of solicitation call that he did.

The Tenth Circuit rejects the argument that there is an
insufficient relationship between Mr. Hood's injury in Colorado and
AAC's contacts there. Ford makes clear that specific jurisdiction
is proper when a resident is injured by the very type of activity a
nonresident directs at residents of the forum State -- even if the
activity that gave rise to the claim was not itself directed at the
forum State.

B. Purposeful Direction

As previously stated, the first requirement that must be satisfied
before a defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of the forum
State is that the defendant must have "purposefully directed its
activities at residents of the forum." This requirement ensures
that a nonresident is not forced to defend suit in a jurisdiction
based on "random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts, or of the
unilateral activity of another." AAC argues that this requirement
was not satisfied.

The Tenth Circuit disagrees. It opines that Mr. Hood's
uncontradicted assertion that AAC directs telemarketing calls at
Colorado satisfied the purposeful-direction requirement. Although
the purposeful-direction prong was not before the Court in Ford
(Ford conceded the issue), AAC's argument is incompatible with the
Court's conclusion that purposefully directed in-state contacts can
be sufficiently related to the plaintiff's injury despite the
absence of a causal connection.

C. Fair Play and Substantial Justice

Finally, AAC argues that jurisdiction in Colorado does not "comport
with fair play and substantial justice."

Again, the Tenth Circuit is not persuaded. It considers five
factors in analyzing this issue: (1) the burden on the defendant,
(2) the forum state's interest in resolving the dispute, (3) the
plaintiff's interest in receiving convenient and effective relief,
(4) the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most
efficient resolution of controversies, and (5) the shared interest
of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social
policies.

The Tenth Circuit opines that AAC has not explained how any of the
five factors listed above suggest that litigating this dispute in
Colorado would be unfair to it, except for the inconvenience. But
that inconvenience is hardly something rare. The selection of the
location of court proceedings in the case will necessarily
inconvenience one party or the other, but discovery will likely be
largely unaffected; and AAC has not shown that trial in Colorado
would be unduly burdensome, arguing only that it and the other
defendants are not "'large interstate companies accustomed to
conducting business and litigation in multiple states.'" Perhaps a
change of venue would be appropriate if this litigation matures
into a class action against all presently named defendants. But the
Tenth Circuit is not persuaded that requiring AAC to answer in
Colorado for the alleged violation of federal law through its
telemarketing in Colorado is incompatible with fair play and
substantial justice. It rejects AAC's argument.

Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's order dismissing
Mr. Hood's suit against AAC for lack of personal jurisdiction and
remanded for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 28, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p8tzs47 from Leagle.com.

Jennifer Bennett -- jennifer@guptawessler.com -- (Neil K. Sawhney
-- neil@guptawessler.com -- with her on the briefs), Gupta Wessler
PLLC, in San Francisco, California, for the Appellant.

John L. Skari Jr. -- john@hassancables.com -- Hassan + Cables, LLC,
in Boulder, Colorado (Brian E. McGovern -- bmcgovern@mlklaw.com --
McCarthy Leonard & Kaemmerer, L.C., Town & Country, Missouri; Jeff
Whitfield -- jeff.whitfield@kellyhart.com -- Caitlyn Hubbard --
caitlyn.hubbard@kellyhart.com -- Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP, in Fort
Worth, Texas, with him on the brief) for the Appellees.


AMORA LLC: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amora LLC. The case
is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Amora LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00103
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 5, 2022).

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

Amora -- https://amoracoffee.com/ -- offers better-tasting gourmet
coffee and organic teas: packaged fresh and delivered right at the
door.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ANCHOVY PROJECT: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Anchovy Project
LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. The Anchovy
Project LLC doing business as: Ipsa, Case No. 1:22-cv-00015
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 3, 2022).

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

The Anchovy Project --
https://www.whetstonemedia.co/the-anchovy-project -- beckons chefs
and diner to create a new market for these magnificent fish better
than the one that currently captures them from the waters of the
San Francisco Bay only to compress them into pellets that feed
higher-value fish in countries far away.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (212) 392-4772
          Fax: (212) 444-1030
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


ANDERSON COUNTY, TN: Knox County Dismissed From Accord Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GARY ACCORD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ANDERSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00077 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Eli
Richardson of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, Nashville Division, granted Knox County's Motion to
Dismiss.

Background

On June 29, 2018, Plaintiff Accord was arrested by Tennessee
Highway Patrolman Paul Kilday in Cocke County, Tennessee. Kilday
prepared a complaint-affidavit on a State of Tennessee Uniform
Citation Form. The Plaintiff was then prosecuted using the Uniform
Citation Form/Affidavit of Complaint as a charging instrument. He
was charged with a DUI, which was eventually reduced to reckless
endangerment. He was sentenced to 11 months and 29 days in jail
with a suspended sentence.

Every Defendant in the case is a county in the State of Tennessee,
each of which function as a local governmental unit and operate
individual General Sessions Courts. General Sessions Courts have
limited jurisdiction and are funded by the Defendants. The use of
Tennessee Highway Patrol Affidavit of Complaints as arrest warrants
has become an "official custom and/or policy" for the Defendants,
which bypasses "the neutral and detached magistrate standard
required" by both the U.S. and Tennessee Constitution.

The Plaintiff sought to bring a class action against every county
in Tennessee, alleging direct violations of the Fourth, Sixth and
Fourteenth Amendments, substantive due process violations under the
Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment, false imprisonment, and false light
invasion of privacy on behalf of himself and all "putative class
members who were unlawfully seized without an arrest warrant." On
behalf of himself and his class members, the Plaintiff requests
relief in the form of compensatory damages and equitable relief.

In response, the Defendants filed a series of motions seeking to
dismiss the case. Defendant Blount County filed a motion for
summary judgment. Defendant Hancock County filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings. A multitude of other counties filed a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6),
and Defendant Knox County filed a motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).

Discussion

Defendant Knox County challenges the Plaintiff's Article III
standing on a few different grounds, the most persuasive of which
is the argument that the Plaintiff failed to allege that Knox
County "violated his rights or caused him any injury." Defendant
Knox County also argues that "it matters not that Plaintiff Accord
seeks to represent a class." By this, Defendant Knox County appears
to mean essentially that Plaintiff Accord cannot get around a lack
of standing by the expedient of asserting his claims as part of a
class action having class members who do have standing on which he
can piggyback, because he "must be part of the class and possess
the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class
members."

The Plaintiff did not respond to the substance of this argument,
which would normally mean he has conceded that argument.
Nonetheless, Judge Richardson analyzes Defendant Knox County's
argument that Plaintiff cannot allege standing.

The necessity of the Plaintiff alleging his own standing is not
somehow diminished by his bringing the action on behalf of a
putative class. As one district court explained recently: On a
motion to dismiss a putative class action complaint, courts may
only consider the allegations of the named plaintiffs, and not the
generalized allegations of unnamed plaintiffs or putative class
members. In addition, when a class-action complaint asserts claims
against multiple defendants, a named plaintiff must have a valid
cause of action against each defendant, and cannot rely on the
allegations of putative class members if he or she does not also
have a claim against that defendant.

Judge Richardson holds that this means several things about class
actions and the plaintiffs (potential class representatives) who
bring them. First, a "potential class representative must
demonstrate individual standing vis-a-vis the defendant." Second, a
potential class representative "cannot acquire such standing merely
by virtue of bringing a class action." Third, such a plaintiff
"`cannot represent those having causes of action against other
defendants against whom the plaintiff has no cause of action and
from whose hands he suffered no injury.'

Collectively this means that the Plaintiff, even though he is
bringing a putative class action, must allege an injury at the
hands of each named Defendant. Judge Richardson holds that the
Plaintiff has failed to do so with respect to all but one
Defendant. He finds that the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges
he suffered an injury at the hands of -- because of the conduct of
-- only a single Defendant: Cocke County, where allegedly he was
arrested and ultimately prosecuted.

Notably there are two exceptions to the principle outlined in
Thompson: "(1) situations in which all injuries are the result of a
conspiracy or concerted schemes between the defendants at whose
hands the class suffered injury; and (2) instances in which all
defendants are juridically related in a manner that suggests a
single resolution of the dispute would be expeditious." The
Plaintiff makes no argument that either exception would apply, but
Judge Richardson assesses their applicability to the present action
on its own.

There are no allegations of a conspiracy or concerted scheme in the
case, so the first exception is clearly inapplicable. The second
exception is more promising for the Plaintiff, but also ultimately
does not apply. The allegations clearly do not implicate
sub-exception (a), as they make no reference whatsoever to any
contractual obligation among any Defendants. They also are
insufficient to implicate sub-exception (b). Likewise, the
situation alleged by the Plaintiff is insufficient to implicate the
second exception.

With neither exception to Thompson being applicable to the case,
Judge Richardson must find that the Plaintiff was required to
allege his own cause of action against each individual Defendant.
To the extent that the Plaintiff failed to do so as to particular
Defendants, such Defendants must be dismissed for lack of
subject-matter-jurisdiction. The only Defendant Plaintiff
adequately alleged standing to bring a claim against is Cocke
County.

For that reason, all other Defendants in the case will be
dismissed, as the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction
over the claims against them. In other words, all other Defendants
(except Cocke County) must be dismissed by the Court sua sponte
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) despite not having themselves
asserted a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Conclusion

For the reasons indicated, Judge Richardson granted Knox County's
Rule 12(b)(1) motion, and as a result all claims against Knox
County are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Likewise, all
claims against all other Defendants except Cocke County and Knox
County are dismissed without prejudice by the Court sua sponte for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3).

The following pending motions will thus be denied as moot: Blount
County's Motion for Summary Judgment, Davidson County's Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Coffee County's Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Roane County's Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Wilson County's Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Hancock County's Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings, and Knox County's Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to State a Claim. The pending motion to dismiss in which
Cocke County joined remains pending only as to Cocke County, and
the Court will address it at a later date.

Knox County will remain a party to the case to allow the Court to
resolve its pending Motion for Sanctions. Otherwise, all the
Defendants other than Cocke County will be terminated as parties.

An appropriate order will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 28, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3sn6rhj2 from Leagle.com.


ANTHEM COMPANIES: Denied Workers Overtime Pay, Says Harris Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Harris and Lita Fillipo, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Anthem Companies, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00002, (S.D. Ind., January 3, 2022),
seeks to recover unpaid wages due to unpaid overtime, statutory
penalties, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Virginia Minimum Wage Act and the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Anthem operates a healthcare enterprise that provides programs and
services to uninsured and underinsured individuals. Harris worked
as a Membership Enrollment Specialist in Anthem's office located in
Richmond VA since April 2019 where she assisted in the enrollment
and approval process for Anthem's private Group Enrollment
Healthcare plans. Fillipo worked as a sales employee for Anthem's
Indianapolis region from August 9, 2021 to November 16, 2021. She
predominantly worked from her home in Porter, Indiana selling
private insurance plans and Medicare/Medicaid plans. Both claim to
have engage in work activities after their scheduled hours without
being paid overtime. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
      New York, NY 10011
      Tel: (212) 465-1188
      Fax: (212) 465-1181


APPLE INC: Diep Computer Fraud Suit Moved From D. Md. to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled HADONA DIEP, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. APPLE, INC., Case No. 8:21-cv-02359,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on December 29, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-10063-JSC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligence and
violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, Wiretap & Electronic Surveillance Act,
the Maryland Personal Information Protection Act, States' Personal
Information Protection Acts, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act,
and States' Consumer Protection Acts by participating in and or
allowing hacking and breach of financial account information and
actual theft of personal financial assets through authorizing a
malicious application in the App Store and maintaining the same,
despite knowledge of the criminal activity.

Apple, Inc. is a technology company based in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Joshua G. Whitaker, Esq.
         Edward N. Griffin, Esq.
         ADELPHI LAW
         2306 Wineberry Terrace
         Baltimore, MD 21209
         Telephone: (888) 367-0383
         E-mail: whitaker@adelphilaw.com
                 griffin@adelphilaw.com

AQUA FINANCE: Fails to Properly Pay Credit Analysts, Espinoza Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA ESPINOZA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AQUA FINANCE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-01484 (E.D. Wis., December 29, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and similarly situated credit analysts overtime pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and
Collection Laws.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a credit analyst from
November 2017 until December 2021.

Aqua Finance, Inc. is a consumer financing company, with its
principal place of business located at 1 Corporate Drive, Suite
300, Wausau, Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         James A. Walcheske, Esq.
         Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
         David M. Potteiger, Esq.
         WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
         235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
         Brookfield, WI 53005
         Telephone: (262) 780-1953
         Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
         E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                 sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                 dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com

ARCHON INC: Saiyed Labor Suit Appeal Transferred to 3rd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Amjad Saiyed filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled AMJAD SAIYED v. ARCHON, INC., et al., Case
No. 2:16-cv-09530-JMV-JBC, in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
commenced the putative class action on Nov. 21, 2014, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging, among
other things, that the Defendants failed to pay him and other
similarly situated employees overtime and minimum wage in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law
("NYLL"), and New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"). The Plaintiff
was employed by Defendant Archon Inc. and/or Archon Distribution,
Inc. from January 2009 until he was terminated on December 19,
2013.

The Plaintiff is from India, and represents that Archon submitted
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") Form I-129,
which enabled him to obtain a visa to work in the United States. He
maintains that throughout his employment, Archon represented on
USCIS forms that it paid him vastly different salary amounts than
what he was actually paid. The Plaintiff also contends he was
forced to work under oppressive conditions and was mistreated. He
asserts that he tolerated these conditions out of fear of
deportation.

In the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts claims under the
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act ("TVPRA");
common law fraud; the FLSA; NYLL; quantum meruit; and NJWHL on
behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated employees.

On April 9, 2018, the Clerk of the Court entered default as to the
Defendants for failure to plead or otherwise defend.

On August 11, 2021, Judge John Michael Vazquez entered Opinion and
Order and Judgment, and Amended Judgment and Order on August 16,
2021, granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff Amjad Saiyed's
supplemental certification in support of his request for damages.
The Court had held that judgment shall be entered for Plaintiff and
against Defendants in the amount of $233,096.71.

On Sept. 10, 2021, the Plaintiff took an appeal from these rulings
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an
appellate case was captioned as AMJAD SAIYED, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v.
ARCHON, INC., ARCHON DISTRIBUTION, INC., RASHID PATEL, MOHAMED
ASHIF GAJRA, JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
21-2298.

On December 22, 2021, the Federal Circuit entered an order
terminating the Notice of Appeal, and transferring the matter to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The present appellate case is captioned as Amjad Saiyed v. Archon
Inc, et al., Case No. 21-3352, filed on December 23, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant AMJAD SAIYED, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, appears pro se.

Defendants-Appellees ARCHON INC., ARCHON DISTRIBUTION INC., RASHID
PATEL, and MOHAMED ASHIF GAJRA are represented by:

          Geoffrey T. Bray, Esq.
          BRAY & BRAY
          100 Misty Lane
          Lanidex Executive Center
          Parsippany, NY 07054
          Telephone: (973) 739-9600

ARKANSAS: Faces Suit Over Criminal Failure to Vacate Statute
------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Wann, writing for Arkansas Democrat Gazette, reports that a
federal lawsuit is challenging Arkansas' criminal failure to vacate
statute, arguing that the law is unconstitutional.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Arkansas on Sept. 2, claims that Arkansas is the only state in
the country that "criminalizes the failure to pay rent."

Under state law, a tenant who is late on rent forfeits the right to
occupy the property. A landlord can then give the tenant a 10-day
notice to vacate the property. If they fail to vacate by the end of
that time, the tenant can be charged with a misdemeanor and fined
up to $25 for every day they stay in the property.

"There are many other types of contracts in the law, and in no
other situation is the breach of a contract treated as a criminal
offense unless there's fraud involved, and our statute doesn't
address fraud at all," said Lynn Foster, law professor emeritus at
the University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School
of Law and president of Arkansans for Stronger Communities.

The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiffs, Cynthia and Terry Easley,
of Malvern were served with a failure to vacate criminal eviction
notice after falling behind on rent. After their landlord replaced
their water tank, which stopped working and left them without
running water, the two were unable to afford rent because of new
expenses such as renting a portable toilet and buying bottled
water.

According to the complaint, both of the Easleys have disabilities
and chronic health conditions, and have a combined income of less
than $1,200 a month in Social Security disability payments. The two
stopped paying rent in December 2020 after no longer being able to
afford to do so, and were given the eviction notice in April.

The case argues that the law criminalizes poverty, making it a form
of wealth-based discrimination in violation of the 14th Amendment,
as well as violating due process rights. Among other allegations,
it argues that the law violates the Eighth Amendment for imposing
excessive fines that are "grossly disproportionate to the
underlying crime and are imposed without consideration of a
tenant's ability to pay."

The Easleys are being represented in the lawsuit by the UALR Bowen
Legal Clinic and nonprofit law organization Equal Justice Under
Law.

Phil Telfeyan, executive director of Equal Justice Under Law, said
they want Arkansas to repeal what he calls a "draconian law."

"In Arkansas, they've made it a crime to be poor. It's effectively
a criminalization of poverty," he said.

The most onerous part of the statute, Telfeyan said, is the way it
allows fines to pile up for every day the tenant stays in the
apartment past the initial 10-day warning period. Telfeyan said
it's like "adding insult to injury," driving people further into
debt, and the threat of facing jail time can also force people to
self-evict, potentially becoming homeless and making their
situation much worse.

"This is an unfair law. We hope to argue that it's
unconstitutional, but I think everyone agrees it's unfair," said
Telfeyan. "You're picking on people who are most vulnerable, who
have the least ability to defend themselves."

Unlike a civil case, Foster said, if a tenant doesn't show up for
their court hearing, warrants can be issued for their arrest.
Foster said many people in the state may not be aware of the law
and emphasized that if they receive a notice they need to make sure
they show up for court.

If a tenant finds themselves able to pay later, the landlord can
get the charges dismissed, Foster said. However, once a tenant
falls behind on rent, the rest of their lease is null, and the
statute doesn't provide for a reinstitution for the lease or a
"cure," unlike many eviction statutes, Foster said.

A civil law for evictions is available in all counties, and many
counties won't hear criminal eviction cases, Foster said, because
judges and prosecutors feel the statute is unfair. Garland County
is one of the counties that still hears such cases.

Data from the Office of Research and Justice Statistics shows that
the law has been used in Garland County at least 141 times between
the start of last year and Nov. 4. In at least 45 cases, the
defendant was found guilty.

"Arkansas is the only state that really tips the scales of justice
so disproportionately that landlords not only get access to a civil
landlord-tenant court system, but they also get access to the
criminal court system to fight tenants," said Natasha Baker, staff
attorney for Equal Justice Under Law.

"Our lawsuit is not saying people can stay on property forever
without paying rent. That's not what we're saying at all. It has to
be a legal and constitutional process, and there is a civil
landlord-tenant court system that landlords can use to be able to
deal with issues of a nonpaying renter," she said.

This isn't the first time the law has been challenged in court, but
Baker said even in cases where the challenge to the law was
successful, none have set a current statewide precedent.

Previous state challenges to the law have been successful, but only
applied at the county level, Baker said. Federal challenges have
been dismissed either because the law was changed during the course
of the case or the tenant had moved out and the case wasn't a class
action, which would have preserved the tenant's claim, she said.

They have filed their case as a class-action lawsuit, though the
stage to certify it as such won't be until spring, she said.
Telfeyan said they have heard from multiple people throughout the
state willing to join the case should it be certified as a
class-action lawsuit.

The defendants in the case, both the prosecuting attorney and
sheriff for Hot Spring County, have filed a motion to dismiss, with
the prosecuting attorney also dropping the original charges. The
plaintiffs have filed arguments opposing the motion to dismiss,
saying the plaintiffs still have standing and arguing to continue
the challenge against the law.

The law has also been challenged in the state Legislature. A bill
to repeal the law was filed in the state House of Representatives
earlier this year by state Rep. Nicole Clowney of Fayetteville, but
it died in committee.

A 2012 Non-Legislative Commission on the Study of Landlord-Tenant
Laws created by the Arkansas General Assembly also recommended that
the law be repealed.

The Landlords Association of Arkansas as well as the Hot Springs
Landlord Association did not return requests for comment. [GN]

AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Faces Deck Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
JASON DECK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC. and DOES 1 to
25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV47319 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., December 29, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's Private
Attorneys General Act and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to compensate for all hours worked, failure
to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay wages when
employment ends, failure to pay wages owed every pay period,
failure to maintain accurate records, failure to give rest breaks,
failure to give meal breaks, failure to reimburse for business
expenses, retaliation, wrongful termination, failure to provide
personnel file, failure to provide pay records, and unfair business
practices.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a maintenance technician
from June 2020 until late June 2021.

AvalonBay Communities, Inc. is a real estate investment trust
company, headquartered in Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Harout Messrelian, Esq.
         MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
         500 N. Central Ave. Suite 840
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 484-6531
         Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
         E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com

BAKETIVITY CORP: Penafiel Sues Over Factory Workers' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA PENAFIEL, Plaintiff v. BAKETIVITY CORP. (DBA BAKETIVITY) And
MENY SCHWARTZ and ELIYAHU SCHWARTZ, Defendants, Case No.
7:21-cv-11086 (S.D.N.Y., December 27, 2021) is brought by the
Plaintiff, on behalf of other similarly situated employees, for
unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law as well as violation of
the notice and manual workers pay requirement of the NYLL.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from October 2019
until December 2022. She was hired to work at a factory where
Defendants prepared baking kits for distribution to subscribers.

Headquartered in New York, Baketivity Corp. owns, operates, and
controls novelty subscription baking kits for children.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lina F. Stillman, Esq.
          STILLMAN LEGAL PC
          42 Broadway, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 832-1000

BANKSIA HILL: Faces Class Action Over Aboriginal Children Detention
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Giovanni Torre, writing for National Indigenous Times, reports that
aboriginal children in Western Australia are being kept in
detention despite being granted bail and also remanded in custody
while never charged "all the time", according to lawyer Dana
Levitt.

Ms Levitt of Levitt Robinson Solicitors, who is working on a
prospective class action for current and former Banksia Hill
detention centre detainees, told the National Indigenous Times that
she knows "of kids who spent time locked up for no reason
whatsoever", having never been charged, as well as children who
remained incarcerated after being granted bail.

"It happens all the time because no responsible adult can sign
their leave forms," she said.

"Pre-trial detention ought to be a mechanism for pre-trial security
only. Despite this, children in the Department's care frequently
remain in detention on remand, even where they have been granted
conditional bail by the Court.

"The criminogenic effects of exposure to detention are well known
and include disaffection caused by lack of liberty in the absence
of due process or a finding of guilt, removal from family and
community life, psycho-social isolation, exposure to criminogenic
factors in custody, and disruption to school attendance.

"The juvenile justice system is becoming less effective in
achieving the objectives for the treatment of young people set out
in the Young Offenders Act, as fewer juveniles are being directed
away from court, more juveniles are being detained on remand, and
police are having difficulty finding adults to supervise their
young people while they are out on bail.

"Fewer young people who have met police have been kept out of the
court system, and this cannot be fully explained by trends in
juvenile crime. Police referrals to juvenile justice teams, an
important rehabilitation and restorative justice arrangement, have
also been on the decline, along with the use of cautions," she
said.

Ms Levitt noted that in 2020, an Aboriginal person under 18 in
Western Australia was 34 times more likely to be in custody than a
non-Indigenous person under 18.

Megan Krakouer of the National Suicide Prevention & Trauma Recovery
Project, who is spearheading the prospective class action alongside
long-time Project organiser Gerry Georgatos, told the National
Indigenous Times the responsibility for most of the children in
this situation lies with the Department of Child Protection.

"The Department has a lot to answer for . . . in this setting, it
has been atrocious that they can't place these children in homes,
and therefore leave them in detention. It has been going on for
years.

"If the children who are in state care raise concerns about
inhumane treatment and about their rights being violated, Child
Protection needs to take that up with Corrective Services."

Ms Krakouer said the issue of supporting children once they do
leave detention also remained a significant problem.

"Many of them are placed in group homes, which they do not find
therapeutic at all, then they run from those places, and end up
coming back into Banksia Hill. Only 17% of the Department's budget
is spent on family support. The real issue is what kind of care,
what kind of therapeutic support are they having once released from
Banksia Hill.

"There's a family I know… Three of the kids have been in and out
of Banksia Hill. The parents suicided within a year of each other.
The trauma and hurt of these kids - they need care to address their
issues. The service the Department is providing these children is
failing in the most catastrophic manner… a lot of the children
leave that place and go to group homes, and that setting is setting
them up for future incarceration and adult incarceration.

"We are talking about the most marginalised and vulnerable kids…
The government needs to get their act together, because 70% of
these kids are going on to adult incarceration. What they need is a
therapeutic model . . . Support these children otherwise the
revolving door, in and out of detention, will not stop."

Mr Georgatos said "the courts in one sense are trying to play their
part by referring to bail, but the circumstances into which
children can be released don't exist".

"They don't have the safety nets to support them, and then they
re-offend . . . The missing thing that needs to be invested in and
expedited, if we are going to grant bail to these children and not
[send them] into circumstances in which they will be transient or
homeless, is to actually invest in models where we have intensive
psycho-social support which begins on the inside (of the detention
centre) and continues on the outside," he said.

Guardian Australia recently reported that the Aboriginal Legal
Service of Western Australia wrote to Western Australia's Minister
for Children, Simone McGurk, as well as the Attorney General and
the Department of Communities saying it had "grave concerns" the
Department had failed in its duty to find suitable accommodation
for children in the criminal justice system.

It was reported that ALSWA had contacted the Department of
Communities about eight children since June 2019 who had been
detained in Banksia Hill despite being granted bail, because
suitable accommodation could not be found. In one case, a
14-year-old boy with only one charge on his criminal record was
held for three weeks despite being granted bail at his first
appearance before the court because the Department did not sign his
bail undertaking.

A spokesperson for the Department told Guardian Australia there
could sometimes be a delay between a child being granted bail and
being released from custody, to arrange appropriate housing and
transport.

"There is often an expectation that once a child or young person is
granted bail, they are released from custody immediately… A range
of factors, including transport arrangements and care planning,
must be coordinated before Communities can safely provide bail for
children in care - both for the child or young person and the
broader community."

The Department of Communities spokesperson said that in the case of
the 14-year-old boy, it had tried to maintain the child's previous
foster placement, but "there are occasions where the level of
support required may not be available at the point that bail is
granted and Communities cannot adequately ensure the safety of the
young person or the community".

Mr Georgatos told National Indigenous Times that while responding
to the crisis was not only a matter for Corrective Services, the
Department "could certainly do more on the inside".

"And on the outside with parole; it should not be just about
breaches; it should be about support. We don't need another inquiry
to tell us this. There is no safety net.

"All the things Labor was arguing for in opposition in 2012 they
should invest in immediately in government… They should not delay
in investing to get the personnel they need to stop these kids from
ending up on the inside again and again," he said. [GN]

BARTON MYERS: Anderson Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Latisha Shaconna Anderson, an individual, on
behalf of herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated
v. Barton Myers Associates, Inc., Barton Associates Inc., Barton &
Associates, Inc. which will do business in California as Barton
Medical, Inc., DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV43314, was
removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 5,
2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00084 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights.

Barton Myers Associates -- http://www.bartonmyers.com/-- is a Los
Angeles, C.A.-based firm providing architectural services for
performing arts, visual arts, commercial, residential, and
educational projects.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


BAYER AG: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Monsanto Takeover
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christoph Steitz, writing for Reuters, report that investors are
demanding around 2.2 billion euros ($2.5 billion) from Bayer as
part of a possible class action lawsuit in Germany over the
takeover of U.S. seed manufacturer Monsanto, law firm Tilp said on
Jan. 3.

The law firm said that as of Dec. 30, the sum covered lawsuits from
about 320 investors, both institutional and retail, that had been
filed with the district court in Cologne.

This represents a significant jump from the 250-plus investors
demanding damages of more than 1 billion euros that Tilp disclosed
last month.

Tilp has said it believes Bayer deceived shareholders about the
risks of consumer lawsuits pending in the United States linked to
the weed killer Roundup, which was brought into the company with
the $63 billion acquisition of Monsanto in 2016.

Bayer, in an emailed statement, said any complaints were unfounded,
adding the company had complied with the law and disclosure
requirements.

"In addition we are convinced that we have carried out adequate due
diligence regarding the acquisition of Monsanto," Bayer said,
adding it would defend itself accordingly.

In the United States, Bayer is defending itself against thousands
of lawsuits by Roundup users because of the alleged carcinogenic
effect of the product. Bayer has always rejected this. [GN]

BERKELEY LIGHTS: Kirby McInerney Reminds of February 7 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of those who acquired
Berkeley Lights, Inc. ("Berkeley Lights" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
BLI) common stock from July 17, 2020 through September 14, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until February 7,
2022 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

Berkeley Lights is a biotechnology company that owns and operates a
proprietary platform for analyzing and processing cell data for use
in the development and commercialization of biotherapeutics and
other cell-based products, focusing on the markets of antibody
therapeutics, cell therapy and synthetic biology.

On September 15, 2021, research analyst firm Scorpion Capital
issued a scathing investigative report, titled "Fleecing Customers
And IPO Bagholders With A $2 Million Black Box That's A Clunker,
While Insiders and Silicon Valley Bigwigs Race To Dump Stock. Just
Another VC Pump at 27X Sales. Target Price: $0," which criticized
Berkeley Lights' technology and questioned the durability of
Berkeley Lights' most important business relationships and its
business growth plan. Although Scorpion Capital stated it was short
Berkeley Lights, the information contained in the Scorpion Capital
report was purportedly based on extensive proprietary research and
analysis, including 24 research interviews with former Berkeley
Lights employees, industry scientists, and end users across 14 of
Berkeley Lights' largest customers. Among other findings, the
report referenced a "trail of customers who allege they were
'tricked,' misled, or over-promised into buying a $2 million lemon"
and concluded that the "reality is so far from BLI's grandiose hype
that we believe its product claims and practices may constitute
outright fraud." On this news, Berkeley Lights' share price
declined by $6.14 per share, or approximately 18.74%, from $32.76
per share to close at $26.62 per share on September 15, 2021.

The lawsuit alleges throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Berkeley Lights' flagship instrument, the Beacon, suffered from
numerous design and manufacturing defects including breakdowns,
high error rates, data integrity issues and other problems,
limiting the ability of biotechnology companies and research
institutions to consistently use the machines at scale; (ii)
Berkeley Lights had received numerous customer complaints regarding
the durability and effectiveness of Berkeley Lights' automation
systems, including complaints related to the design and
manufacturing; (iii) the actual market for Berkeley Lights'
products and services was a fraction of the $23 billion represented
to investors because of, among other things, the relatively high
cost of Berkeley Lights' instruments and consumables and inability
to provide the sustained performance necessary to justify these
high costs; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' statements to
investors during the Class Period regarding Berkeley Lights'
business, operations and financial results were materially false
and misleading.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Berkeley Lights securities,
have information, or would like to learn more about these claims,
please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: http://www.kmllp.com.

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

BERRY GLOBAL: Vaughns Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KALUM VAUGHNS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BERRY GLOBAL, INC.; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2129167, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
December 29, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-02159 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to furnish itemized wage statements, and unfair and
unlawful business practices.

Berry Global, Inc. is a manufacturer and marketer of plastic
packaging products, headquartered in Evansville, Indiana. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Rebecca Aragon, Esq.
         Everett Clifton Martin, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Telephone: (213) 443-4300
         Facsimile: (213) 443-4299
         E-mail: raragon@littler.com
                 cmartin@littler.com

BIOREFERENCE LABORATORIES: Liang Files Discrimination Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Huimin Liang, Yu Jun Peng, Yuan Sang, Jia Lei Wang, Yan Ling Xu,
Yun Zheng and Wendy Zhong, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bioreference Laboratories, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-00027 (E.D. N.Y., January 3, 2022), seeks
compensatory, liquidated and punitive damages, unpaid overtime
wages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees
and costs under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New
York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law seeking.

Plaintiffs are all medical professionals, with years of experience
working either as nurses or doctors in China or Taiwan and were
stationed to work at BioReference patient service centers located
in Manhattan's Chinatown, Sunset Park, Brooklyn, Flushing, Queens
NY. They claim to have been forced to perform non-phlebotomy duties
that were expressly prohibited by BioReference and were allegedly
not required of non-Chinese employees. They claim to have worked
overtime hours for which they were denied appropriate overtime
pay.

They also claim to be paid less than non-Chinese phlebotomists at
other BioReference locations and subject to restrictive sick leave
policies that were not applied to non-Chinese employees. They
allege that they were denied adequate personal protective equipment
during the COVID-19 pandemic. In May 2020, when participating in
mass COVID-antibody testing efforts at Grand Central Station,
Plaintiffs Yu Jun Peng, Yuan Sang and Yun Zheng were also subjected
to a hostile work environment because of their Chinese ethnicity
and/or national origin, asserts the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLUE FORCE: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Force Gear, Inc.
The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Blue Force Gear, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00055-ER (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 4, 2022).

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

Blue Force Gear -- https://www.blueforcegear.com/ -- designs the
best weapon slings and leads the lightweight equipment revolution
with its Ten-Speed multi-use pouches.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



BOB BAFFERT: Bettors Urge Judge Not to Dismiss Derby Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
T. D. Thornton at thoroughbreddailynews.com reports that alleging
that trainer Bob Baffert "is the Lance Armstrong of the horse
racing world" because of a purported years-long pattern of
racketeering activity related to the alleged "doping" of
Thoroughbreds, a group of horse bettors who brought a class-action
lawsuit seeking compensation for damages over the result of the
2021 GI Kentucky Derby urged a federal judge Wednesday not to grant
Baffert's motion to dismiss the case.

The original version of the suit, led by Michael Beychok, the
winner of the 2012 National Horseplayers Championship, was filed
four days after Baffert's disclosure that now-deceased Medina
Spirit (Protonico) had tested positive for betamethasone after
winning the May 1 Derby.

Split-sample testing at two different labs approved by the Kentucky
Horse Racing Commission (KHRC) has since confirmed the
betamethasone overage, but no (KHRC) ruling has yet been issued
over those findings.

The plaintiffs and class members of the suit have alleged that they
"have been cheated out of their property" because they placed
wagers on other horses and betting combinations that would have
paid off had "the drugged horse" not won the Derby.

"The Plaintiffs here are not asking this Court to determine the
outcome of the Kentucky Derby," Beychok, et al, argued in the Dec.
29 filing in United States District Court (District of New
Jersey).

"The stewards of the subject race will be the ones to determine the
outcome of the Kentucky Derby. Regardless of the stewards'
determination, Defendants have still harmed the Plaintiffs and will
continue to harm individuals through Baffert's racketeering scheme.
The Court is being asked to hold the Defendants accountable for the
racketeering enterprise," the filing stated.

In addition to asking the court to consider the Derby's potential
pari-mutuel payouts as an assessment of damages, the plaintiffs,
among other demands, are also seeking an order from the judge
stating that the Hall of Fame trainer must divest himself from the
sport. Baffert, plus his incorporated racing stable, remain as the
only defendants after Medina Spirit's owner, Amr Zedan, was dropped
from the suit by the plaintiffs back on June 23.

When Baffert asked the court to dismiss the suit Sept. 1, his
filing stated that the plaintiffs "are a group of disgruntled
gamblers who placed bets on the 2021 Kentucky Derby and lost."

Baffert's argument stated that the bettors "attempt to do what
courts across the country have routinely rejected: they seek to
recoup their gambling losses through a myriad of frivolous claims.
No matter how creatively the Plaintiffs attempt to craft their
pleadings, they cannot escape the fact that every single court
which has looked at gambling losses associated with sporting events
has held that no claim can be maintained as a matter of law."

The class action members begged to differ in Wednesday's filing.

"[Baffert] would have the Court believe that there is no injury
because Medina Spirit has yet to be disqualified. The
disqualification of Medina Spirit is inconsequential to Plaintiffs'
causes of action. The [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act] violations occurred regardless of Medina Spirit
being disqualified. As alleged, Baffert entered Medina Spirit
illegally [and] the Baffert enterprise has already successfully
harmed Plaintiffs. Once again, Baffert has profited while the
Plaintiffs have been robbed of their day at the track."

The Dec. 29 filing continued: "Plaintiffs have stated causes of
action that do not rely upon the horse racing regulations but
instead are independent claims existing under federal and state
statutory law and state common law. These claims are allowed
whether they are allowed under the regulations or not. Defendants
argue that Plaintiffs were obligated to follow the rules but
side-step any obligation of Baffert's accountability.

"Baffert suggests to the Plaintiffs that if they don't like the
rules they don't have to bet. But more to the point, if Baffert
doesn't want to be held accountable under the laws set forth by the
federal and state legislatures, then he shouldn't conduct an
illegal enterprise of racketeering and fraud," the filing stated.
[GN]

BP EXPLORATION: Court Denies Bid for Summary Judgment in BELO Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: DEEPWATER HORIZON BELO CASES. This Document
Relates to: Cases Listed on Exhibit A, Case No. 3:19cv963 (N.D.
Fla.), Judge M. Casey Rodgers of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division, issued an order:

   a. adopting in full the Report and Recommendation of the
      Magistrate Judge dated Nov. 30, 2021;

   b. overruling BP's Objections;

   c. denying Defendant BP's Motion for Summary Judgment Based on
      No Admissible Proof of Injury; and

   d. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' request for additional time
      to respond to the objections.

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge dated Nov. 30, 2021, recommending the denial of BP's Motion
for Summary Judgment Based on No Admissible Proof of Injury, in
each Back-End Litigation Option ("BELO") case listed on Exhibit A.
BP argued that each Plaintiff's suit is based on diagnostic reports
purportedly authored by Dr. Ron Lippman, D.O., who has subsequently
stated by affidavit that he had no doctor-patient relationship with
these plaintiffs and therefore cannot verify the underlying
diagnoses or the contents of the medical records as presented in
the BELO claims administration process. BP argued there is thus no
admissible proof of a first diagnosis found within the Notice of
Intent to Sue of the BELO claims process, which is a precondition
to filing a BELO suit. It also argued that the Plaintiffs cannot
retroactively correct the lack of a first diagnosis within the
Notice of Intent to Sue (which was presented to the claims
administrator) by establishing a correct diagnosis during the
discovery phase of their BELO suits.

Magistrate Judge thoroughly considered the claims process as
described in the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement
("MSA") and concluded that BP's argument was inconsistent with the
intent of the BELO process. Judge Rodgers holds that the Magistrate
Judge correctly explained that the Notice of Intent to Sue stage
was intended as a screening process in which the Plaintiffs would
be required to substantiate their claim with either the
certification of a physician's diagnosis or medical records
containing the diagnosis and date of the first diagnosis, but the
fact of a correct diagnosis would remain an issue to be litigated
within a BELO suit. The Magistrate Judge further explained that "it
would be unjust to grant summary judgment now against the
Plaintiffs who have advanced through the screening process and have
reliable evidence of diagnosis." In other words, according to the
Magistrate Judge, BP misconstrued the MSA to require proof of a
correct diagnosis at the claims administration stage.

Having fully reviewed the matter, Judge Rodgers agrees and thus
rejects BP's objection and argument that the Magistrate Judge
misinterpreted the procedural requirements for the Notice of Intent
to Sue. Rather than foreclosing a challenge before trial, as BP
suggests, the Magistrate Judge simply and properly recognized that
the claims administration procedure was intended as a streamlined
screening process that would ensure Plaintiffs had record evidence
of a diagnosis either through medical records or the certification
of a physician. Nothing more.

The Magistrate Judge did not conclude, as BP argues, that a later
diagnosis can be substituted in where none existed in the records
before the claims administrator. Nor did the Magistrate Judge
equate "reliable" records with a "correct" diagnosis. Although the
Magistrate Judge noted that the evidence was accepted by the claims
administrator as facially sufficient to permit suit, he did not
imply that the Court would rubber stamp the claims administrator's
screening determination on a fully developed record. The Plaintiffs
still have the burden to prove the correctness of any diagnosis but
they should be given an opportunity to do that through discovery,
as opposed to being subject to a second preliminary check on their
evidence before discovery is completed.

Having fully reviewed the Report and Recommendation and having
reviewed all timely filed objections de novo, Judge Rodgers
concludes that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.
Additionally, although the Plaintiffs requested additional time to
respond to the objections in light of their pending Motion for
Sanctions, Judge Rogers finds that a reply is unnecessary and
consequently, the request for additional time is moot. She
expresses no opinion on the merits of the cases, the credibility or
reliability of the evidence, or on the merits of the Motion for
Sanctions, which is not yet ripe for review.

Accordingly, Judge Rogers adopted and incorporated by reference in
the Order the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
She overruled BP's Objections. Judge Rodgers denied Defendant BP's
Motion for Summary Judgment and denied as moot the Plaintiffs'
request for additional time to respond to the objections.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 28, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2fm5sj4p from Leagle.com.


CALIFORNIA FISH: Torres Sues Over Failure to Timely Pay Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JOSE G. TORRES, an individual, on behalf of himself, all
aggrieved employees, and the State of California as a Private
Attorneys General, Plaintiff v. CALIFORNIA FISH GRILL INVESTMENTS,
LLC, a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendant,
Case No. 21STCV46445 (Cal. Sup. Ct., December 21, 2021) arises from
the Defendants' alleged violations of the Private Attorneys General
Act of 2004.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants from October 2020
through June 7, 2021.

The Plaintiff asserts these claims:

     -- The Defendants failed to pay all hours that he and other
similarly situated aggrieved employees have worked, including
overtime hours worked, work performed during meal periods, and
COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave;

     -- The Defendants failed to provide them with rest breaks,
uninterrupted meal breaks, place of employment that is safe and
healthful, cool-down periods, and required seating;

     -- The Defendants failed to maintain accurate payroll records
and to provide accurate wage statements; and

     -- The Defendants failed to timely pay all wages owed, such as
wages due upon termination and all wages owed twice per month.

The Corporate Defendant operates as fast casual dining restaurants.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
          KOUL LAW FIRM
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Tel: (213) 761-5484
          Fax: (818) 561-3938
          E-mail: nazo@koullaw.om

                - and –

          Sahag Majarian, II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Blvd.
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Tel: (818) 609-0807
          Fax: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: Sahagii@aol.com

CALIFORNIA: CCC & SCC Violated Coastal Act, Court Finds in Pappas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAROLYN PAPPAS, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants v.
STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY, et al., Defendants and Respondents;
GAVIOTA COASTAL TRAIL ALLIANCE, Intervener and Appellant, 2d Civil
No. B304347 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the
Second District, Division Six, affirmed in part and reversed in
part the trial court's section 30609.5 ruling.

In its ruling, the trial court agreed that the State Defendants --
the California Coastal Commission and the State Coastal Conservancy
-- violated section 30609.5 of the California Coastal Act,
restricting transfers of state property interests along the coast.

Background

The California Coastal Act (Pub. Resources Code, Section 30000, et
seq.) restricts selling or transferring certain state-owned
property interests near the coast. The case addresses whether a
purported "public access easement" granted to a state agency four
decades ago by the owner of a large coastal parcel in Hollister
Ranch is a property interest subject to these restrictions.

The Ranch consists of 14,500 acres of private land running
east-west along the Gaviota Coast in Santa Barbara County. It falls
within the boundaries of the former Rancho Nuestra Senora del
Refugio, a 26,529-acre Spanish land grant obtained by Jose
Francisco Ortega in 1794 after serving on the expeditions of Gaspar
de Portola, and, later, Franciscan missionary Junipero Serra.
William Welles Hollister purchased the eponymous acreage from
Ortega's descendants in 1866. Hollister's family sold the Ranch to
developers in 1965.

The Young Men's Christian Association of Metropolitan Los Angeles
(YMCA) obtained a 160-acre inland parcel within the Ranch in 1970.
The Ranch's owner, MGIC Equities Corporation (MGIC), subdivided the
land surrounding YMCA's holdings in 1971. (AA 244) It created 135
separate parcels of approximately 100 acres each and marketed them
for residential development. Those buying land in the new
subdivision agreed to join the Hollister Ranch Owners Association
(HROA) and to observe building and occupancy restrictions designed
to preserve the area's rural and agricultural heritage. They also
agreed to join the Hollister Ranch Cooperative (HRC) and to
dedicate at least 98 percent of their land to grazing, orchards, or
other agricultural uses. This enabled the Ranch to qualify as an
agricultural preserve under California's Land Conservation Act and
thereby lower the owners' property tax rates. MGIC excluded YMCA's
parcel from the subdivision.

YMCA finished plans for the camp in the late 1970s. It applied for
a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) allowing it to build a
recreation center, dining commons, education facilities, and
housing for 150 campers and staff. The Commission issued the CDP on
the condition YMCA guarantee public access to Cuarta Canyon Beach.
YMCA satisfied this condition by executing and recording an
"Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate and Covenant Running with the Land"
on April 28, 1982 (OTD). The OTD offered the public what in essence
constituted an "easement over [the] easements" YMCA obtained from
MGIC in 1970. YMCA also agreed to let the public use a proposed
four-mile trail running along the coastal bluffs from Cuarta Canyon
Beach eastward to Gaviota State Park (the Blufftop Trail Easement).
The OTD authorized the Commission to accept the OTD on the public's
behalf any time between 1992 and 2013.

YMCA began building the camp shortly after recording the OTD. HROA
immediately sued to enjoin construction. YMCA abandoned the project
after HROA offered to reimburse its planning and construction
costs. HROA then annexed the parcel into the subdivision, sold it
to a private buyer, and directed the sale proceeds paid to YMCA. An
entity called Rancho Cuarta now owns YMCA's former property. All
136 parcels within the Ranch's boundaries now belong to the
subdivision.

The Ranch is a gated community and working cattle ranch on Santa
Barbara County's Gaviota Coast. Precipitous geography and a guarded
entrance ensure seclusion for those who reside upon one of its
100-acre parcels. State agencies and civic activists have long
quarreled with the Hollister Ranch Owners Association (HROA) and
its owner-members (collectively Hollister) over the public's right
to recreate along the Ranch's pristine shoreline. The California
Coastal Commission and the Coastal Conservancy (collectively State
Defendants) settled a contentious case with Hollister over this
issue in 2016. Hollister agreed, among other things, to allow
pre-approved organizations and school groups to use a small section
of beach for recreation and tide pool exploration.

The self-described Gaviota Coastal Trail Alliance considered the
settlement a capitulation to Hollister. The trial court permitted
the Alliance to intervene as a defendant and to later file a
cross-complaint. The Alliance alleged the State Defendants
violated, among other laws, the Coastal Act and the Bagley-Keene
Open Meeting Act (Gov. Code, Section 11120 et seq.) when they
settled with Hollister. The Alliance then moved for judgment.

The trial court agreed the State Defendants violated section
30609.5 of the Coastal Act, restricting transfers of state property
interests along the coast. It declared the settlement agreements
invalid and entered judgment on the cross-complaint against the
Conservancy. It found the balance of the Alliance's claims either
moot or barred by the statute of limitations.

Hollister appeals the section 30609.5 ruling. The Alliance
cross-appeals the statute of limitations rulings.

Discussion

Hollister contends the trial court erred when it: (1) permitted the
Alliance to intervene; (2) overruled Hollister's demurrer to the
Alliance's subsequent writ petition; (3) found the Bagley-Keene
Act's pending litigation exception did not override section
30609.5's public hearing requirements; (4) found the Conservancy in
fact violated section 30609.5 when it settled with Hollister; (5)
deprived Hollister of due process by entering judgment before it
decided the validity of the OTD; and (6) admitted certain
stipulated facts as evidence against Hollister. On cross-appeal,
the Alliance contends the trial court erred when it found the
limitations periods had expired on certain Bagley-Keene and Coastal
Act claims.

1. The Trial Court Properly Exercised Its Discretion When It
Allowed the Alliance to Intervene

Hollister contends the Alliance's intervention enlarged the scope
of the case by raising issues going beyond the Second Amended
Complaint. The Court of Appeals disagrees. It says, the Alliance's
proposed answer and objections fell within the matters raised by
the Class Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. These filings
focused exclusively on public access to the Ranch's coastal byways
and beaches, and on the alleged rights created by the OTD and the
Conservancy's accepting the same in 2013. In addition, the trial
court properly considered judicial economy and multiplicity of
suits when deciding the motion.

Hollister describes the trial court's intervention ruling as
portending the collapse of California's class action bar.
Soliciting the participation of every "Tom, Dick or Harry" by
publishing notice of the Class Settlement, Hollister insists,
violated standard class action procedures and "ran directly counter
to the public policy seeking to incentivize counsel to take a class
case, not make such a case prohibitively difficult." It likened the
Alliance to professional objectors who "feed off the fees earned by
class counsel" by asserting meritless challenges to settlements.
The Court of Appeals is not persuaded. It finds that the Class
Plaintiffs seek primarily equitable and declaratory remedies that
would not create a pool of money from which the class counsel or
professional objectors could siphon their pecuniary "incentives."

Hollister cautions that permitting third parties such as the
Alliance to intervene under these circumstances undermines the
State's ability to litigate and settle cases on behalf of the
public. This overstates the implications of the ruling, the Court
of Appeals finds. It holds that motions to intervene by nature
require courts to balance the often competing interests of the
original parties and potential intervenors. Such is the case in the
instant matter. Hollister and the State Defendants understandably
sought to conclude a prolonged and costly dispute; the Alliance
sought to re-open the dispute to ensure the State Defendants
complied with the Coastal Act and Bagley-Keene Act. The trial
court's lengthy intervention order showed it grappled with these
competing interests. The ruling adhered to the principle that
courts should construe section 387 liberally in favor of
intervention. It was also consonant with the Coastal Act's aim of
preserving the public's right "to fully participate in decisions
affecting coastal planning, conservation, and development."

2. The Trial Court Correctly Overruled Hollister's Demurrer to the
Alliance's Writ Petition

Hollister demurred to the writ petition on the same grounds it
opposed intervention, i.e., that the Alliance sought to enlarge the
scope of the case. The trial court overruled the demurrer as a
"reargument of well-trodden issues." The Court of Appeals agrees.
Hollister filed this quiet title action to resolve a dispute over
the existence and scope of public access rights granted under the
OTD. The writ petition, like the motion to intervene, addressed
whether the State Defendants properly disposed of these potential
access rights when it settled with Hollister. This inquiry is part
of the broader dispute Hollister itself brought before the Court.

3. The Pending Litigation Exception to the Bagley-Keene Act Did Not
Excuse the Conservancy from Adhering to the Coastal Act's
Restrictions on Selling or Transferring State Lands

Hollister argues the Bagley-Keene Act, California's open meeting
laws for state-level bodies, authorized the Conservancy to discuss
and approve the Hollister settlements in closed session without
holding the section 30609.5 hearing. It refers specifically to the
Act's "pending litigation exception," which allows agencies "to
confer with, or receive advice from, the state body's legal counsel
regarding pending litigation when discussion in open session
concerning those matters would prejudice the position of the state
body in the litigation." Hollister cites Southern California Edison
Co. v. Peevey (2003) 31 Cal.4th 781 (Peevey) as authority for
invoking the exception here.

In Peevey a public interest group intervened in an action between
Edison and the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) over electricity
rates. The group then challenged the parties' proposed settlement
because PUC violated a statute requiring any rate change to be made
in an "open and public" fact-finding hearing. The Supreme Court
rejected the group's challenge because the proposed settlement fell
within the Bagley-Keene Act's pending litigation exception.

The Court of Appeals holds that Peevy hinged on the PUC
settlement's terms, which, the high court concluded, did not in
fact change utility rates. This meant the hearing requirements
applying to rate-setting decisions had not been triggered. The
decision does not as Hollister's suggests give state bodies carte
blanche to jettison extrinsic statutory obligations, e.g., section
30609.5's transfer restrictions, when settling a litigated matter.
Peevey would have ended differently had the disputed settlement
changed rates.

4. Section 30609.5 of the Coastal Act Applied to the HROA
Settlement and OTD

When they settled, Hollister and the State Defendants ceased
litigating the OTD's validity. The Alliance's writ petition
returned the issue to the foreground. Hollister's opposition to the
petition stressed that a void instrument like the OTD could not
constitute an "ownership interest" in "'state land" sufficient to
trigger section 30609.5's hearing procedures. The State Defendants'
having quitclaimed their interests in the OTD, it followed, they
did not transfer cognizable property rights because no such rights
existed. Alternatively, Hollister characterized the rights conveyed
as an irrevocable license or some lesser interest that did not fit
within the statute's express definition of "`state land,'" i.e., "a
fee, title, easement, deed restriction, or other interest in land.

The Court of Appeals concludes that the trial court correctly found
a transfer had occurred under section 30609.5. Section 30609.5
focuses on a transaction's effect on public access to the coast,
not on the type or title of property right transferred. And, how
one categorized the property interest giving rise to this potential
accessway was beside the point considering the procedural posture
of the case at the time.

Like the trial court, the Court of Appeals expresses "no opinion
and make no order as to the manner by which the Conservancy should
or must proceed with respect to approval, or not, of the HROA
Settlement." Its ruling does not preclude Hollister and the State
Defendants from attempting to align the settlement agreements'
terms and conditions with section 30609.5's provisions, or, in the
alternative, to jettison the agreements and litigate Hollister's
quiet title action.

5. The Trial Court Did Not Deprive Hollister of Due Process

Hollister contends the trial court deprived it of due process by
entering judgment in the Alliance's favor without first deciding
the validity of the OTD. By doing so, Hollister claims, the trial
court excused the Alliance from its burden of proving the State
Defendants violated section 30609.5.

This argument assumes proving an "interest in land" sufficient to
trigger section 30609.5 is synonymous with proving the existence of
a traditional property interest. These are distinct inquiries. The
Alliance's prevailing on its section 30609.5 claim did not affirm
the OTD's validity under traditional property law or strengthen the
State Defendants' defenses to Hollister's quiet title action. The
trial court decided the discrete issue of whether the HROA
Settlement, as written, violated this provision of the Coastal Act.
Hollister suffered no prejudice. It retains the right to proceed to
trial on the merits of its claims against the State Defendants.

6. The Trial Court's Evidentiary Rulings

Hollister next contends the trial court erred by admitting hearsay
evidence in support of the motion for judgment, including a list of
facts to which the State Defendants and the Alliance but not
Hollister stipulated. The writ petition is directed toward the
State Defendants, not Hollister. The Alliance need not have
introduced evidence "against" Hollister to prevail on its claims as
to the State Defendants. Assuming it did, the stipulated facts were
admissible as to Hollister because its rights under the
cross-complaint turned exclusively on the State Defendants'
liability.

7. The Trial Court Erred When It Found Section 30609.5 Did Not
Apply to the Commission

The trial court found the Alliance's section 30609.5 claim did not
apply to the Commission because the agency did not "effect a
transfer of state land separate from the Conservancy." Here, the
Court of Appeals disagrees. It opines that entering judgment in the
Commission's favor effectively immunized the agency for its
supporting role in this transaction, or, at least, implied the
trial court was powerless to restrain state actors that enable
violations of the Coastal Act by repository agencies such as the
Conservancy and Department of Parks and Recreation.

The trial court alternatively held the 60-day period to seek writ
relief against the Commission had expired before the Alliance
intervened. This too was error, the Court of Appeals opines. The
court calculated accrual from the date the Commission's board
approved the HROA Settlement. However, the settlement's approval by
the Commission's board was only the first of many acts required of
the agency. The period to challenge the settlements would have
accrued, at earliest, when the Commission completed those acts
required to consummate the unlawful transfer. This would have been
when it delivered a quitclaim deed to Hollister within five days of
the court entering the stipulated judgment. This had not occurred
when the Alliance sought intervention or when it filed its
cross-complaint.

The trial court will enter judgment against both State Defendants
on remand.

8. The Trial Court Correctly Ruled the Limitations Period Expired
on the Alliance's Bagley-Keene Act Cause of Action

The writ petition's seventh cause of action alleged the State
Defendants violated the Bagley Keene Act when they approved the
HROA Settlement in closed session. On cross-appeal, the Alliance
contends the trial court applied superseded case law, i.e., Regents
of University of California v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 509
(Regents).

The Court of Appeals disagrees and concludes Regents controls. The
plaintiff in Regents alleged the governor and certain members of
the Board of Regents violated the Bagley-Keene Act by approving two
resolutions in private meetings then holding a sham vote in open
session to legitimize what occurred behind closed doors. The
plaintiff sought writ relief seven months after the open-session
approval. He acknowledged missing the Act's filing deadline but
asserted the equitable doctrine of fraudulent concealment tolled
his cause of action. The trial court allowed the claim to proceed;
the Court of Appeal denied the Regents mandamus relief. The state
Supreme Court reversed. It concluded former section 11130.3's plain
directive that one must commence an action "'within 30 days from
the date the action was taken'" did not accommodate the doctrine of
fraudulent concealment. The statute "authorized the nullification
and voidance of an action taken by a state body" in violation of
the Bagley-Keene Act "but only under strict conditions -- which, in
their absence, entailed the protection of even the most deceptive
defendant from the freshest claim of the most diligent plaintiff."

Regents prompted the Legislature to amend the Bagley Keene Act by
passing Assembly Bill 1234 (AB 1234). Section 5 of AB 1234 stated:
"This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature in making
these changes to the act to supersede the decision of the
California Supreme Court in Regents." These changes did not, as the
Alliance argues, abrogate the Court's decision in full. None
disturbed Regents' accrual ruling, which characterized the deadline
to challenge Bagley-Keene violations as akin to a statute of
repose.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court correctly
invalidated the State Defendants' settlement agreements with
Hollister based on the Conservancy's violation of section 30609.5
of the Coastal Act. Judgment against the Conservancy is affirmed in
that respect. Judgment in favor of the Commission, however, is
reversed because the record confirms it too violated section
30609.5. The trial court will enter judgment against both State
Defendants on remand.

Judgment is otherwise affirmed. The Alliance will recover its costs
on appeal.

The Court of Appeals concluded the Commission as well as the
Conservancy violated section 30609.5 and directed the trial court
to enter judgment against both State Defendants on remand. Judgment
is otherwise affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 28, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5d6etzbc from Leagle.com.

Cappello & Noel, A. Barry Cappello, Wendy D. Welkom --
info@cappellonoel.com -- and David L. Cousineau for Plaintiffs and
Appellants Carolyn Pappas, Tim Behunin and Patrick L. Connelly.

Brownstein Hyatt Garber Schreck, Steven Amerikaner and Beth Ann
Collins -- bcollins@bhfs.com -- for Plaintiffs and Appellants
Hollister Ranch Owners' Association and The Hollister Ranch
Cooperative.

Xavier Becerra and Rob Bonta, Attorneys General, Daniel A. Olivas,
Assistant Attorney General, and Jamee Jordan Patterson, Deputy
Attorney General, for Defendants and Respondents.

Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, Ellison Folk and Andrew P. Miller --
amiller@smwlaw.com; Law Office of Marc Chytilo, Marc S. Chytilo and
Ann Citrin for Intervenor and Appellant.


CAMBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT: Summary Judgment Order in Schultz Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GREGORY SHULTZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents v.
CAMBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., ET AL., Defendants-Appellants, Index
No. 106632/09, Appeal No. 14915, Case No. 2020-04006 (N.Y. App.
Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York,
First Department, entered an Order:

   a. unanimously modifying, on the law, the Order Judge Margaret
      A. Chan of Supreme Court of the New York County, entered
      Sept. 29, 2020, which:

       (i) denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment
           dismissing the amended complaint except to the extent
           it alleged that they operated an unlicensed adult care
           facility after Aug. 1, 2017; and

      (ii) granted the motion as to the class action allegations;
           and

   b. otherwise affirming, without costs.

The Appellate Division holds that the motion court properly granted
the Defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the
allegation in the complaint that the Defendants operated an
unlicensed adult care facility after Aug. 1, 2017. It says, the
Defendants established, through documentary evidence, that they had
the proper licenses for operating an adult care facility as of Aug.
1, 2017. However, the evidence as to licensure before Aug. 1, 2017
is either not conclusive or not properly considered because it was
submitted on reply. It does not matter whether there is a private
right of action for the operation of an unlicensed adult care
facility because plaintiffs do not assert such a cause of action.
Rather, they merely allege that the facility is unlicensed in
support of their breach of warranty of habitability, nuisance, and
harassment claims.

The Appellate Division also finds that the Defendants failed to
establish prima facie that the warranty of habitability, nuisance
and harassment claims should be dismissed. At least some of the
Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficiently serious to potentially
warrant liability on these claims. In support of their motion, the
Defendants relied entirely on an affidavit by a representative, but
it is not clear whether the representative had personal knowledge
of the conditions at the building. To the extent the affiant relied
on "unnamed and unsworn employees or unidentified and unproduced
work records, the affidavit lacks any probative value."

In any event, the Defendants' representative did not address the
Plaintiffs' complaints of overcrowding resulting in elevator delays
or rule out the possibility of a vermin infestation -- issues that
were discussed in even the limited testimony by the Plaintiffs that
defendants submitted. The affiant also implicitly admitted that
there were water shutoffs, although he blamed them on the
Plaintiffs' own conduct. Given the insufficiency of the Defendants'
moving papers, the denial of summary judgment is required
notwithstanding the insufficiency of the Plaintiffs' opposition.

The class action allegations should have been dismissed on the
ground that the Plaintiffs failed to timely move for class
certification. Pursuant to CPLR 902, a motion for class
certification must be made within 60 days after the time to serve a
responsive pleading has expired. Although the parties may stipulate
to extend the Plaintiffs' time to move for class certification and
the court may order such an extension, in the absence of an
extension, the "deadline set forth is mandatory." The action was
commenced 11 years ago, yet it is undisputed that the Plaintiffs
have never moved for class certification or for an extension of
time to move for class certification. Therefore, the Plaintiffs'
class action claims must be dismissed.

Finally, the Appellate Division finds no basis for the Plaintiffs'
assertion that their time to move for class certification was
automatically stayed due to the parties' ongoing pre-certification
discovery. Rather, it says, the Plaintiffs were required to make a
motion to extend their time to move for class certification while
discovery was ongoing.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 28, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/kh42axd4 from Leagle.com.

Graubard Miller, New York (Joseph H. Lessem -- jlessem@graubard.com
-- of counsel), for the Appellants.

Sokolski & Zekaria, P.C., New York (Daphna Zekaria --
sokolski.zekaria@mindspring.com -- of counsel), for the
Respondents.


CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Dismissal of Leszanczuk Class Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SYLVIA LESZANCZUK, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CARRINGTON
MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 21-1367 (7th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed
the district court's order dismissing the Plaintiff's second
amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state plausible
claims.

Introduction

After Plaintiff Leszanczuk defaulted on her mortgage, her mortgage
servicer, Carrington, inspected her residence and charged her a $20
fee for the inspection. Leszanczuk brought a putative class action
against Carrington, alleging that the fee constituted a breach of
her mortgage contract under Illinois law and violated the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"). The
district court dismissed her second amended complaint with
prejudice for failure to state plausible claims.

Background

On Jan. 29, 2010, Leszanczuk executed a mortgage contract to secure
a loan on her Illinois residential property. The mortgage was
insured by the Federal Housing Administration ("FHA") of the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD").

After Carrington acquired the mortgage and took over loan
servicing, Leszanczuk contacted Carrington by phone in December
2016 to make her December mortgage payment. Leszanczuk's asserts
that during this conversation, Carrington told her that her account
was not yet set up in their system and they had no way to receive a
payment from her at that time, and then assured her that her
account was in a "grace period" and she did not have to make
payments until her account was set up. Nonetheless, at some point
in early 2017 Carrington found Leszanczuk to be in default on the
mortgage by failing to make required payments.

Carrington then conducted a visual drive-by inspection of
Leszanczuk's property. Carrington charged Leszanczuk $20.00 for the
inspection and disclosed the fee to Leszanczuk in her March 2017
monthly statement. According to Leszanczuk, Carrington knew or
should have known that she occupied her property because (1) they
had spoken on the phone prior to the inspection about setting up
the loan in Carrington's system and (2) Carrington would mail
monthly mortgage statements to Leszanczuk at the property's
address. Despite alleging that she had an earlier phone
conversation with Carrington, Leszanczuk also alleged that
Carrington made no attempt to contact her by phone prior to the
drive-by inspection.

Ms. Leszanczuk sued Carrington, bringing claims for breach of the
mortgage contract and for violations of the ICFA, 815 Ill. Comp.
Stat. 505/2, on behalf of putative nationwide and Illinois classes.
In the operative second amended complaint, Leszanczuk alleged that
Carrington breached her mortgage contract by charging her the $20
inspection fee when it "knew, or should have known," that she
occupied her property, in purported violation of a HUD regulation,
24 C.F.R. Section 203.377 (2021), which Leszanczuk claimed limits
the fees Carrington may charge under the contract and is
incorporated into her contract. Leszanczuk also alleged that
charging the inspection fee was an unfair practice under the ICFA.

The district court granted Carrington's motion to dismiss under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and dismissed both of
Leszanczuk's claims with prejudice. The court rejected Leszanczuk's
interpretation of her mortgage contract and found that the fees
Carrington may charge under the contract are not limited by Section
203.377. The court also concluded that charging Leszanczuk the
$20.00 inspection fee was not an unfair practice because it did not
offend public policy and was not oppressive. Noting that Leszanczuk
had not cured the defects the court identified in earlier
complaints and that further amendment would therefore be futile,
the court denied Leszanczuk leave to amend. Leszanczuk now
appeals.

Analysis

Ms. Leszanczuk maintains that she has stated claims for breach of
contract and for violations of the ICFA. The Seventh Circuit
reviews de novo the district court's grant of the Rule 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss, accepting all well-pleaded factual allegations
as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in Leszanczuk's
favor.

A. Breach-of-Contract Claim

Ms. Leszanczuk argues that her mortgage contract did not permit
Carrington to charge her the $20 inspection fee. She contends that
Paragraph 8 incorporates Section 203.377 and thereby limits the
fees the lender may collect from the borrower to those authorized
by that regulation. According to Leszanczuk, Section 203.377 has
been interpreted to mean that if a property is known to be
occupied, no inspections are required by HUD or authorized for
reimbursement. Therefore, she continues, because she alleged that
Carrington knew or should have known that she was occupying her
property, the mortgage contract, incorporating Section 203.377,
prohibited Carrington from charging her the inspection fee.

The Seventh Circuit finds that, as Carrington aptly observes,
Leszanczuk appears to "begin with the legal conclusion that the HUD
regulation is incorporated and then searches for a supporting
rationale." But the district court correctly concluded that Section
203.377 is not incorporated in the contract and that the contract
expressly permits the inspection fee at issue. Leszanczuk has
failed to state a claim for breach of her mortgage contract.

B. ICFA Claim

Ms. Leszanczuk argues that charging her the inspection fee was an
unfair practice, in violation of the ICFA. To determine whether a
practice is unfair, the Seventh Circuit considers "(1) whether the
practice offends public policy; (2) whether it is immoral,
unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; and (3) whether it causes
substantial injury to consumers." All three criteria do not need to
be satisfied to support a finding of unfairness. A practice may be
unfair because of the degree to which it meets one of the criteria
or because to a lesser extent it meets all three.

Regardless of whether the ICFA claim is duplicative of the
breach-of-contract claim, as Carrington contends, it fails on the
merits, the Seventh Circuit finds. It says, Leszanczuk has failed
to adequately allege that the inspection fee offended public
policy, was oppressive, or caused her substantial injury. First,
the policy underlying Section 203.377 is to impose obligations on
mortgagees to protect the value of the property in the case of
default, not to protect mortgagors from unnecessary fees.
Therefore, Leszanczuk cannot show that the inspection fee offended
public policy for purposes of her ICFA claim. Second, because
Leszanczuk has not plausibly alleged that the $20 inspection fee
offended public policy, was oppressive, or caused her substantial
injury, the district court correctly concluded that she failed to
state a claim under the ICFA.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the Seventh Circuit concludes that the district
court properly dismissed Leszanczuk's claims. It affirmed the
district court's decision.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 28, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yckrtn9s from Leagle.com.


CAT5 COMMERCE: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cat5 Commerce, LLC.
The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Cat5 Commerce, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00106 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 5, 2022).

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

Cat5 Commerce -- https://cat5.com/ -- operates e-commerce stores in
the tactical, military and work markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHANNEL CRAFT: Hedges Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Channel Craft &
Distribution, Inc. The case is styled as Donna Hedges, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Channel Craft &
Distribution, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00104 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 5,
2022).

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

Channel Craft -- https://www.channelcraft.com/ -- is a manufacturer
and distributor of Authentic American Toys, unique Games, and
interesting Puzzles with an emphasis on EDU-TAINMENT.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



CHEGG INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of February 22 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Chegg, Inc. ("Chegg" or the "Company") (NYSE: CHGG) common stock
between May 5, 2020 and November 1, 2021. You are hereby notified
that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. To get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/chegg-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=4

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.

Chegg, Inc. NEWS - CHGG NEWS

CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (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.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Chegg
you have until February 22, 2022 to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Chegg common stock between May 5,
2020 and November 1, 2021 you may be entitled to compensation
without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.

PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/chegg-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=4

or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record
of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for
shareholders who have been wronged by corporations.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's
Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been
representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20
years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S.
and internationally. The firm, with more than 70 employees, is
committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of
diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we
represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing
investors in securities litigation with a track record of
recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi &
Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS")
SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities
litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report
identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country,
and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a
leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation.

CONTACT:

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

CHURCH & DWIGHT: Falsely Represented OTC Zicam, Vance Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHARI VANCE, on Behalf of Herself and all Others Similarly Situated
v. CHURCH & DWIGHT CO., INC., Case No. 2:22-at-00027 (E.D. Cal.,
Jan. 5, 2022) is a class action against the Church & Dwight for
falsely representing that the over-the-counter homeopathic remedy
Zicam, "The Pre-Cold Medicine," prevents, shortens, and reduces the
severity of the symptoms of the common cold.

The Defendant allegedly represents on Zicam Pre-Cold Product labels
the following:

-- That each Zicam Pre-Cold Product "reduces duration of the
    common cold," and "reduces severity of cold symptoms including

    sore throat, stuffy nose, sneezing, coughing and nasal
    congestion."

-- That each Zicam Pre-Cold Product is a "COLD REMEDY" that
    "SHORTENS COLDS."

-- That each Zicam Pre-Cold Product is a "Pre-Cold Medicine" that

    users should "TAKE AT THE FIRST SIGN OF A COLD."

The Pre-Cold Medicine products at issue here are Zicam brand
Original RapidMelts (TM), Ultra 10 RapidMelts (TM), Oral Mist, Wild
Cherry Lozenges, Medicated Fruit Drops, Elderberry Citrus
RapidMelts (TM), and Elderberry Medicated Fruit Drops ("Pre-Cold
Products").[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  jsmith@bursor.com
                  scott@bursor.com

CLAIMS RESOLUTION: Court Revoked Class Suit Representative Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Van Beynen at stuff.co.nz reports that a class action
against a lawyer and commission-charging earthquake advocate
appears to have hit a brick wall.

The 2019 representative action was taken against Christchurch
company Claims Resolution Service (CRS)and Grant Shand Barristers
and Solicitors.

In a decision released in late December 2021, the High Court in
Christchurch has refused an application to substitute the class
action's representative plaintiff - class actions must be led by a
single representative of the group - and has revoked the action's
representative status.

Christchurch house owner Karlie Smith began the action in August
2018 alleging Shand and Claims Resolution Service, directed by
Bryan Staples, were not entitled to commissions, fees and expenses
because the contract with her was unconscionable and duties owed to
her had been breached.

In February 2019 the High Court allowed the action to continue as a
class action because, around the same time, a number of former
Staples' clients were defending proceedings by CRS trying to
recover money owed.

The class action received a major blow in 2021 when the High Court
rejected a case brought by Christchurch homeowner Lucia Pfisterer
against CRS and Shand on similar grounds to Smith. Pfisterer has
appealed the decision and is waiting for a hearing date.

Spooked by the ruling, Smith informed her lawyer Grant Cameron of
GCA Lawyers that she no longer wanted to be the representative
plaintiff meaning Cameron had to find another representative. He
found a willing couple but their agreement was conditional on
Pfisterer winning her appeal.

Associate Judge Owen Paulsen said that left the court in the
unsatisfactory position where it was asked to substitute the
plaintiff knowing "the chances are good they will later withdraw
their consent to acting that capacity".

"There is no suggestion there is anyone else from the represented
group willing to take their place should that occur.

Lawyers supporting the substitution argued the 23 parties wanting
to join the representative action would lose the forensic and
efficiency advantages of a class action, reducing their access to
justice, if the substitution was denied.

CRS argued the proceeding had been promoted in a "blaze of
publicity" that was highly critical of CRS and Staples. The
potential group said to be ready to become part of the action was
initially estimated to be 178-strong, a figure that had influenced
the High Court and Court of Appeal in allowing the representative
action. The group had reduced to 23 and some of those would not
qualify.

The company also said the substitution would cause it significant
prejudice due to delays.

Staples said he had suffered damage to his reputation and spent
about $600,000 on legal fees defending the action. He was owed
about $500,000 by seven clients who were not required to pay while
the proceeding continued.

Associate Judge Paulsen said the delays would defer for a long time
the ability of CRS and Shand to restore their reputations and the
financial consequences for CRS could be severe.

"In my view the interests of justice weigh heavily against granting
the substitution order.

". . . the matter simply comes down to this; [the couple] are not
in a position to be substituted as plaintiffs given the highly
conditional nature of their application."

The judge revoked the representation order granted in 2019 but
ordered all parties who satisfied the group criteria and who had
given valid and timely notice to opt-in to the class action to be
joined as plaintiffs to Smith's action.

Smith would have to seek the court's leave to discontinue the
proceedings, he said. He awarded CRS and Shand costs on the
substitution action. [GN]

CNY CONSTRUCTION: Denial of Bid to Certify in Facade Suit Flipped
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FACADE TECHNOLOGY, LLC, ETC., ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. CNY CONSTRUCTION 701 LLC, ET AL.,
Defendants-Respondents, CNY GROUP LLC, ET AL., Defendants, Index
No. 653587/19, Appeal No. 14904, Case No. 2020-04934 (N.Y. App.
Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York,
First Department, issued an Order:

   a. unanimously reversing, on the law, without costs, the Order
      of Judge Barry R. Ostrager of the Supreme Court of New York
      County, entered on Nov. 18, 2020, which denied as untimely
      the Plaintiff's motion to maintain its seventh cause of
      action, to enforce a statutory trust, as a class action;
      and

   b. remanding the matter for further proceedings consistent
      therewith.

The Appellate Division finds that the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification should not have been denied as untimely because the
Plaintiff demonstrated good cause under CPLR 2004 for its brief,
non-prejudicial delay in moving. Accordingly, it remanded the
matter for consideration of the merits of the motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 28, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/32ucnwnd from Leagle.com.

Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC, New York (Jason A.
Copley -- jcopley@cohenseglias.com -- and Gary J. Repke, Jr. --
grepke@cohenseglias.com -- of counsel), for the Appellants.

Dreifuss Bonacci & Parker, PC, New York (JoAnne M. Bonacci of
counsel), for the Respondents.


COCOFLOSS INC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cocofloss Inc. The
case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Cocofloss Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00031 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 4, 2022).

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

Cocofloss -- https://cocofloss.com/ -- is a creative and
mission-driven oral care and wellness company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS: Juan Monteverde Investigates Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:

Communications Systems, Inc. (JCS) relating to its proposed merger
with Pineapple Energy, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, JCS
shareholders are expected to initially hold a 37% share in the
combined company, which is expected to decrease over time. Click
here for more information:
http://monteverdelaw.com/case/communications-systems-inc.It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

Momentive Global Inc. (MNTV), relating to its sale to Zendesk, Inc.
Under the terms of the agreement, MNTV shareholders will receive
0.225 shares of Zendesk per share they own. Click here for more
information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/momentive-global-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.

Noble Corp. (NE) relating to its proposed acquisition by Maersk
Drilling. Under the terms of the agreement, NE shareholders will
receive one share of Topco common stock per share they own. Click
here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/noble-corp. It is free and there
is no cost or obligation to you.

CorePoint Lodging Inc. (CPLG) relating to its proposed acquisition
by affiliates of Highgate and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.
Under the terms of the agreement, CPLG shareholders will receive
$15.65 in cash per share they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/corepoint-lodging-inc. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

Rogers Corp. (ROG), relating to its sale to DuPont de Nemours, Inc.
Under the terms of the agreement, ROG shareholders will receive
$277.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more
information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/rogers-corp. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

Terminix Global Holdings, Inc. (TMX), relating to its merger with
Rentokil Initial plc. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/terminix-global-holdings-inc. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

About Monteverde & Associates PC

We are a national class action securities litigation law firm that
has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting
shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. We were listed in the Top
50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report.
Our lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers &
Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr. Monteverde is
recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Securities
Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less than 2.5% of
attorneys in a particular field. He has also been selected by
Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our firm's
recent successes include changing the law in a significant victory
that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, in 2019 we recovered or secured six cash common funds for
shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.

If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.

Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]

CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Quesada Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Tito Quesada,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
3:22-cv-00004 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 3, 2022).

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

Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC --
https://www.portfoliorecovery.com/ -- a subsidiary of PRA Group,
Inc., specializes in working with people in debt repayment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


CREATIVE CONTINGENCIES: Darden Sues Over Security Guards' Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY DARDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CREATIVE CONTINGENCIES 2.0 INC. dba
INTEGRATED PROTECTION GROUP; LOUIS BOULGARIDES; and DOES 1 to 25,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV47401 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., December 29, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's Private
Attorneys General Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and
similarly situated security guards overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a security guard on or
around February 2021 until August 2021.

Creative Contingencies 2.0 Inc., doing business as Integrated
Protection Group, is a security services provider based in
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Harout Messrelian, Esq.
         MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
         500 N. Central Ave. Suite 840
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 484-6531
         Facsimile: (818) 956-1983
         E-mail: hm@messrelianlaw.com

CREDIT BUREAU: Faces Hia FDCPA Suit Over Unfair Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RUTH HIA v. CREDIT BUREAU OF JAMESTOWN, INC. d/b/a METCREDIT USA,
Case No. 700259/2022 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., Jan. 5, 2022) is
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated alleging violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Some time prior to November 24, 2021, on a date better known by
Defendant, an obligation was incurred to the creditor, Ear, Nose &
Throat Associates of NY, PC.  The subject obligation arose out of
medical services provided to Plaintiff. The subject debt was
incurred by Plaintiff solely for personal, household or family
purposes, specifically personal medical care.

On a date better known by Defendant, the Defendant sent Plaintiff a
collection letter regarding the debt owed to Ear, Nose & Throat
Associates of NY, PC. There is no way to determine from the Letter
which date "today" and "now" refer to, as the Letter is not dated,
says the suit.

The Plaintiff was thereby misled as to the status of the subject
debt, for it was not associated with a particular date. It is
common practice to date official letters. Letters that lack a date
make them seem illegitimate. The fact that Defendant did not date
the letter and yet attempted to define the subject debt based on a
nebulous date was suspicious, misleading, and out of character for
a legitimate debt collection, the lawsuit added.

The Class consists of:

   a. all individuals with addresses in the State of New York;

   b. to whom Defendant sent a collection letter attempting to
      collect a debt;

   c. providing an amount owed;

   d. based on a particular date range between a date certain and
      "today";

   e. without dating the collection letter;

   f. which letter was sent on or after a date one (1) year prior
      to the filing of this action and on or before a date 21 days

      after the filing of this action.

The Defendant is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tamir Saland, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201)282-6500
          E-mail: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com

CRODA INC: Baker Challenges Dismissal of Negligence Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Catherine Baker filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled CATHERINE BAKER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CRODA
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-01108-SB, in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware.

Croda owns a Delaware chemical plant that uses ethylene oxide, a
known carcinogen. In 2018, Croda's plant leaked thousands of pounds
of ethylene oxide into the surrounding neighborhood. Although Croda
reacted quickly, residents worried that they had inhaled the
chemical and now fear they will get cancer.

One resident, Baker, brought a class action on behalf of her
neighbors, alleging strict liability, public and private nuisance,
negligence, willful and wanton conduct, and medical monitoring. She
admits that no neighbor "has been currently diagnosed with cancer
or illness of the kind caused by ethylene oxide." But she says they
all suffer "an increased risk of illness."

On August 27, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on December 6, 2021, Judge
Stephanos Bibas of the District of Delaware dismissed all claims
without prejudice.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of that order.

The appellate case is captioned as Catherine Baker v. Croda Inc.,
Case No. 21-3360, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, filed on December 28, 2021.[BN]

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

          Kimberly Evans, Esq.
          Kelly L. Tucker, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER
          123 Justison Street, 7th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000
          E-mail: kevans@gelaw.com
              
Defendant-Appellee CRODA INC, f/k/a Croda, Inc., is represented
by:

          Miranda N. Gilbert, Esq.
          Kenneth J. Nachbar, Esq.
          MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL
          1201 North Market Street, 16th Floor
          P.O. Box 1347
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 658-9200
          E-mail: knachbar@mnat.com

CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Conriquez Sues Over Technicians' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO CONRIQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD OF CALIFORNIA,
INC.; INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 21CV392800 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty.,
December 29, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General
Act and the California's Business and Professions Code including
failure to provide required meal periods, failure to provide
required rest periods, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
pay minimum wages, failure to pay all wages due to discharged and
quitting employees, failure to maintain required records, failure
to furnish accurate itemized wage statements, failure to indemnify
employees for necessary expenditures incurred in discharge of
duties, and unfair and unlawful business practices.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a facilities technician
in Sunnyvale, California from early July 2021 until late July
2021.

Cushman & Wakefield of California, Inc. is a real estate management
services provider in California.

Intuitive Surgical, Inc. is a manufacturer of medical technology
products based in California. [BN]

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: mmatem@matemlawgroup.com
                 iboxer@maternlaw2roup.com

DAVID'S LOFT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Smith et al. Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
TYREKA SMITH, DYTANIA CANNADY, SHERON THOMAS, and DINEL PRENTICE,
Plaintiffs v. DAVID'S LOFT CLINICAL PROGRAMS, INC., and DAVID H.
THOMPSON, JR., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03241-BPG (D. Md.,
December 21, 2021) bring this complaint against the Defendants for
their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Maryland Wage and Hour Law.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as rehabilitation
specialists/house managers.

According to the complaint, the Defendants misclassified the
Plaintiffs as exempt employees. Despite regularly working more than
40 hours per week, the Defendants did not pay them overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

David's Loft Clinical Programs, Inc. provides Psychiatric
Rehabilitation Program services to adults (18 years of age and up)
and youth (5-17 years old) who have been adjudicated in either the
child welfare/foster care court or the juvenile services court.
David H. Thompson, Jr. is the owner, director and shareholder of
the Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Edward Rubin, Esq.
          THE RUBIN EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM, PC
          600 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 204
          Rockville, MD 20852
          Tel: (301) 760-7914
          E-mail: jrubin@rubinemploymentlaw.com

                - and –

          Edmund Celiesius, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Tel: (877) 561-0000
          Fax: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: ed.celiesius@jtblawgroup.com


DESKTOP METAL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of February 22 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Desktop Metal, Inc. ("Desktop Metal" or the
"Company") (NYSE: DM) between March 15, 2021 and November 15, 2021.
You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts. To get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/desktop-metal-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=4

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.

Desktop Metal, Inc. NEWS - DM NEWS

CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (1) there were
deficiencies in Desktop Metals' acquisition EnvisionTEC's
manufacturing and product compliance practices and procedures; (2)
the foregoing deficiencies presented a material risk to the
commercialization of EnvisionTEC's products; and (3) 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.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Desktop
Metal you have until February 22, 2022 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Desktop Metal securities between
March 15, 2021 and November 15, 2021 you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.

PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/desktop-metal-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=4
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record
of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for
shareholders who have been wronged by corporations.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's
Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been
representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20
years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S.
and internationally. The firm, with more than 70 employees, is
committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of
diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we
represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing
investors in securities litigation with a track record of
recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi &
Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS")
SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities
litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report
identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country,
and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a
leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation.

CONTACT:

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

DMD MANAGEMENT: Spencer Has Until Jan. 12 to File Class Cert Reply
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Spencer v. DMD Management,
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01698 (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Christopher A Boyko entered an order granting the Plaintiff's
unopposed motion for extension of time until January 12, 2022 to
file response/reply to Motion for class certification.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

DMD Management provides healthcare services.[CC]

DOMINION VOTING: O'Rourke Appeals Sanctions Award in RICO Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs KEVIN O'ROURKE, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled KEVIN O'ROURKE, NATHANIEL L.
CARTER, LORI CUTUNILLI, LARRY D. COOK, ALVIN CRISWELL, KESHA
CRENSHAW, NEIL YARBROUGH, and AMIE TRAPP, Plaintiffs v. DOMINION
VOTING SYSTEMS INC., a Delaware corporation, FACEBOOK, INC., a
Delaware corporation, CENTER FOR TECH AND CIVIC LIFE, an Illinois
non-profit organization, MARK E. ZUCKERBERG, individually,
PRISCILLA CHAN, individually, BRIAN KEMP, individually, BRAD
RAFFENSPERGER, individually, GRETCHEN WHITMER, individually,
JOCELYN BENSON, individually, TOM WOLF, individually, KATHY
BOOCKVAR, individually, TONY EVERS, individually, ANN S. JACOBS,
individually, MARK L. THOMSEN, individually, MARGE BOSTELMAN,
individually, JULIE M. GLANCEY, DEAN KNUDSON, individually, ROBERT
F. SPINDELL, JR, individually, and DOES 1-10,000, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 20-cv-03747-NRN, in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case was filed on
Dec. 22, 2020, more than a month-and-a-half after the Nov. 3, 2020
Presidential election. As filed, the suit was a class action
brought on behalf of all American registered voters, alleging that
their constitutional right to vote for President somehow was
unconstitutionally infringed on or burdened by the Defendants. The
Plaintiffs purported to represent 160 million American registered
voters and came seeking a determination from a federal court in
Colorado that the actions of multiple state legislatures,
municipalities, and state courts in the conduct of the 2020
election should be declared legal nullities.

The original Complaint alleges a vast conspiracy between four
governors, secretaries of state, and various election officials of
Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia; along with Dominion,
a private supplier of election and voting technology; the social
media company Facebook; CTCL, a non-profit organization dedicated
to making elections more secure and inclusive; as well as Facebook
founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan.

Claims included alleged violations of the Electors, Due Process,
and Equal Protections Clauses of the Constitution, and alleged
violations of the First Amendment, including burdens on political
speech and freedom of the press. On March 15, 2021, the Plaintiffs
sought to amend the Complaint to add more than 150 additional
plaintiffs and several new claims, including claims brought
pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO").

The Plaintiffs now seek a review from the Order of the District
Court granting Defendants' motions for sanctions, entered on August
3, 2021; Order denying in part and granting in part Plaintiffs'
reconsideration of sanctions order, entered on October 5, 2021;
and, Order specifying the amount of sanction award against
Plaintiff's counsel, entered on November 22, 2021.

The appellate case is captioned as O'Rourke et al. v. Dominion
Voting Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-1442, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on December 23,
2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants KEVIN O'ROURKE, et al., are represented by:

          Ernest J. Walker, Esq.
          ERNEST J. WALKER LAW OFFICE
          3368 Riverside Road
          Benton Harbor, MI
          Telephone: (303) 995-4835
          E-mail: ernestjwalker@gmail.com

               - and -

          Gary D. Fielder, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF GARY D. FIELDER
          1435 Stuart St.
          Denver, CO 80204
          Telephone: (720) 650-1505
          E-mail: gary@fielderlaw.net

EMBASSY RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE PADILLA and SANTIAGO CRUZ, on behalf of themselves,
individually, and all other persons similarly situated v. EMBASSY
RESTAURANT & LOUNGE, INC., d/b/a LA CABANA RESTAURANT & LOUNGE, and
RAFAEL CONTRERAS, Case No. 2:22-cv-00077 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 5, 2022)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs contend that Defendants failed to compensate them at
all times above the minimum wage rate.

Mr. Padilla commenced his employment with the Defendants in April
2013 as a dishwasher and prep cook, positions that he held until
May 15, 2021.

The Defendants serve Spanish cuisine at their principal place of
business, located at 1026 Suffolk Avenue, Brentwood, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq.
          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588

EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Gym Trainers Slam Gender Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------
Colleen Faulkner and Quinn Tew, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equinox Holdings Group,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-00030 (S.D. N.Y., January 3, 2022),
seeks damages and other legal and equitable relief for violations
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State
Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Defendant owns and operates luxury fitness centers located across
the state of New York where Plaintiffs worked as personal trainers
who provided physical training sessions and other services to
customers.

Faulkner alleges that Equinox discriminated against her on the
basis of her gender by not recommending that its members use her as
a Personal Trainer on the basis of her gender and she was
terminated in retaliation for complaining about gender
discrimination.

Tew alleges that she was discriminated on the basis of her
pregnancy by refusing to provide her with a pregnancy
accommodation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James A. Vagnini, Esq.
      Alexander M. White, Esq.
      VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
      600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel: (516) 203-7180
      Fax: (516) 706-0248


EQUITY ADVANCE: Abante Rooter Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equity Advance
Solutions Corp. The case is styled as Abante Rooter and Plumbing
Inc., Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Equity Advance Solutions Corp., Case No. 3:22-cv-00009 (N.D.
Cal., Jan. 3, 2022).

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

Equity Advance Solutions -- https://www.easfundings.com/ -- is a
business development company that helps small businesses by
offering merchant services.These services include merchant cash
advances, credit card processing and small business financing
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FMA ALLIANCE: Linkenberg Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tzvi Linkenberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FMA Alliance, Ltd. and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 7:21-cv-11085 (S.D.N.Y., December 27, 2021)
arises from the Defendants' use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair
debt collection practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Some time prior to November 5, 2021, an obligation was allegedly
incurred by the Plaintiff to M and T Bank. Defendant FMA was
contracted by M and T Bank to collect the alleged debt.

According to the complaint, the Defendant directed the Plaintiff to
send disputes to their "office," without any clarification as to a
specific location. The Plaintiff was therefore confused as to how
to properly dispute the debt and exercise his rights under Section
1692g.

The complaint further asserts that the Defendant's collection
efforts with respect to the alleged debt from Plaintiff caused
Plaintiff to suffer concrete and particularized harm, inter alia,
because the FDCPA provides Plaintiff with the legally protected
right not to be misled or treated unfairly with respect to any
action regarding the collection of any consumer debt.

FMA Alliance, Ltd. operates as a receivable management company. The
Company collects claims and provides financial solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com

FOOD FOR LIFE: Brown Sues Over Foods' Protein Per Serving Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MOLLY BROWN and ADINA RINGLER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FOOD FOR LIFE BAKING CO.,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-10054-SK (N.D. Cal., December 29,
2021) is a class action against the Defendant for common law fraud,
deceit and/or misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violations
of the California Business and Professions Code and the Consumers
Legal Remedies Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in deceptive
and misleading labeling and marketing of its consumer food
products. The Defendant prominently labels some of its consumer
food products as providing specific amounts of protein per serving
depending on the product, such as "7g Plant-Based Protein Per
Serving" on the front of its Ezekiel 4:9 Sprouted Flourless Flake
Cereal, Raisin. Consumers, in turn, reasonably expect that each
product will actually provide the amount of protein per serving
claimed on the front of the product package. However, the
Defendant's products are unlawfully, unfairly and deceptively
misbranded because it failed to provide a percent daily value (%DV)
for protein in the Nutrition Facts Panel (NFP) calculated according
to the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS)
methodology. Moreover, because the Defendant's protein claim is in
the form of a quantitative amount appearing alone, without any
information about protein quality, it is also separately actionable
as misleading. As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations,
the Plaintiffs and Class members have paid a price premium for the
products, says the suit.

Food For Life Baking Co., Inc. is a consumer food products
manufacturer, with its principal place of business in Solana Beach,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Seth A. Safier, Esq.
         Marie McCrary, Esq.
         Hayley Reynolds, Esq.
         GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
         100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Telephone: (415) 336-6545
         Facsimile: (415) 449-6469

FOOD FOR LIFE: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Protein Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
lawstreetmedia.com reports that two consumers filed a class-action
complaint in the Northern District of California against Food for
Life Baking Co. for unlawful and deceptive business practices,
since the defendants' products allegedly do not contain as much
protein as advertised.

The plaintiffs noted the defendant manufactures "Ezekiel 4:9" food
products, such as breads and cereals, that claim "7g plant-based
protein per serving" on the front of its packaging. The FDA
requires that all food producers use the Protein Digestibility
Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS) "to determine the amount of
essential amino acids that the food contains and then combine that
into a discount factor score based on humans' ability to digest the
amino acid profile," according to the complaint. Reportedly, for
plant-based proteins, as used in the Ezekiel 4:9 products, the
score is 0.4-0.5, meaning "only 40-50% of the protein from those
sources will be digested and available to humans." Furthermore,
there is no percent daily value listed for protein on these
products, which is considered "unlawful" based on FDA rules.

The plaintiffs claimed that a reasonable consumer would expect that
all seven grams of protein would be digestible, as opposed to less
than half of the total protein contents, and that "consumers lack
the meaningful ability to test or independently ascertain the
truthfulness of Defendant's food labeling claims." Therefore, the
plaintiffs are suing on the counts of false advertising and
fraudulent trade practices as violations of the Business and
Professions Code, a violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
common law fraud, and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, injunctive relief
enjoining the defendants from continuing their unlawful business
practices, compensatory damages, statutory damages, punitive
damages, treble damages, restitution, pre- and post-judgment
interest, attorney's fees and costs, and other relief. [GN]

FORREST CITY CORRECTIONAL: Thomas Files Suit in E.D. Arkansas
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forrest City
Correctional Complex Medium, et al. The case is styled as Jason
Thomas, on behalf of himself as well as other similarly situated
individuals v. Forrest City Correctional Complex Medium; John
Yates, Warden; Garner; Robberson, Officer; Lamm, Officer; Does FCC
Staff; Case No. 2:22-cv-00003-BSM-JJV (E.D. Ark., Jan. 3, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Prison Condition: Civil Rights for
Prisoner Civil Rights.

The Federal Correctional Institution, Forrest City is a United
States federal prison for male inmates in Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.



FREDERICK E. SOLOMON: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frederick E. Solomon,
DMD P.C. The case is styled as Victor Lopez, on behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. Frederick E. Solomon, DMD P.C., Case
No. 1:22-cv-00068 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 4, 2022).

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

Tribeca Smiles: Dr. Frederick E. Solomon, DMD --
https://www.tribecasmiles.com/ -- is a dental practice located in
downtown Manhattan, where they proudly offer cosmetic and
restorative dentistry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



FUNTREPRENEUR INC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Funtrepreneur
Inc. The case is styled as Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. The
Funtrepreneur Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00032 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 4,
2022).

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

The Funtrepreneur, Inc. -- http://www.thefuntrepreneur.com/--
includes whimsical gift site, AlwaysFits.com, unique gift basket
site, unBaskets.com and maternity nail polish line Knocked Up
Nails.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


GAOTU TECHEDU: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of Jan. 31 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
and Morgan Stanley (Goldman Sachs Morgan Stanley or the Companies)
(NYSE: GS, MS) and reminds investors of the January 31, 2022
deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities
class action that has been filed against the Companies.

If you suffered losses exceeding $100,000 investing in Gaotu stock
or options between March 22, 2021 and March 29, 2021 and would like
to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh
Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). You
may also click here for additional information:
https://www.faruqilaw.com/GOTU.

There is no cost or obligation to you.

Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania,
California and Georgia.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley traded while in
possession of material non-public information. The complaint also
alleges that Defendants: (1) obtained the material non-public
information pursuant to their agreements with Archegos Capital
Management ("Archegos") and as a result of their serving as prime
brokers of Archegos; (2) knew, recklessly disregarded, or should
have known that they owed a fiduciary duty, or obligation arising
from a similar relationship of trust and confidence, to Archegos to
keep the information confidential; and (3) while in possession of
material, non-public adverse information, collectively sold
billions of dollars' worth of Gaotu shares.

During one week in late March 2021, investment banks Goldman Sachs
and Morgan Stanley traded on inside information by selling large
amounts of GOTU stock based on then publicly undisclosed
information obtained through their relationship with troubled
multi-billion dollar family office Archegos Capital Management.

On this news, shares of Gaotu Techedu Inc. stock fell over 55%
during the week of March 22, 2021 to March 29, 2021.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Gaotus conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner. [GN]

GAP INC: Suarez Slams Illegal Dismissal Over Background Checks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genevieve Suarez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Gap, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 22-cv-00021, (S.D.N.Y., January 3, 2022), alleges violation of
her rights under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York
Executive Law Section 296(15) for discriminatory criminal
conviction screening policies and practices used by Gap to deny
employment to otherwise qualified job applicants and hirees.

On November 1, 2021, Plaintiff was hired by The Gap, Inc., as a
full-time sorter at its warehouse/distribution center in Newburgh,
New York. She claims that she was illegally dismissed because a
background check revealed a prior criminal conviction where she was
convicted for Welfare Fraud in the 5th Degree, a misdemeanor which
has been brought in June 2015, more than six years before her
employment applications were submitted to Gap. Suarez claims to
have paid the restitution in full and never served any jail time.

She contests that her misdemeanor did not bear any direct
relationship on the positions for which she applied with Gap. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher D. Watkins, Esq.
     WATKINS LAW
     5 Paradies Lane
     New Paltz, NY 12561
     Tel: (845) 419-2250


GARDEN CITY: Cervantez Sues Over Denied OT Pay, Breaks, Paystubs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Cervantez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Garden City and Does 1 through 20,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 220V392905 (Cal. Super., January 3,
2022), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for Defendants'
failure to pay for all hours worked and minimum wage rate, failure
to authorize or permit required meal periods, failure to authorize
or permit required rest periods, and failure to reimburse business
expenses.

The lawsuit further seeks statutory penalties for failure to
provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the
form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all
wages due upon separation of employment, unfair competition,
injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's
fees, costs and interest pursuant to California Labor Code and
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Defendant is in the business of providing amusement and recreation
services where Cervantes worked as non-exempt employee at its
California business location. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
      Kashif Haque, Esq.
      Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
      AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
      9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
      Irvine, CA 2618
      Telephone: (949) 379-6250
      Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
      Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com
             swong@aegislawfirm.com
             khaque@aegislawfirm.com


GEICO CASUALTY: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Davis Insurance Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
GEICO Casualty Company, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled JANET DAVIS, ANGEL RANDALL, ALMA LEE
RESENDEZ, MANDY PHELAN, and TREY ROBERTS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GEICO CASUALTY CO., et
al., Case No. 2:19-cv-02477-EAS-EPD, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.

On June 13, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed this case as a putative
class action. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim, which the Court denied on January 7, 2020. On
March 3, 2021, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for leave
to file a Third Amended Complaint (TAC).

The TAC alleges that the Defendants -- five GEICO insurance
companies -- breached the Plaintiffs' insurance policies when they
paid the actual cash value (ACV) of their vehicles.

According to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants failed to pay sales
taxes and transfer and registration fees even though GEICO's Policy
defines ACV to include such costs. The Plaintiffs each bring a
claim for breach of contract on behalf of themselves and on behalf
of a putative class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 for all Ohio residents
who "suffered a first-party total-loss of a covered vehicle during
the 15 years before July 30, 2020 through class certification."

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on December 28, 2021, the
Hon. Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on
      behalf of:

      "All Ohio residents insured under a GEICO private-
      passenger auto property damage policy who (1) submitted a
      first-party property damage claim from January 1, 2009
      through August 1, 2020 that was (2) determined by Geico to
      be a covered total-loss claim, and where (3) GEICO's
      total-loss claim payment(s) did not include ACV Sales Tax
      and/or Transfer Fees;" and

   2. denying the Defendants' motion for leave to file a sur-
      reply.

The Defendants seek a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: GEICO Casualty Company,
et al., Case No. 21-309, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit, filed on December 28, 2021.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, GEICO ADVANTAGE
INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO CHOICE INSURANCE COMPANY, GEICO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, and GEICO SECURE INSURANCE COMPANY are
represented by:

          Kellie A. Kulka, Esq.
          GRAYDON HEAD & RITCHEY
          312 Walnut Street, Suite 1800
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 629-2714

Plaintiffs-Respondents JANET DAVIS, ANGEL RANDALL, ALMA LEE
RESENDEZ, MANDY PHELAN, and TREY ROBERTS, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Daniel Richard Karon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL R. KARON
          700 W. St. Clair Avenue, Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 241-8172

GENERAL MOTORS: Sued Over Faulty 8-Speed Automatic Transmissions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam McEachern, writing for GM Authority, reports that General
Motors is facing a new class-action lawsuit over claims the
automaker shipped vehicles with faulty eight-speed automatic
transmissions.

This class-action suit was filed against GM in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.
According to Car Complaints, the plaintiffs say the GM eight-speed
automatic transmissions in certain vehicles "slip, buck, kick,
jerk, harshly engage, suffer abnormal internal wear, sudden
acceleration, delay in downshifts, delayed acceleration, difficulty
stopping the vehicle, and eventually require replacement of the
transmission or its components." These problems are allegedly
traced back to an issue with the torque converter that causes
excess friction.

The lawsuit also cites more than 60 technical service bulletins and
service updates put out by GM regarding the eight-speed
transmission problems, saying these documents are evidence GM was
aware of problems with the transmission and decided to sell the
affected vehicles anyway. Separately, C7 Corvette owner complaint
submitted to Car Complaints back in 2015 stated they were told by a
"GM insider" that the automaker was "aware some transmissions are
defective and is working on a kit to fix the fluid starvation
problem internally," which is allegedly the reasoning for the
shuddering/jerking transmissions.

Numerous class-action suits have been filed against GM over its
8L45E and 8L90 eight-speed automatic transmissions in recent years.
The automaker sought to have one of these suits thrown out last
August, claiming the transmission problems are related to a design
defect and not a manufacturing defect. GM's vehicle warranties only
cover manufacturing defects with parts and components and not
design defects. Most of these suits claim all vehicles with these
eight-speed transmissions are defective, which would imply a design
defect and not a manufacturing defect.

This latest class-action suit calls on GM to reform its warranties
to address these transmission problems and also issue a recall for
affected vehicles.

The full list of affected vehicles in this class-action suit
includes:

2015-2019 Cadillac Escalade/Cadillac Escalade ESV
2016-2019 Cadillac ATS
2016-2019 Cadillac ATS-V
2016-2019 Cadillac CTS
2016-2019 Cadillac CTS-V
2016-2019 Cadillac CT6
2015-2019 Chevrolet Silverado
2017-2019 Chevrolet Colorado
2015-2019 Chevrolet Corvette
2016-2019 Chevrolet Camaro
2017-2019 GMC Canyon
2015-2019 GMC Sierra
2015-2019 GMC Yukon/Yukon XL [GN]

GEORGIA: District Court Certifies Prisoners Class in Harris v. GDC
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICARDO HARRIS, et al., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:18-cv-00365-TES
(M.D. Ga.), Judge Tilman E. Self, III of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Georgia, Macon Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

Introduction

In the action, seven deaf and hard of hearing individuals
incarcerated at various Georgia Department of Corrections (the
"GDC") prison facilities challenge the adequacy of hearing-related
accommodations and services available to them. These individuals --
Ricardo Harris; Tommy Green; Tony Moore, Jr.; Christopher Shields;
Andrew Smith; Darrell Smith, Jr.; and Jorae Smith (collectively,
"Plaintiffs") -- suffer from some form of hearing impairment that
affects their abilities to communicate effectively with others when
deprived of the use of auxiliary aids and/or services, assistive
devices, and other necessary accommodations.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants -- the GDC, various GDC
officers, and the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles
("GBOP") (collectively, "Defendants") -- deprived them the use of
such aids and/or services, devices, and accommodations in violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), 42 U.S.C.
Section 12131, et seq.; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29
U.S.C. Section 701, et seq.; and the United States Constitution.
Based upon this allegation, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification, which the Defendants have opposed.

Based upon this allegation, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification, which the Defendants have opposed. The Plaintiffs'
Motion has been fully briefed, and the Court has held oral argument
on two occasions to discuss class certification.

Procedural Background

On Oct. 3, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed the putative class action
against the Defendants seeking broad-based declaratory and
injunctive relief. Nearly one year later, the Plaintiffs moved to
certify their claims as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(2).

Initially, the Plaintiffs proposed a class to consist of all
present and future deaf and hard of hearing individuals in GDC
custody and/or subject to GBOP authority, who require
hearing-related accommodations and services -- including but not
limited to interpreters, hearing devices, other auxiliary aids or
services, or reasonable modifications -- to communicate effectively
and/or to access or participate in programs, services, or
activities available to individuals in GDC custody and subject to
GBOP authority.

The Defendants oppose class certification, arguing that the
Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue relief because the GDC developed
and implemented a formal statewide ADA policy (the "2018 ADA
Policy") that resolved the Plaintiffs' complaints and mooted their
claims for systemic relief. In the alternative, they argue that
even if the Plaintiffs have standing, class certification should
still be denied because the Plaintiffs proposed a class that is
overly broad and not reasonably ascertainable.

After its initial review of the parties' arguments, the Court
observed that the thorniest part of the dispute centered on how the
class should be defined -- if at all. It set a hearing to discuss
whether the Plaintiffs' proposed class (as defined in the initial
pleadings) met the requisite definiteness for certification.
Interested in learning more about the GDC's present intake process
and classification system, the Court scheduled a second hearing to
permit the parties to call witnesses to testify about the current
classification system and the medical definitions for "deaf" and
"hard of hearing."

Three months later, the parties reconvened at a second hearing to
discuss class certification. The Defense counsel put up two
witnesses: (1) Dr. Joseph Fowlkes - former medical director at
Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison ("GDCP"); and (2) Dr.
Edgar Bohannon - an audiologist who assesses and treats hearing
loss for prisoners in GDC custody. And, the Plaintiffs' counsel put
up Dr. Kimberly M. Cavitt - an audiologist with experience in
assessing and treating hearing loss at the Ohio Department of
Corrections. Before any witness testified, the defense counsel
noted his objections to the Plaintiffs' counsel calling Dr. Cavitt
as a witness. The defense counsel anticipated that Dr. Cavitt would
improperly opine as to how the class should be defined (a legal
matter) based on her experience with the Ohio Department of
Corrections.

The Court briefly addressed the objection, noting that it could
certainly discern the appropriate weight to give Dr. Cavitt's
testimony. It reiterated its interest in hearing testimony about
deafness and hearing loss as it relates to objective decibel
levels. Such an interest arose from the parties' discussions about
the GDC's intake process and classification system for hearing
impaired prisoners.

Discussion

The Plaintiffs, as the ones seeking certification, must establish
that: 1) the class is so numerous that the joinder of all members
is impracticable; 2) there are questions of law or fact common to
the class; 3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties
are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and 4) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class.

A. Threshold Issues

i. Mootness

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs' claims for systemic
relief are moot because events subsequent to the commencement of
the action have created a situation in which the Court can no
longer grant "effectual relief" to the Plaintiffs -- assuming of
course, they were to succeed on the merits of such claims. The
Plaintiffs offered evidence in turn that shows members of the
proposed class are still subject to the alleged illegal activities
set forth in their initial pleadings.

Upon review of the evidence, Judge Self cannot conclude that the
Defendants have shown an unambiguous termination of their alleged
illegal conduct to render the Plaintiffs' claims moot. Therefore,
the Plaintiffs clearly still have standing to pursue their claims.

ii. Ascertainability

A proposed class is ascertainable if it is adequately defined such
that its membership is capable of determination." And, a
particularly important point to remember for the action is that
"the party seeking certification need not establish its ability to
identify class members in a convenient or administratively feasible
manner." Although there is no just cause for the Court to consider
administrative feasibility since the action involves a proposed
Rule 23(b)(2) class, the Defendants focus the lion's share of their
arguments against class certification on administrative
feasibility.

As this stage of the proceedings, Judge Self holds that the
Plaintiffs are only required to show that the class is "not defined
through vague or subjective criteria" so that it is "capable of
being determined."

Judge Self concludes that the following proposed class turns on
objective criterion and is sufficiently capable of being
determined: "All present and future deaf and hard of hearing
individuals in GDC custody, who require hearing-related
accommodations and services to communicate effectively and/or to
access or participate equally in programs, services, or activities
available to individuals in GDC custody."

For purposes of the class definition, the terms "deaf" and "hard of
hearing" refer to their objective, medical definitions as testified
to by Dr. Bohannon. Additionally, "deaf and hard of hearing"
includes those individuals with hearing levels or hearing loss that
qualify as disabilities under the ADA and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act. It is sufficient that the Plaintiffs have
defined their proposed class through the aforementioned objective
criteria.

To the extent that the Defendants argue that this class is not
ascertainable because it requires individualistic determinations
about each prisoner's hearing loss, Judge Self finds such an
argument to be grounded in administrative feasibility concerns and
not relevant to the ascertainability analysis. It appears that the
Defendants' main concern with the Plaintiffs' proposed definition
is the possibility that each prisoner may have to be individually
screened to see if he is a member of the proposed class. To this
point -- simply because the Defendants' H1-H5 classification system
does not assign hearing loss in accordance with objective medical
criteria (as evidenced by Dr. Fowlkes' testimony), this does not
mean that Defendants can use this as a reason to thwart class
certification efforts. And, since the GDC's medical professionals
send every prisoner with a perceived hearing impairment to Dr.
Bohannon for further evaluation -- where he assesses hearing loss
in accordance with objective medical criteria -- the GDC has the
requisite medical information readily available.

Having settled all threshold matters, Judge Self now turns to
whether the Plaintiffs satisfied all of Rule 23(a)'s
prerequisites.

B. Rule 23(a) Requirements

Judge Self concludes that the Plaintiffs have satisfied all of Rule
23(a)'s requirements. He finds that (i) Plaintiffs have satisfied
their burden of showing that the class meets the numerosity
requirement; (ii) the focus of the litigation is on the alleged
systemic discrimination in policy and practice across the GDC's
prison facilities, which is a sufficiently narrowed focus common
amongst members of the proposed class to satisfy the commonality
requirement; (iii) the Plaintiffs' claims are typical of those of
the class; and (iv) there is nothing in the record to indicate that
a substantial conflict exists between any class representative and
the proposed class. Now, the only thing left to consider is whether
the proposed class meets one of the criteria listed in Rule 23(b).

C. Rule 23(b) Requirements

In the action, the Plaintiffs assert class-wide grievances against
the Defendants for implementing and adhering to unlawful policies,
practices, and procedures that affect the entire class. Therefore,
their claims for systemic relief can be resolved with a declaratory
judgment that the Defendants' actions and/or inactions are unlawful
and injunctive relief that enjoins the unlawful policies,
practices, and procedures. Furthermore, this is a civil rights
case, and "civil rights cases against parties charged with
unlawful, class-based discrimination are prime examples" of
lawsuits properly brought under Rule 23(b)(2). Based upon the
nature of the action, Judge Self concludes that the requirements of
Rule 23(b)(2) are met.

Conclusion

For the reasons he discussed, Judge Self granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification. Although he has certified the
Plaintiffs' class, Judge Self expresses no opinion as to their
potential success on the merits. He will allow class discovery to
proceed and, if the parties can't settle the action on their own,
they will face the inevitable motions for summary judgment and/or
decertification in the future. The parties are to submit a new and
updated discovery order within 30 days from entry of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 28, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8kwsfn from Leagle.com.


GOOGLE LLC: California Crane School Files Antitrust Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
California Crane School, Inc. filed a class action antitrust case
[3:21-cv-10001, C.C.S.I. v Google LLC] on 12/27/21 against Google
and Apple and the Chief Executive Officers of both companies
alleging violations of the Antitrust Laws of the United States.

The complaint charges that Google and Apple agreed that Apple would
not compete in the internet search business against Google. The
complaint claims that the means used to effectuate the non-compete
agreement included; (1) Google would share it's search profits with
Apple; (2) Apple would give preferential treatment to Google for
all Apple devices; (3) regular secret meetings between the
executives of both companies; (4) annual multi-billion-dollar
payments by Google to Apple not to compete in the search business;
(5) suppression of the competition of smaller competitors and
foreclosing competitors from the search market; (6) acquiring
actual and potential competitors. The complaint alleges that
advertising rates are higher than rates would be in a competitive
system. The complaint seeks the disgorgement of the billion-dollar
payments by Google to Apple. The complaint asks for an injunction
prohibiting the non-compete agreement between Google and Apple; the
profit-sharing agreement; the preferential treatment for Google on
Apple devices; and the payment of billions of dollars by Google to
Apple.  

The complaint also calls for the breakup of Google into separate
and independent companies and the breakup of Apple into separate
and independent companies in accordance with the precedent of the
breakup of Standard Oil company into Exxon, Mobile, Conoco, Amoco,
Sohio, Chevron, and others.

Attorneys representing the plaintiffs are Joseph M. Alioto and
Tatiana V. Wallace of Alioto Law Firm, Lawrence G. Papale of Law
Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, Robert J. Bonsignore of Bonsignore
Trial Lawyers PLLC, Christopher A. Nedeau of Nedeau Law PC,
Josephine Alioto of The Veen Firm, Jeffery K. Perkins of Law Office
of Jeffery K. Perkins, Theresa Moore of Law Offices of Theresa D.
Moore, Lingel H. Winters of Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters.

Joseph M. Alioto of Alioto Law Firm said "These powerful companies
abused their size by unlawfully foreclosing and monopolizing major
markets which in an otherwise free enterprise system would have
created jobs, lowered prices, increased production, added new
competitors, encouraged innovations, and increased the quality of
services in the digital age." [GN]

GUIDEPOINT GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Jones Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY JONES, ALEXA LORILLARD, and YEKATERINA BASMAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
GUIDEPOINT GLOBAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 533067/2021 (N.Y. Sup.,
Kings Cty., December 27, 2021) is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act for Defendant's alleged failure to pay Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated employees overtime wages.

Plaintiff Jones and Lorillard were employed by Guidepoint as
associates in New York from June 2019 to February 2020 and from
June 2019 to July 2020, respectively. Plaintiff Basman worked for
Guidepoint from August 2017 to March 2019 as a research analyst in
New York.

Guidepoint Global, LLC provides consulting and research services.
The Company provides telephone consultation, group and individual
meetings, tailored surveys, and guidepoint tracker services.
Guidepoint Global serves customers in the United states.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          335 18th Pl. NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 830-2016
          E-mail: sabrahamson@flsalaw.com

HAWAII: Home Lands Beneficiaries' Class Action Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Blaze Lovell, writing for Honolulu Civil Beat, reports that Kealoha
Kelekolio is one of thousands of Native Hawaiians who have waited
decades for a piece of land managed by the state Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands.

Hawaiian beneficiaries like Kelekolio scored a victory in 2020 when
the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the state fell short in its
duty to manage the land trust and declared that a process for
individuals on the waitlist to collect payments from the state
should move forward.

But that hasn't happened yet. And attorneys for the state and
Hawaiian plaintiffs are still sorting through legal issues in the
aftermath of the high court's ruling. Hashing out those issues
could stretch well into 2022, according to recently filed court
documents.

And that's not including the claims process that a state court
still needs to rule on.

Kelekolio first applied for an agricultural lot in 1979. Now, he's
left wondering when a resolution will come in this case that's more
than 20 years old.

"If I'd been on the land, I'd be able to take care of myself," he
said. "But I'm 75 now, how much longer do I have?"

It's Already Been A Long Fight
Hawaiian beneficiaries sued the state in 1999 after the failure of
an administrative process to help people who waited for years for
homesteads. Leona Kalima, a beneficiary and advocate, is the lead
plaintiff in the case.

The Supreme Court first ruled on the case in 2006, in a decision
that's now called Kalima I. That case established that the more
than 2,700 plaintiffs who were part of the class action could seek
monetary damages from the state, the Honolulu Star-Bulletin
reported in 2006.

The Hawaii Supreme Court's 2020 ruling, called Kalima II, sought to
resolve some of the biggest issues in the case. It reaffirmed that
2,721 individuals who had to wait for leases are entitled to
damages because of the state's failure to manage the land trust;
that damages started accruing from the time plaintiffs applied to
be on the waitlist; and that fair market rental values should be
used to calculate damages owed to each plaintiff.

The high court sent the case back to the First Circuit Court to
sort out the claims process. But both sides now say there are more
issues to sort through.

Attorneys for the beneficiaries and the state met in court Thursday
to work through some of those differences.

Earlier this year, the state contracted the law firm Farm Benedict
Sugihara to assist with the case and provide legal counsel for the
state. The contract is worth up to $200,000.

Gary Yamashiroya, a spokesman for the state Attorney General's
Office, said in a statement that the state plans to file additional
legal briefs in February to settle outstanding issues including how
the claims process will be administered, how to calculate damages
for eligible claimants and when exactly those damages stopped
accruing.

But hearings on those motions aren't expected to start until March,
according to minutes of a November status conference.

In addition, both the state and the plaintiffs are seeking
information from each other to verify the list of beneficiaries
that could be entitled to damages. The state has argued it has the
right to information that could help it determine if anyone should
be disqualified from the list.

Attorneys Carl Varady and Thomas Grande, who represent the
plaintiffs, accused the state of trying to re-litigate issues that
should have already been settled by the high court or other
rulings.

"Defendants appear to want to play 20 more years of hide-and-seek,
while (beneficiaries) continue to die, waiting for relief to which
they are entitled," Varady wrote in a November status conference
statement.

Of the 2,721 claimants who are part of what's called the waitlist
sub class, more than 400 have already died. Varady and Grande have
argued that damages should be calculated before the state tries to
toss anyone from the list.

State attorneys contend that the lawyers have misread the court
order.

"We respectfully disagree with your characterization of the
decision's impact. Your apparent suggestion that defenses be
ignored until claims are otherwise resolved is impractical and
nonsensical," the state wrote in a letter earlier this year.

Complicating matters further is a lengthy verification process the
state attorneys say they still need to conduct on individual lease
files to help verify information for the plaintiffs.

That process is expected to wrap up in April and has required the
AG's office to reassign deputy attorneys general to that project.
Some of those deputies are taking on the extra work in addition to
their normal duties defending the state in other cases, according
to a letter from Deputy Attorney General Katie Lambert.

Additionally, other deputies previously assigned to the case have
either retired or left the department, according to Lambert's
letter.

Even after the state's legal issues are sorted and the lease files
are verified, the court must still finalize a process for
administering claims. That means hiring a claims processor, a
genealogist to help beneficiaries who couldn't previously prove
their Native Hawaiian ancestry, and a court-appointed special
master to oversee hearings on claims.

Rick Eichor, a retired attorney who litigated class action lawsuits
in Hawaii, said that the major fight in these types of cases
usually happens in the beginning, where the parties being sued try
to argue against forming a class in order to drag plaintiffs into
dozens of individual lawsuits.

Typically, once there's a process for calculating damages,
everything starts falling into place.

Eichor said this case is unique because of all the issues it raised
and the "monumental" legal fights that sent the case to the state
Supreme Court twice.

How long the case lasts could depend on how willing each side is to
duke it out.

"It depends on how much fight you've got," Eichor said. "And the
state's got a lot of fight because it's such a potentially huge
damage action."

That's a fight that Kelekolio, who now lives in Maili, hopes could
be resolved soon. His parents first applied in the 1950s, but
decided to buy a home instead. His brother and sister who also
waited for home lands died while on the waitlist, he said.

Given Hawaii's improved budget picture, he hopes the state would
prioritize funding for settlements in the case.

"It would certainly help if they made some recompense," he said.
[GN]

HIDRATE INC: Rodriguez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hidrate, Inc. The
case is styled as Angel Rodriguez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Hidrate,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00033 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 4, 2022).

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

Hidrate -- https://hidratespark.com/ -- creates a smart water
bottle that tracks users' hydration over time and syncs with their
phones to remind them to drink water.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


HISTOPATH DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Class Action Over COVID-19 PCR Tests
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3AW693 News Talk reports that people who were stranded at Melbourne
Airport on Boxing Day are launching a class action against the
company which promised 90-minute COVID-19 PCR tests.

Histopath Diagnostics promised holidaymakers they'd receive their
test results at the airport before boarding their flights.

But, upon arrival at the airport, many were turned away from taking
their pre-booked tested.

Managing principal at Margalit Injury Lawyers, Michel Margalit,
says she's "fielding an influx of calls from people who've been
impacted by this bungle".

"At the moment we've spoken with a handful of people, we expect
though that there could be hundreds if not thousands of people
impacted," she told Heidi Murphy, filling in for Tom Elliott.

"There could be some really serious cases out there of people who
have missed a family Christmas or even a sick loved one." [GN]

I.V. DOC: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The I.V. Doc Inc. The
case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. The I.V. Doc Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00008 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 3, 2022).

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

The I.V. Doc -- https://www.theivdoc.com/ -- is the leading global
provider of in-home IV Therapy and vitamin infusions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ILLINOIS FARMERS: D. Minnesota Certifies 2 Classes in Taqueria Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAQUERIA EL PRIMO LLC, VICTOR MANUEL DELGADO JIMENEZ,
MITCHELLE CHAVEZ SOLIS, BENJAMIN TARNOWSKI, EL CHINELO PRODUCE,
INC., and VIRGINIA SANCHEZ-GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ILLINOIS FARMERS INSURANCE
COMPANY, FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS GROUP, INC., TRUCK
INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., and
MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Civil No. 19-3071
(JRT/BRT) (D. Minn.), Judge John R. Tunheim of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota entered a Memorandum Opinion
and Order:

   a. granting the Plaintiffs' the Motion for Class Certification
      for the Injunctive Class;

   b. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification for
      the Damages Class on the MCFA claim;

   c. denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification for
      the Damages Class on the MDTPA and breach of contract
      claims;

   d. appointing the proposed class representatives and class
      counsel; and

   e. denying Farmers' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony in
      Support of the Motion for Class Certification.

Background

Named Plaintiffs Taqueria El Primo LLC, Victor Manuel Delgado
Jimenez, Mitchelle Chavez Solis, El Chinelo Produce, Inc., Virginia
Sanchez-Gomez, and Benjamin Tarnowski brought a class action
against Defendants Farmers Group, Inc., Trucker Insurance Exchange,
Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., Farmers Insurance Exchange
Company, and Mid-Century Insurance Company (collectively
"Farmers"). The Plaintiffs allege that Farmers entered into secret
agreements with health care providers wherein the providers agreed
to not bill Farmers for care provided to Farmers' insureds, thereby
limiting the ability of the insureds to seek care from the provider
of their choosing. They allege that these billing limitations
breached the insurance policy contracts between insureds and
Farmers and violate Minnesota's No-Fault Insurance Act.

The Plaintiffs first filed a lawsuit in Hennepin County District
Court on Nov. 8, 2019. Farmers removed the suit to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota under 28 U.S.C.
Sections 1332(d)(2), 1441, and 1446. The Plaintiffs filed the
Second Amended Complaint on June 4, 2020. They seek damages and ask
for an order declaring the billing limitations are illegal and
enjoining their enforcement. The parties have engaged in
substantial discovery.

The Plaintiffs bring claims under the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act
("MCFA"), under the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act
("MDTPA"), and for breach of contract. They now move for Class
Certification and Appointment of Class Representatives and Class
Counsel.

The Plaintiffs move to certify two classes: (1) a Damages Class
defined as "all persons or entities who purchased an insurance
policy on or after Jan. 13, 2013 within the State of Minnesota from
any of the Defendant Insurers that provided for medical expense
benefits under Minnesota's No Fault Act," and (2) an Injunctive
Class defined as "all persons or entities who purchased an
insurance policy on or after January 13, 2013 within the State of
Minnesota from any of the Defendant Insurers that provided for
medical expense benefits under Minnesota's No Fault Act, and who
maintain that policy."

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs request both an award of monetary
damages and an injunction enjoining Farmers from enforcing the
billing limitations. They also seek to appoint class
representatives and class counsel.

In keeping with the differences between the proposed classes, the
Plaintiffs propose two different groups of class representatives.
For the Damages Class, the Plaintiffs propose Taqueria El Primo
LLC, Mitchelle Chavez Solis, El Chinelo Produce, Inc., Virginia
Sanchez-Gomez, Benjamin Tarnowski, and El Chinelo Market, LLC. For
the Injunctive Class, they propose Virginia Sanchez-Gomez and El
Chinelo Market, LLC. It is undisputed that each of the policies
purchased by the proposed class representatives purported to
conform to Minnesota's No-Fault Act.

The Plaintiffs have moved to appoint Lockridge Grindal Nauen
P.L.L.P. ("LGN"), Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC, and Sawicki & Phelps,
P.A. as class counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).
Attorneys Kristen Marttila and David Asp are among the attorneys
working on the case for LGN.

Farmers opposes class certification. It also opposes appointing the
proposed class representatives and appointing some of the proposed
class counsel. Farmers opposes appointing LGN arguing that it has
conflicts of interests between the class and other clients.

In addition to opposing the Motion for Class Certification, Farmers
filed a Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony in Support of the Motion
for Class Certification. In support of their Motion for Class
Certification, the Plaintiffs submitted expert opinion testimony
from Allan I. Schwartz and Michael J. Rothman.

The Plaintiffs propose to use Schwartz's testimony to calculate
damages on a classwide basis. Schwartz proposes to determine a
"Factor" that he asserts can be used to calculate the decreased
value proposed class members received and Farmers' unjust
enrichment or other unlawful gains which could then be used to
determine how much value each class member lost as a result of the
billing limitations. Schwartz, however, did not calculate the
factor he proposed in support of the motion.

Schwartz is the president of AIA Risk Consultants, an actuarial
consulting firm. He started AIS Risk Consulting in 1984 and has
worked as the Assistant Commissioner for the New Jersey Department
of Insurance, as Chief Actuary for the North Carolina Department of
Insurance, for another actuarial consulting firm, and for the
National Council on Compensation Insurance. He has provided expert
actuarial testimony including testimony about automobile insurance
in several past proceedings.

The Plaintiffs propose to use Rothman's testimony for several
purposes including to show that (1) the billing limitations were
material to insureds and state regulators; (2) the Minnesota
Department of Commerce would not have allowed Farmers to sell these
insurance products if Department regulators had been aware of the
billing limitations; (3) even if Farmers would have been allowed to
sell policies with billing limitations, the Department would not
have allowed Farmers to sell policies without disclosing the
limitations to policyholders; and (4) the billing limitations had a
common impact on all putative class members. Rothman also opines
that the limitations and their omission harmed the Plaintiffs and
Minnesota consumers.

Rothman is an attorney operating his own law firm, Rothman LLC,
focusing on commerce and regulated industries including the
insurance sector. He was the Commissioner of the Minnesota
Department of Commerce from January 2011 to November 2017. The
Minnesota Department of Commerce regulates automobile insurance
including implementation of Minnesota's No-Fault Act. He has
practiced insurance law and has been an adjunct professor of
insurance law and regulation.

Farmers moves to exclude all of Schwartz's testimony arguing he has
failed to show that his methodology is the product of reliable
principles and methods and is speculative and unreliable. It moves
to exclude various portions of Rothman's testimony as (1)
inadmissible legal opinions, (2) opinions offered without
foundation, (3) opinions that Rothman is not qualified to render,
or (4) a combination of these.

Discussion

I. Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony

Farmers moved to exclude all of Schwartz's testimony and portions
of Rothman's testimony that the Plaintiffs provided in support of
their Motion for Class Certification. At the class certification
stage, the Plaintiffs rely on Schwartz to show that damages can be
calculated on a classwide basis, and Rothman to show that the
undisclosed billing limitations were material to all insureds,
harmed insureds and the public, and Farmers would not have been
permitted to sell these policies had the Department of Commerce
been aware of the limitations and the lack of disclosure.

Judge Tunheim will deny the motion to exclude for both experts
because he finds that the Plaintiffs have met their burden for
admitting expert testimony at the class certification stage. First,
because Schwartz has provided a methodology with a sufficient
explanation of how he will eventually calculate damages on a
classwide basis that is tied to the Plaintiffs' theory of
liability, Judge Tunheim will deny Farmers' motion to exclude
Schwartz's testimony at this time and will consider Schwartz's
testimony in conjunction with the motion for class certification.
Second, using the limited and focused analysis appropriate at the
class certification stage, Judge Tunheim will deny Farmers' motion
to exclude the entirety of Schwartz's and portions of Rothman's
testimony. He will, therefore, consider the evidence in both
declarations. He, however, offers no views on whether this evidence
or any other evidence will be admissible at another stage or under
a full Daubert analysis.

II. Motion for Class Certification

To certify a class, the Plaintiffs must demonstrate compliance with
all four of Rule 23(a)'s requirements. These requirements are: (1)
the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impractical; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the
class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. In sum, Judge Tunheim holds that the
Plaintiffs have met their burden with respect to each Rule 23(a)
element for both proposed classes.

Judge Tunheim must also decide whether the proposed class falls
within one of the three Rule 23(b) categories. The Plaintiffs
propose to certify the Injunctive Class under Rule 23(b)(2) and the
Damages Class under Rule 23(b)(3).

Because the Injunctive Class is sufficiently cohesive, monetary
damages do not dominate the relief sought by the Injunctive Class,
and the Injunctive Class may proceed absent the Damages Class,
Judge Tunheim opines that the Injunctive Class has met the Rule
23(b)(2) requirements. Because it has also met the Rule 23(a)
requirements, he will grant the motion to certify the Injunctive
Class.

In addition, because he concludes that the Damages Class has met
the Rule 23(a) requirements and Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance and
superiority requirements on its MCFA claim, Judge Tunheim will
grant the Plaintiffs motion to certify the class on this claim
alone. He will, therefore, deny the motion to certify the Damages
Class as to the remaining claims.

In sum, Judge Tunheim will certify the Injunctive Class under Rule
23(b)(2) and certify the Damages Class under Rule 23(b)(3) on the
MCFA claim. He will, however, deny class certification to the
Damages Class on its other claims.

Because the proposed representatives' claims are typical of the
proposed classes and they will adequately represent the classes as
demonstrated in part by their active participation and adequate
representation to date, he will appoint the proposed
representatives for each class. For the Injunctive Class, Judge
Tunheim will appoint Virginia Sanchez-Gomez and El Chinelo Market
LLC. For the Damages Class, he will appoint Taqueria El Primo LLC,
Mitchelle Chavez Solis, El Chinelo Produce, Inc., Virginia
Sanchez-Gomez, Benjamin Tarnowski, and El Chinelo Market LLC.

Because proposed counsel satisfies the Rule 23(g)(1)(A)
considerations, has met its duty to its formers clients, and there
is no other matter pertinent to counsel's duty to the class under
Rule 23(g)(1)(B), Judge Tunheim will appoint Lockridge Grindal
Nauen P.L.L.P., Hellmuth & Johnson PLLC, and Sawicki & Phelps, P.A.
as the class counsel for both the Injunctive Class and the Damages
Class.

Conclusion

After engaging in the focused Daubert analysis appropriate at the
class certification stage, Judge Tunheim will deny Farmers' motion
to exclude the expert testimony offered by the Plaintiffs in
support of class certification. The Plaintiffs are not required to
calculate a final damages amount at this stage and the model
Schwartz provides is sufficient under the focused analysis to
conclude that he and the Plaintiffs have a model that may be able
to calculate classwide damages when necessary. Rothman provides
sufficient foundation for his statements of materiality and harm
under the focused analysis and Judge Tunheim will not be misled by
any legal opinions he provides, considering them only as context
for his other opinions.

Judge Tunheim will certify the Injunctive Class because it meets
the Rule 23(a) requirements and it presents questions demonstrating
that final injunctive relief may be appropriate to the class as a
whole under Rule 23(b)(2).

He will certify the Damages Class only for the MCFA claim. He
concludes that that the Damages Class meets the Rule 23(a)
requirements. On the MCFA claim, the Plaintiffs have put forth
questions common to class members that predominate individualized
questions and class resolution is superior under Rule 23(b)(3). On
the breach of contract claim individualized questions predominate,
and on the MDTPA claim Plaintiffs have not put forth a viable
theory of classwide recovery.

Because the proposed class representatives and class counsel will
adequately represent the class including absent class members and
the class counsel has resolved any possible conflicts issue, Judge
Tunheim will appoint the proposed class representatives and class
counsel.

Order

Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings
therein, Judge Tunheim denied the Defendants' Motion to Exclude
Expert Testimony.

Judge Tunheim granted in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a
Class as to (i) the Injunctive Class on all applicable Counts of
the Second Amended Complaint, and (ii) the Damages Class on Count
II of the Second Amended Complaint.

Judge Tunheim denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a
Class as to the Damages Class on Count IV and Count V of the Second
Amended Complaint.

Judge Tunheim certified two classes:

     a. An Injunctive Class defined as: All persons or entities or
purchased an insurance policy on or after Jan. 17, 2013 within the
State of Minnesota from any of the Defendant Insurers that provided
for medical expense benefits under Minnesota's No Fault Act, and
who maintain that policy.

     b. A Damages Class defined as: All persons or entities or
purchased an insurance policy on or after Jan. 17, 2013 within the
State of Minnesota from any of the Defendant Insurers that provided
for medical expense benefits under Minnesota's No Fault Act.

     c. The Defendants' employees or officers, any entity in which
any Defendant has a controlling interest, any entity that has a
controlling interest in any Defendant, the Defendants' legal
representatives, the Defendants' assigns and successors, any judge
and any judicial staff and any immediate family of any judge to
whom the case is assigned, and any juror to whom the case is
assigned are excluded from both classes.

Judge Tunheim appointed two sets of class representatives:

     a. For the Injunctive Class: Virginia Sanchez-Gomez and El
Chinelo Market LLC; and

     b. For the Damages Class: Taqueria El Primo LLC, Mitchelle
Chavez Solis, El Chinelo Produce, Inc., Virginia Sanchez-Gomez,
Benjamin Tarnowski, and El Chinelo Market LLC.

He appointed Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Hellmuth & Johnson
PLLC, and Sawicki & Phelps, P.A. as the class counsel for both
classes.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 28, 2021 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3xzfhyr9 from
Leagle.com.

Anne T. Regan -- aregan@hjlawfirm.com -- and Nathan D. Prosser --
nprosser@hjlawfirm.com -- HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC, 8050 West
Seventy-Eighth Street, Edina, MN 55439; David W. Asp, Derek C.
Waller, Jennifer Jacobs, Kristen G. Marttila, and Stephen Matthew
Owen, LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP, 100 Washington Avenue South,
Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401; Paul J. Phelps, SAWICKI &
PHELPS, 5758 Blackshire Path, Inver Grove Heights, MN 55076, for
the Plaintiffs.

Emily C. Atmore -- emily.atmore@stoel.com -- Marc A. Al --
marc.al@stoel.com -- and Margaret E. Dalton --
maggie.dalton@stoel.com -- STOEL RIVES LLP, 33 South Sixth Street,
Suite 4200, Minneapolis, MN 55402; Timothy W. Snider, STOEL RIVES
LLP, 760 Southwest Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000, Portland, OR 97205,
for the Defendants.


INSTADOSE PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of February 28 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Instadose Pharma Corp. ("Instadose" or the "Company")
(Other OTC: INSD) in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of all persons and entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired Instadose securities between
December 8, 2020 and November 24, 2021, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Investors have until February 28, 2022 to apply to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On November 23, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") announced a temporary suspension in the trading of
Instadose securities due to concerns regarding the adequacy and
accuracy of information about the Company in the marketplace. The
SEC specifically noted stock price and volume increases of
Instadose stock unsupported by the Company's assets and financial
information, trading that may be associated with individuals
related to a control person at the Company, and operations at the
Company's Canadian affiliate. On this news, the Company's share
price declined by $3.69 per share, or approximately 13%, from
$28.30 per share to close at $24.61 per share on November 23, 2021,
which was immediately before trading was halted.

On December 9, 2021, when the Company's securities resumed trading,
the stock price opened and closed at $2.00 per share.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Instadose 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]

INSTADOSE PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of February 28 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Jan. 3
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Instadose Pharma Corp. f/k/a
Mikrocoze, Inc. (OTCMKTS: INSD; MZKR) between December 8, 2020 and
November 24, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action
lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 28,
2022.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Instadose securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Instadose class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2217.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 28, 2022.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Instadose had performed
inadequate due diligence into the Business Combination and/or
ignored significant red flags associated with Instadose Canada; (2)
Instadose's internal controls and policies were inadequate to
detect and/or prevent impermissible trading activity by control
persons of the Company; (3) the foregoing subjected Instadose to a
heightened risk of regulatory scrutiny and enforcement action; and
(4) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

To join the Instadose class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2217.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

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

CONTACT:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

INTERNATIONAL BANK: Court Dismisses Zhan Suit Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RENJIE ZHAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. INTERNATIONAL BANK
FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, Defendant, Civil
Action No. 1:21-cv-02793 (UNA) (D.D.C.), Judge Christopher R.
Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
denied the application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and
dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

On Oct. 21, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a pro se complaint,
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"), and
first motion to appoint counsel. On Nov. 4, 2021, the Court issued
an order denying the Plaintiffs' first motion to appoint counsel
without prejudice, and further directing the Plaintiffs to, within
30 days, file an amended complaint listing their full residence
addresses and telephone numbers and the Defendant's address where
process may be served. The Plaintiffs were warned that failure to
comply may result in dismissal of the case.

To date, the Plaintiffs have not filed an amended complaint.
Instead, they filed a second motion to appoint counsel. The second
motion to appoint counsel contains a residence address, however,
the Plaintiffs have yet to submit their telephone numbers or the
Defendant's address. The Plaintiffs have thus failed to comply with
the court's order and the case will be dismissed without
prejudice.

Moreover, the Plaintiffs' application to proceed IFP is inadequate
as it fails to provide sufficiently detailed information regarding
their financial circumstances. Additionally, they have filed the
IFP application jointly, and seemingly attempt to bring the matter
as a class action, which they cannot not do. As a general rule, a
pro se litigant can represent only himself or herself in federal
court.

Finally, the Plaintiffs' second motion to appoint counsel is
denied. The Plaintiffs in civil cases generally do not have a
constitutional or statutory right to counsel. If a plaintiff is
proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is authorized to appoint
counsel under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(1), but it is not obliged
to do so unless a plaintiff demonstrates that such exceptional
circumstances exist that the denial of counsel would result in
fundamental unfairness. Whether exceptional circumstances exist
requires an evaluation of the type and complexity of each case, and
the abilities of the individual bringing it.

The Plaintiffs fail to address these factors, indicating only that
they are without resources to obtain an attorney. They have not
demonstrated that the intended claims are particularly complex or
that any greater interest of justice would be served by appointing
counsel in the case than in any other pro se case. Considering the
limited pro bono resources that are available to the Court, and the
mootness of the request, the counsel will not be provided to the
Plaintiffs at this time.

Accordingly, Judge Cooper denied the application for leave to
proceed IFP and the second motion for appointment of counsel. He
dismissed without prejudice the complaint and the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 28, 2021 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ybdk2bs3 from Leagle.com.


JAAC CORP: Faces Garcia Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO GARCIA on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JAAC CORP. d/b/a ATHENIAN GREEK
TAVERNA, and ANTHONY CALDERERA, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-07052
(E.D.N.Y., December 21, 2021) is a collective action complaint
brought against the Defendants to recover unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook from in or
about September 1998 through March 2021.

Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants, he
regularly worked more than 40 hours each week. However, the
Defendants did not pay him overtime compensation at the rate of one
and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendants also failed to pay him
spread of hours pay for each day when he worked spread of hours
between the beginning and end of his shift exceeded ten hours. In
addition, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate records of the
hours worked by and wages paid to the Plaintiff. Moreover, the
Defendants failed to provide him with a notice and acknowledgement
of his wage rate and with accurate wage statements along with his
pay, alleges the suit.

JAAC CORP. d/b/a Athenian Greek Taverna operates as a restaurant in
Suffolk County. It is owned by Individual Defendant Anthony
Calderera. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq.
          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO, P.L.L.C.
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Tel: (631) 257-5588


JL DARLING: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JL Darling, LLC. The
case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. JL Darling, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00011 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 3, 2022).

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

JL Darling, LLC -- https://www.riteintherain.com/ -- operates as an
outdoor paperwork stationary company and is known for "Rite in the
Rain" waterproof paper pads.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JON DAVLER: Denial of Bid to Nix Judgment in Bocardo Suit Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARIA BOCARDO, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents v.
DAVID SHEEN, et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case No. B309778
(Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Second District,
Division Five, issued an Opinion reversing the trial court's denial
of a Motion to Set Aside the Default Judgment.

The Appellants and Defendants, David Sheen and Jon Davler, Inc.,
appeal from the trial court's denial of a Motion to Set Aside the
Default Judgment entered against them and other co-defendants.

On March 2, 2017, Plaintiffs and Respondents Maria Bocardo and
Maria Olea filed a wage and hour class action lawsuit against the
Appellants, and other defendants. The original complaint was never
served on appellants.

On Sept. 15, 2017, the Respondents filed the operative First
Amended Complaint against appellants and their co-defendants
alleging nine causes of action for violations of the Labor Code and
the Business and Professions Code relating to payment of wages and
provision of meal and rest breaks. On Sept. 20, 2017, the
Plaintiffs submitted an application for leave to serve the First
Amended Complaint by publication. In support of the application,
they submitted the hearsay affidavit of their counsel regarding the
claimed efforts to serve the First Amended Complaint, and no other
admissible evidence. On Nov. 8, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed proof of
publication. Pursuant to a request from the Plaintiffs, the clerk
entered a default and default judgment against the Appellants and
some of their co-defendants on May 24, 2018.

On Aug. 4, 2020, the Defendants filed a Motion to Set Aside Default
Judgment, which the Plaintiffs opposed. The court heard the motion
on Oct. 20, 2020; after taking the matter under submission, the
court denied the motion. The Appellants timely appealed the order
denying the motion to vacate.

After the Appellants filed their opening brief on appeal, the
parties to the appeal submitted a "Stipulation Resolving Appeal"
and then a "Renewed Stipulation Resolving Appeal." By the Renewed
Stipulation, the parties to the appeal request that the default
judgment entered against the Appellants by the trial court be set
aside as void, and that the action be remanded to the trial court
for further proceedings, including permitting appellants to assert
all defenses to the First Amended Complaint. They agree that the
affidavit of the Plaintiffs' counsel filed in the trial court in
support of the request for service by publication failed to
establish that the Plaintiffs exercised due diligence to serve the
First Amended Complaint, as the declaration was based on
inadmissible hearsay. As such, the parties to this appeal agree
that Plaintiffs and Respondents will not prevail on appeal under
the applicable law.

The Court of Appeals explains that Code of Civil Procedure, section
128, subdivision (a)(8), provides, in relevant part: "An appellate
court will not reverse or vacate a duly entered judgment upon an
agreement or stipulation of the parties unless the court finds both
of the following: Paragraph (A) There is no reasonable possibility
that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely
affected by the reversal. Paragraph (B) The reasons of the parties
for requesting reversal outweigh the erosion of public trust that
may result from the nullification of a judgment and the risk that
the availability of stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive
for pretrial settlement."

The present appeal presents only an issue regarding the Plaintiffs'
technical compliance with the rules relating to service of process
by publication. The Court of Appeals finds that the parties' reason
for seeking a stipulated reversal is well-grounded in legal
authority and undisputed facts. As such, those reasons outweigh any
erosion of public trust that might result from reversal of the
judgment. Further, granting the reversal will not reduce an
incentive for pretrial settlement, as the parties correctly
anticipate that pursuit of the appeal to conclusion would likely
result in reversal in any event.

As noted, there is no cognizable evidence in the record that the
Plaintiffs made diligent efforts to serve the First Amended
Complaint on the Appellants before seeking to serve it by
publication. The Court of Appeals also finds that reversal of the
default judgment that was the result of defective service by
publication will have no impact on non-parties to the appeal, and
indeed no such parties have been identified. Nor will reversal
adversely affect the interests of the public.

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the judgment is void and must
be reversed. The matter is remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings, including permitting appellants to assert all defenses
to the Respondents' claims. Also, pursuant to the stipulation, the
parties are to bear their own costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 28, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/mrys7dpc from Leagle.com.

Law Offices of Stephen Glick, M. Anthony Jenkins --
ajenkins@glicklegal.com -- for the Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Cabanday Law Group, Orlando F. Cabanday --
orlando@cabandaylawgroup.com -- for the Defendants and Appellants.


KE HOLDINGS: Gainey McKenna Reminds of February 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Jan. 3 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against KE Holdings, Inc. ("KE Holdings")
(NYSE: BEKE) in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased KE
Holdings' common stock between December 8, 2020 and November 24,
2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that the Company materially overstated its
store count, agent counsel, new home sales gross transaction value
("GTV"), and revenues. The Complaint alleges that Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements and omissions and
engaged in a scheme to deceive the market. The truth began to come
to light when Muddy Waters Capital LLC, a research-based equity
investor, revealed that KE Holdings was overstating the agents and
stores on its platforms, its GTV, and its revenues, among other
wrongdoing. These misstatements artificially inflated the price of
KE Holdings' ADSs and operated as a fraud or deceit on the Class.
When the truth was revealed, the Company's ADS price fell
substantially and has continued falling since.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of KE Holdings
should contact the Firm prior to the February 28, 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]

KE HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Reminds of February 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Jan. 4 disclosed that
purchasers of KE Holdings Inc. (NYSE: BEKE) American Depository
Shares ("ADSs") between August 13, 2020 and December 16, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period") have until February 28, 2022 to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff in Chin v. KE Holdings Inc., No.
21-cv-11196 (S.D.N.Y.). Commenced on December 30, 2021, the KE
Holdings class action lawsuit charges KE Holdings 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 KE Holdings 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 KE Holdings class action lawsuit must be
filed with the court no later than February 28, 2022.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: KE Holdings claims to be the "leading integrated
online and offline platform for housing transactions and services
in China."

The KE Holdings class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose that: (i) defendants inflated KE Holdings' gross
transaction revenue ("GTV"); (ii) defendants inflated KE Holdings'
revenues; (iii) defendants inflated the number of stores and agents
using KE Holdings' platform; and (iv) as a result, defendants'
statements about KE Holdings' business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On December 16, 2021, Muddy Waters Capital LLC, a research based
equity investor, announced that it took a short position in KE
Holdings because its research showed that KE Holdings was
overstating the agents and stores on its platforms; its GTV; and
its revenues, among other wrongdoings. On this news, KE Holdings'
ADS prices dropped by more than 22%, damaging investors.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased KE Holdings
ADSs during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff
in the KE Holdings 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 KE Holdings class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the KE Holdings class action lawsuit. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery of the KE
Holdings class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

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

Attorney advertising.

Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

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

Contacts:

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

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Lawyer Suit Moved From N.D. Tex. to W.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PAUL LAWYER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS
NORTH AMERICA LLC; PHILIPS HOLDING USA, INC.; and PHILIPS RS NORTH
AMERICA LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-03095, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on December
29, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01903-JFC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged strict products
liability, negligence, manufacturing defect, breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, and negligent misrepresentation.

According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured and sold
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive
Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices and mechanical ventilators
for sleep and home respiratory care, which contain polyester-based
polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam). The Defendants
recalled CPAP and BiLevel PAP devices and mechanical ventilators
containing PE-PUR Foam because they determined that (a) the PE-PUR
Foam was at risk for degradation into particles that may enter the
devices' pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users, and (b) the
PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during operation health
risks associated to the devices. As a result of the health risks
associated with continued use of these devices and the recall, the
Plaintiff has suffered injuries, the suit alleges.

Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a health technology company with its
principal executive offices at Philips Center, Amstelplein 2, 1096
BC Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Philips North America LLC is a health technology company with its
principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Philips Holding USA, Inc. is a holding company and sole member of
Philips NA, with its principal place of business located at 222
Jacobs Street, Floor 3, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Philips RS North America LLC is a company that manufactures and
markets medical devices with its principal place of business
located at 6501 Living Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
         Marion M. Reilly, Esq.
         Jessica J. Pritchett, Esq.
         HILLIARD MARTINEZ GONZALES LLP
         719 S. Shoreline Boulevard
         Corpus Christi, TX 78401
         Telephone: (361) 882-1612
         Facsimile: (361) 882-3015
         E-mail: bobh@hmglawfirm.com
                 marion@hmglawfirm.com
                 jpritchett@hmglawfirm.com

                 - and –

         Steve W. Berman, Esq.
         Marin D. Mclean, Esq.
         Jacob P. Berman, Esq.
         1301 Second Avenue, Ste. 2000
         Seattle, WA 98101
         Telephone: (206) 623-7292
         Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
         E-mail: Steve@hbsslaw.com
                 martym@hbsslaw.com
                 jakeb@hbsslaw.com

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Richardson Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled HUBERT RICHARDSON as Personal Representative for
KEMETHA RICHARDSON, deceased, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.; PHILIPS
NORTH AMERICA LLC; PHILIPS HOLDING USA, INC.; and PHILIPS RS NORTH
AMERICA LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00185, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on December
29, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01907-JFC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged strict products
liability, negligent design, negligent failure to warn, negligent
manufacturing, negligence/gross negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, fraudulent concealment, civil conspiracy,
breach of express warranties, breach of implied warranty of fitness
for a particular purpose, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, and violation of the Mississippi Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured and sold
Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive
Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP) devices and mechanical ventilators
for sleep and home respiratory care, which contain polyester-based
polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam). The Defendants
recalled CPAP and BiLevel PAP devices and mechanical ventilators
containing PE-PUR Foam because they determined that (a) the PE-PUR
Foam was at risk for degradation into particles that may enter the
devices' pathway and be ingested or inhaled by users, and (b) the
PE-PUR Foam may off-gas certain chemicals during operation health
risks associated to the devices. As a result of using the
Defendants' device, Kemetha Richardson suffered personal injuries
including liver disease and death, says the suit.

Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a health technology company with its
principal executive offices at Philips Center, Amstelplein 2, 1096
BC Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Philips North America LLC is a health technology company with its
principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Philips Holding USA, Inc. is a holding company and sole member of
Philips NA, with its principal place of business located at 222
Jacobs Street, Floor 3, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Philips RS North America LLC is a company that manufactures and
markets medical devices with its principal place of business
located at 6501 Living Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Richard A. Freese, Esq.
         FREESE & GOSS PLLC
         1901 6th Avenue North Suite 3120
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Telephone: (205) 871-4144
         Facsimile: (205) 871-4104
         E-mail: Faxrich@freeseandgoss.com

                 - and –

         Calle M. Mendenhall, Esq.
         FARRIS RILEY & PITT, LLP
         505 20th Street North, Suite 1700
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Telephone: (205) 324-1212
         Facsimile: (205) 324-1255
         E-mail: Faxcmendenhall@frplegal.com

L'OREAL USA: Price Appeals Reconsideration Bid Ruling in Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Brandi Price and Christine Chadwick filed an appeal from
a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Price, et al. v.
L'Oreal USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-cv-614, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in a late 2017
opinion, Judge Lorna Schofield denied L'Oreal USA Inc. and Matrix
Essentials LLC's motion to dismiss a first amended complaint of a
class action complaint brought against them by Plaintiffs Brandi
Price and Christine Chadwick over alleged false representations in
the three of their popular hair products, but did dismiss the
unjust enrichment claim under both New York and California law.

Rather than restoring their hair, L'Oreal subsidiary Matrix's
Biolage Keratindose Pro-Keratin + Silk Shampoo, Conditioner and
Renewal Spray (products), which advertise Keratindose Pro Keratin
+Silk, caused hair loss and damage, according to the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs' expert testified that the products do not even have
the natural human protein keratin in them.

Ms. Price alleged she suffered brittle and dry damage to her hair
in 2014 after purchasing one of the products in New York, and
Chadwick alleged she suffered the same in 2016 when buying two of
the products in California. While both the Plaintiffs seek
restitution and injunctive relief, L'Oreal was looking to have the
whole matter dropped, specifically arguing that the Plaintiffs have
not sufficiently pleaded fraud under Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

On October 13, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration and a memorandum of law in support of their motion
for reconsideration, or, in the alternative, motion for
clarification.

On December 10, 2021, Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered an order
denying Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Price v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., Case
No. 21-3131, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on December 23, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Brandi Price and Christine Chadwick, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Gregory Frederic Coleman, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          800 South Gay Street
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com

Defendants-Respondents L'Oreal USA, Inc. and Matrix Essentials LLC
are represented by:

          Frederick B. Warder, III, Esq.
          PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
          1133 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 336-2000
          E-mail: fbwarder@pbwt.com

LASIK INSTITUTE: Williams' Bid for Attorneys' Fees & Costs Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAMARA WILLIAMS, on behalf of herself and all
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. THE LASIK INSTITUTE, LLC;
JAMES RYNERSON, M.D.; JAMES M. RYNERSON, M.D. PSC; VISION GROUP
HOLDINGS, LLC; AUDAX GROUP, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; AUDAX MANAGEMENT
COMPANY, LLC; LVI SUPER INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.; LVI
INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a VISION GROUP HOLDINGS, LLC; LVI
HOLDCO, LLC; AG LVI HOLDINGS, LLC; 9597930 CANADA, INC.; MARK JAMIE
COHEN; AVI A. WALLERSTEIN; MICHAEL C. FONDO; LISA ANN MELAMED;
RAYMOND R. MONTELEONE; BEN L. COOK; MARK A. HOCKENSON; BILL WOLZ;
CHRIS FOLSON; ERIKA JACKSON, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-02402-JPM-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), Judge Jon P. McCalla of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western
Division, entered an order:

   a. denying as moot the Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions and
      Attorney's Fees Against Defendant LVI Intermediate
      Holdings, Inc. (Doing Business as Vision Group Holdings)
      and Memorandum in Support, filed June 21, 2021, with
      respect to:

       (i) her request for class certification and her request
           that the Court requires Vision Holdings to pay for
           media publication of the class notice; and

      (ii) other non-monetary sanctions; and

   b. denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions and Attorney's
      Fees with respect to her request for attorney fees and
      costs incurred in bringing her Motion.

Background

Motion is before the Court in Plaintiff Williams' suit against
Vision Holdings, the Rynerson Defendants, and other related
entities for undisclosed fee-splitting by a physician in violation
of Tenn. Code Ann. Sections 63-6-225(a) & 63-6-226(a) and
misrepresentation of services in violation of the Tennessee
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Williams initially filed her
complaint in the Chancery Court of Tennessee for the Thirtieth
Judicial District at Memphis, on April 30, 2020. On June 8, 2020,
the Rynerson Defendants removed the action to the Court.

In her Second Amended Class Action Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts
legal claims on behalf of a putative Tennessee statewide class for
the violations of Tenn. Code Ann. Sections 63-6-225(a) &
63-6-226(a) mentioned. The Parties agreed to bifurcate "merits"
discovery from "class" discovery, with class discovery to occur
first.

On Oct. 9, 2020, the Plaintiff served her First Requests for
Production of Documents and Interrogatories on Defendant Vision
Holdings. The Defendant's assets (excluding a number of insurance
policies that were providing coverage in the matter) were purchased
by Kismet New Vision Holdings, LL out of Delaware bankruptcy
proceedings. Pursuant to an Amended and Restated Asset Purchase
Agreement between Kismet and Vision Holdings, Kismet is the
custodian of Vision Holdings' electronically stored and hard data
(the "Vision Group Data") which is of relevance to class
certification in the action, and Vision Holdings has the legal
right to obtain the Vision Group Data from Kismet.

In its Responses to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for
Production and Interrogatories, Vision Holdings stated in response
to several Requests and Interrogatories: "Despite months of
diligent efforts, Defendants have been unable to obtain the
documents responsive to this request or the information responsive
to this interrogatory. Defendants have attempted for months to
obtain the requested documents or information from Kismet, and all
attempts have been futile."

Between Sept. 10, 2020 and Feb. 22, 2021, "Vision Holdings produced
21,620 pages of documents in this action." The Defendant, however,
did not produce all the requested data, which remained in Kismet's
possession.

On March 5, 2021, the Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion to Compel
Complete Responses and Documents in Response to Her First Set of
Requests for Production of Documents and Interrogatories to
Defendant LVI Intermediate Holdings, Inc. (Doing Business as Vision
Holdings Holdings) and Memorandum in Support Thereof. In her
Motion, the Plaintiff asserted that "the fact that Vision Holdings
has the legal right to obtain the Vision Group Data from Kismet
warrants an Order compelling these documents and information"
pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 34(a).

In Telephonic Motion Conferences on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel
conducted on March 11, March 29, and April 8, 2021, the Defense
counsel informed the Plaintiff's counsel and the Court of its prior
and ongoing efforts to retrieve the requested documents from
Kismet. During the April 8, 2021 hearing, the Defense counsel
acknowledged that the Court's Order could be useful to "motivate
[Kismet] along" and thus "may be the best thing for all
concerned."

The Court entered an Order Granting the Plaintiff's Unopposed
Motion to Compel on April 8, 2021. It found that the Plaintiff was
"entitled to discover the relevant documents and information
pertaining to the time period from April 2018 through April 2020,
from Vision Holdings."

The Plaintiff asserts that her counsel thereafter "continually
inquired" regarding the production of the Vision Group Data, with
Vision Holdings' counsel, who "indicated that it was working on the
production." She asserts that "on June 8, 2021, the counsel for
Vision Holdings confirmed that Vision Holdings would not be
producing the Vision Holdings documents."

On June 21, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for
Sanctions and Attorney's Fees Against Defendant LVI Intermediate
Holdings, Inc. (Doing Business as Vision Holdings Holdings) and
Memorandum in Support. The following day, on June 22, 2021, Vision
Holdings notified the Court of its intent to serve a Rule 45(a)(4)
subpoena on Kismet for production of the documents and information
at issue.

On July 8, 2021, Vision Holdings served its subpoena on Kismet and
notified the Court as such. Vision Holdings filed a Response in
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion on July 12, 2021. Also on July 12,
2021, as Kismet had failed to respond to Vision Holdings' subpoena
by the production deadline, Vision Holdings filed a Motion to
Compel Kismet's Compliance with the subpoena in the Southern
District of Ohio. That Motion was later transferred to the Court on
Vision Holdings' Motion to Transfer.

Earlier in the case, on Oct. 13, 2020, the Rynerson Defendants
filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Class Action
Complaint with Prejudice Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). On the same
day, the other group of Defendants in the case ("the LVI
Defendants") filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. The
Plaintiff's responses and the Defendants' replies followed in due
course. The Plaintiff's then-pending Motion for Sanctions was not
relevant to the Court's resolution of the Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss and its disposition of the case. On Sept. 29, 2021, the
Court entered an Order Granting the Rynerson and LVI Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and a Judgment
dismissing the case with prejudice. Judge McCalla now resolves the
Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions.

Analysis

Judge McCalla first addresses the Plaintiff's request for sanctions
of class certification and requiring Defendant to pay for media
publication of the class notice. He then addresses whether any
other sanctions should be imposed under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) in this
instance. Finally, he evaluates the Plaintiff's request for
attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing the instant Motion.

A. Class Certification and Requiring Vision Holdings to Pay for
Class Notice

For "Vision Holdings' failure to produce the Vision Group Data,"
the Plaintiff seeks sanctions from the Court "in the form of
granting Class Certification under Rule 23(b)(3) as to Vision
Holdings and requiring Vision Holdings to pay for media publication
of the required Class Notice." On Sept. 29, 2021, the Court granted
the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss in their entirety and entered a
Judgment dismissing the case. Judge McCalla thus will deny as moot
the Plaintiff's request for sanctions of class certification and
requiring Vision Holdings to pay for media publication of class
notice.

B. Other Non-Monetary Sanctions Under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)

The Plaintiff seeks, in the alternative, "any other sanctions that
the Court deems to be just and appropriate." Non-monetary sanctions
such as those contemplated by Rule 37(b)(2)(A) are inapplicable, as
the Plaintiff's case has been dismissed with prejudice. Thus, the
Plaintiff's request for other (non-monetary) sanctions will be
denied as moot.

C. Attorney Fees and Costs under Rule 37(b)(2)(C)

In addition to the relief discussed above, the Plaintiff requests
her "reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred in
bringing this Motion." Defendant Vision Holdings argues that "the
Court should employ its wide sanctioning discretion and deny such a
request."

Judge McCalla finds that the Defendant has advanced a substantial
justification for its failure to comply, especially in light of its
open communication with the Plaintiff along the way. Accordingly,
he additionally finds it would be unjust to award the expenses that
the Plaintiff requests. Hence, the Plaintiff's request for attorney
fees, costs, and expenses is will be denied.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated, Judge McCalla denied the Plaintiff's Motion
for Sanctions and Attorney's Fees Against Defendant LVI
Intermediate Holdings, Inc. (Doing Business as Vision Holdings
Holdings).

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 28, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3uwfm9bv from Leagle.com.


LEE ENTERPRISES: Goldsmith Appeals Suit Dismissal to 8th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Steven Goldsmith filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled STEVEN GOLDSMITH, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEE
ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01772-MTS,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri -
St. Louis.

This case arises from allegations by Plaintiff Steven Goldsmith
that Defendants Lee Enterprises, Inc., Lee Enterprises Missouri,
Inc., St. Louis Post-Dispatch LLC and Pulitzer Inc. (collectively,
"Defendants") double-billed him for his subscription to the "St.
Louis Post-Dispatch" newspaper.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Memorandum and
Order and Judgment dated December 3, 2021, entered by Judge Matthew
T. Schelp, granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment and
dismissing the case with prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned as Steven Goldsmith v. Lee
Enterprises, et al., Case No. 21-3927, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on December 27, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appendix is due on February 7, 2022;

   -- BRIEF OF APPELLANT Steven Goldsmith is due on February 7,
2022; and

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Steven Goldsmith, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated, is represented by:

          Richard Steven Cornfeld, Esq.
          Daniel S. Levy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD, LLC
          1010 Market Street, Suite 1645
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-5799
          E-mail: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com
                  dlevy@cornfeldlegal.com

Defendants-Appellees Lee Enterprises, Inc., Lee Enterprises
Missouri, Inc., St. Louis Post Dispatch, LLC, and Pulitzer, Inc.,
doing business as St. Louis Post-Dispatch, are represented by:

          John M. Hessel, Esq.
          Joseph Ernest Martineau, Esq.
          Edward Theodore Pivin, Esq.
          LEWIS & RICE
          600 Washington Avenue, Suite 2500
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 444-7600
          E-mail: jhessel@lewisrice.com
                  jmartineau@lewisrice.com
                  epivin@lewisrice.com

               - and -

          Roger R. Myers, Esq.
          BRYAN & CAVE
          Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 675-3400
          E-mail: roger.myers@bclplaw.com

LIFE SPECTACULAR: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Life Spectacular. The
case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. The
Funtrepreneur Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00037 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 4,
2022).

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

Life Spectacular, Inc. is primarely in the business of soap,
detergent, cleaning preparations, perfumes, cosmetics.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


LIFETRADE FUND: March 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Phillips & Paolicelli, LLP and Waters & Kraus, LLP on Jan. 3
disclosed that the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York has approved the following announcement of a
proposed class action settlement that would benefit investors in
one or more of the Lifetrade Funds:

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE
ACTION, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, PRELIMINARY APPROVAL ORDER,
SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING, AND MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS'
FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO: ALL PERSONS, INDIVIDUAL, CORPORATE OR IN ANY FORM, (I) WHO
INVESTED IN ONE OR MORE OF THE LIFETRADE FUNDS (INCLUDING THE
LIFETRADE FUND B.V., LTRADE PLUS LTD. AND LTRADE FIXED CAPITAL
(BVI) LTD.), AND/OR (II) THEIR PREDECESSORS AND SUCCESSORS IN
INTEREST1, PLEASE SEE THE WEBSITE MAINTAINED BY THE CLAIMS
ADMINISTRATOR, WWW.STRATEGICCLAIMS.NET, FOR A LIST OF COVERED
SECURITIES.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, AS YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED
BY A PROPOSED CLASS ACTION AND SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE SETTLEMENT
PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, (1) that the above-captioned
class and shareholder derivative Action has been preliminarily
certified as a class action (the "Settlement") for settlement
purposes on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain
persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by
definition; and (2) that a settlement of the Action for US$4.5
million in cash has been proposed. A hearing will be held
telephonically on March 21, 2022, at 11:00 a.m., before the
Honorable J. Paul Oetken of United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to determine (i) whether the proposed
settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and
adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice and the Released Parties should be released from the
Settled Claims specified and described in the Equity Trust
Stipulation and the Class Claims and Derivative Claims specified
and described in the Settlement Stipulation entered into among the
Plaintiffs, Class Representatives, the Lifetrade Funds and TMF
Curaçao, N.V. ("Equity Trust"); (iii) whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation for distribution of the settlement proceeds should be
approved as fair and reasonable; (iv) whether Class Counsel's
motion for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses should be approved; and (v) whether Class Representatives'
application for a compensatory award should be approved. The
hearing may be attended by dialing (888) 557-8511, access code
9300838, at the scheduled time.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR
RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENT,
AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND. YOU
ARE A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER AND MUST REQUEST EXCLUSION IF YOU DO
NOT WANT TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS SETTLEMENT AND IF YOU ARE NOT A
NAMED PLAINTIFF IN THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED LITIGATION IN THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. A Notice of Pendency of Class Action,
Shareholder Derivative Action and Proposed Settlement, Settlement
Hearing and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of
Expenses ("Notice"), which includes the proposed Plan of
Allocation, identifies certain Settlement Class eligibility and
payment requirements. We encourage you to review the Notice. The
Notice and the Settlement Stipulation may be downloaded from the
website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.strategicclaims.net, or by contacting Class Counsel through
their websites, www.p2law.com and www.waterskraus.com. You may also
obtain the forms and information by contacting the Claims
Administrator at:

Lifetrade Litigation
c/o Strategic Claims Services
P.O. Box 230
600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205
Media, PA 19063 USA
Toll-Free: +1 866-274-4004; Fax: +1 610-565-7985
www.strategicclaims.net

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund,
you must, as contemplated in the Court's Order Preliminarily
Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice (the "Preliminary
Approval Order"), mail a completed Lifetrade Litigation Claim Form
and Release postmarked no later than April 4, 2022.

If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper
Lifetrade Litigation Claim Form and Release, you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the
Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of
the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion so it is
received no later than February 14, 2022, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by the
Judgment entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be
eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. You should
note that pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in California
Public Employees Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc., 137 S.
Ct. 811 (2017), if you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class,
you may forfeit any claims you may have against Defendant Equity
Trust relating to your purchase or acquisition of Lifetrade
securities and be entitled to no recovery. If you are a named
Plaintiff in the above-captioned litigation, you cannot exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class. Before you decide to request
exclusion from the Settlement Class, you are urged to consult your
counsel, at your own expense, to fully evaluate your rights and the
consequences of excluding yourself from the Settlement Class.

If you are a Settlement Class Member, you may enter an appearance
through counsel at your own expense. See the Notice for further
details. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed
Plan of Allocation, or Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of expenses, or Class Representatives'
application for a compensatory award, must be filed with the Court
and received by Class Counsel and counsel for Equity Trust no later
than February 22, 2022, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice.

Class Counsel will apply to the Court for an award of attorneys'
fees from the Settlement Fund in an amount not to exceed one-third
of the Settlement Fund. Class Counsel also will apply for the
reimbursement of expenses paid or incurred in connection with the
prosecution and resolution of the Action, in an amount not to
exceed $500,000.00, which includes reimbursement to Class
Representatives and Derivative Plaintiffs for their reasonable
costs and expenses (including lost wages) directly relating to
their representation of the Class. Class Representatives will
request a compensatory award to exceed no more than $60,000.00, or
$10,000.00 each.

Inquiries other than requests for the Notice, the Claim Form and
Release, and/or the Settlement Stipulation may be made to Class
Counsel: Phillips & Paolicelli, LLP, Steven Phillips, Esq., 747
Third Ave., 6th Floor, New York, NY 10017, +1 (212) 388-5100, or by
email at sphillips@p2law.com OR Waters & Kraus, LLP, Charles
Siegel, Esq., 3141 Hood Street, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75219, +1
(214) 357-6244, siegel@waterskraus.com.

Please do not contact the Court or the Clerk's Office or any
Defendant in the Action, or their counsel, regarding this notice.
All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your
eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to
Class Counsel or the Claims Administrator.

By Order of the Court

1 The Settlement Class excludes Defendants, current or former
officers and directors of Lifetrade and Equity Trust, members of
their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs,
successors or assigns, any entity in which Lifetrade or Equity
Trust have or had a controlling interest. For avoidance of doubt,
this exclusion shall not cover "Investment Vehicles," which for
these purposes shall mean any investment company, pooled investment
fund or separately managed account (including, but not limited to,
mutual fund families, exchange-traded funds, fund of funds, private
equity funds, real estate funds, hedge funds, and employee benefit
plans) in which any Defendant or any of its affiliates has or may
have a direct or indirect interest or as to which any Defendant or
any of its affiliates may act as an investment advisor, general
partner, managing member or in other similar capacity. [GN]

LITERARY GOODS: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Literary Goods, Inc.
The case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Literary
Goods, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00036 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 4, 2022).

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

Literary Goods, Inc. doing business as Litographs --
https://www.litographs.com/ -- prints entire tomes on tees and
posters, arranging the text into artful designs to illustrate the
story.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


LOOMIS ARMORED: Can Compel Arbitration in Scott Labor Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DASHAY P. SCOTT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOOMIS ARMORED US, LLC, and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-00896-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal.), Judge John A. Mendez of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration.

The Defendant moved to compel arbitration of the Plaintiff's
non-Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") claims and to stay her
remaining PAGA claim pending the outcome of the individual
arbitration proceeding.

A. Background

The Defendant is a national transporter of currency. It employed
the Plaintiff as a cash management services teller ("CMS Teller")
at its Hayward, California facility from September 2019 until
February 2021. As a CMS Teller, the Plaintiff's primary role was
money processing; that is, counting, auditing, and organizing money
coming in and going out of the facility.

During the Plaintiff's onboarding process, the Defendant presented
her with a copy of the Loomis arbitration program (the "ADR Plan").
The Plaintiff signed the ADR Plan on Sept. 4, 2019. Under the terms
of the ADR Plan, the Plaintiff must arbitrate "any dispute arising
out of or related to" her "employment or relationship with" Loomis,
including the "termination of her employment." She must also bring
any claims "on an individual basis only, and not on a class or
collective basis on behalf of others."

In February 2021, the Defendant terminated the Plaintiff's
employment. The Plaintiff then filed the class action in Sacramento
County Superior Court alleging violations of California's Labor
Code and Unfair Business Practices Act for unpaid wages,
noncompliant meal periods and rest breaks, inaccurate wage
statements, and waiting time penalties, along with an individual
claim for disability discrimination.

The Defendant removed the case pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). Following removal, the Plaintiff
amended her complaint adding a PAGA claim. See FAC.

The Defendant now seeks to compel Plaintiff's compliance with the
ADR Plan, specifically waiver of her class claims and individual
arbitration of her non-PAGA claims. It further requests that the
Plaintiff's remaining PAGA claim be stayed pending entry of a final
award in the arbitration proceeding.

B. Analysis

1. Non-PAGA Claims

In its motion, Loomis argues the Plaintiff entered into a binding
and enforceable arbitration agreement, the ADR Plan, and the
Plaintiff must therefore abide by her agreement to waive her class
claims and individually arbitrate all of her claims except for the
PAGA claim. The Plaintiff resists Loomis's motion to compel on five
grounds.

First, the Plaintiff invokes an exemption in the FAA for
transportation workers. While the FAA "embodies" a "liberal federal
policy favoring arbitration agreements," the FAA does not apply to
"whole industries of workers." Judge Mendez opines that the
Plaintiff does not meet her burden of demonstrating the
transportation worker exemption applies. At most, she has shown her
work was "tangentially related to the movement of goods," which is
insufficient to qualify her as a transportation worker.

Second, the Plaintiff argues the ADR Plan is procedurally and
substantively unconscionable and thus unenforceable. But according
to Judge Mendez this argument puts the cart before the horse. As
Defendant points out, the threshold issue is whether the parties
agreed to leave the question of arbitrability -- including whether
the agreement is unconscionable -- to the arbitrator. If they did,
the issue of unconscionability is left to the arbitrator, not the
Court. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's second argument as to
unconscionability fails.

Third, the Plaintiff argues the class waiver is unenforceable
because it is part of a broader agreement that is unenforceable.
But, as Judge Mendez explained, the enforceability of the agreement
is an issue for the arbitrator to decide. This additional argument
does not alter the analysis.

Fourth, the Plaintiff argues that compelling arbitration at this
stage is premature and she should instead be granted discovery.
Judge Mendez disagrees. As he discussed, the Plaintiff has not
carried her burden to challenge the ADR Plan's delegation
provision. In the absence of such a challenge, the Court must
enforce the unambiguous delegation provision and compel
arbitration.

Lastly, Plaintiff raises a policy argument that it would serve
judicial economy to litigate her non-PAGA claims in the Court
because the Court must keep her PAGA claim, which is
non-arbitrable. However, as the Defendant argues, the Plaintiff's
assertion of a PAGA claim has no bearing on whether her remaining
non-PAGA claims should be referred to arbitration, and her class
claims dismissed. The Plaintiff's final policy argument therefore
fails.

In short, Judge Mendez finds the delegation provision of the ADR
Plan to be enforceable. The Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration is thus granted and the Plaintiff is ordered to
individually arbitrate her non-PAGA claims against Loomis.

2. PAGA Claims

Having concluded that the Plaintiff's non-PAGA claims must be
arbitrated in accordance with the delegation provision of the ADR
Plan, Judge Mendez stays the Plaintiff's PAGA claim, which both
parties agree is non-arbitrable. This proceeding will be stayed
pending the outcome of the arbitration. The parties are ordered to
file a joint status report within 10 days of completing
arbitration.

C. Sanctions

The Plaintiff exceeded the Court's 15-page limit on opposition
memoranda. Violations of the Court's standing order require the
offending counsel, not the client, to pay $50 per page over the
page limit to the Clerk of Court. Moreover, the Court did not
consider arguments made past the page limit. The Plaintiff's
opposition brief exceeded the Court's page limit by 2.5 pages.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's counsel must send a check payable to
the Clerk for the Eastern District of California for $125 no later
than seven days from the date of the Order.

D. Order

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Mendez granted the Defendant's
motion to compel arbitration, and stayed the Plaintiff's PAGA claim
pending the outcome of the arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 28, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4wphtfxk from Leagle.com.


LUXOTTICA RETAIL: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Ariza Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luxottica Retail North America Inc. filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled THOMAS ALLEGRA, YESENIA ARIZA,
MARIANA ELISE EMMERT, STUART ROGOFF, GRACELYNN TENAGLIA, and
MELISSA VERRASTRO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH AMERICA d/b/a
LensCrafters, Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-05216, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).

The Plaintiffs and class members purchased prescription eyeglasses
from LensCrafters after being measured using the Accufit(R) Digital
Measurement System offered at LensCrafters. LensCrafters touts its
Accufit system as providing uniquely accurate measurements of the
pupillary distance (PD) between the customer's eyes to locate the
optical centers of the eyeglass lenses. LensCrafters advertises
that its Accufit system "measures your eyes five times more
precisely than traditional methods, down to a tenth of a
millimeter" - roughly the width of a human hair. LensCrafters
claims that this allows the company to manufacture prescription
eyeglasses "which provides a lens fit with five times greater
precision than traditional methods." Thus, LensCrafters promises
better prescription eyeglasses that allow customers "to see your
world more clearly," as "[y]our lenses are crafted based on exactly
how glasses sit on your face, where your eyes line up in the frame,
and the distance between your eyes -- putting the prescription
exactly where you need it to see your best."

According to the complaint, LensCrafters cannot and does not
deliver what it promises. Even assuming its Accufit system can
provide PD measurements down to a tenth of a millimeter, when it
manufactures prescription eyeglasses, LensCrafters uses decades-old
technology that still involves manual measurements that must be
rounded up to a full millimeter. Allegedly, Lenscrafters' Accufit
system provides no more accuracy in manufacturing prescription
eyeglasses than when measuring PD with a standard ruler.

Customers are therefore induced to purchase prescription eyeglasses
from LensCrafters when they otherwise would not have and/or overpay
for prescription eyeglasses from LensCrafters based on false and
misleading statements, and suffer damages, says the suit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on November 1, 2021, the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in
part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to seal or redact
certain documents and information submitted with the parties' class
certification and Daubert briefing.

The Defendant now seeks a review of the Court's Sealed Order dated
December 13, 2021, granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. The Court granted Plaintiffs'
request for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) with respect to
claims under New York General Business Law Sections 349, 350; the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; California's
Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal
Remedies Act; and for Unjust Enrichment; however, the Court denied
Plaintiffs' request for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3)
with respect to fraudulent omissions claim. The Court also granted
in part and denied in part LensCrafters' motion to exclude. The
Court deferred ruling on Plaintiffs' motion to exclude.

The appellate case is captioned as Luxottica Retail North America
v. Ariza, Case No. 21-3119, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on December 27, 2021.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner Luxottica Retail North America Inc., DBA
Lenscrafters, is represented by:

          Frank Anthony Dante, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          1 Logan Square
          130 North 18th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 569-5645
          E-mail: dante@blankrome.com

Plaintiffs-Respondents Yesenia Ariza, David Soukup, Stuart Rogoff,
Amy Harloff, Thomas Allegra, Mariana Elise Emmert, Melissa
Verrastro, Gracelynn Tenaglia, and Kathleen Infante, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com

LYFT INC: Liner Slams Misclassification, Seeks Unpaid Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gayle Liner, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Lyft, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 22STCV00103, (Cal. Super., January
3, 2022), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for failure to
pay for all hours worked and minimum wage rate, failure to
authorize or permit required meal periods, failure to authorize or
permit required rest periods, statutory penalties for failure to
provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the
form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all
wages due upon separation of employment, reimbursement of
business-related expenses, injunctive relief and other equitable
relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest pursuant to
California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Orders.

Lyft is a car service that can be hailed and dispatched through a
mobile phone application to transport riders. Castaneda, is a Lyft
driver who claims to be misclassified as an independent contractor,
thus denied minimum wages for all hours worked and overtime
premiums for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week. He was
also required to pay business expenses including but not limited to
the cost of maintaining their vehicles, gas, insurance, phone and
data expenses and other costs.  [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
      Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BUCHSBAUM & HAAG, LLP
      100 Oceangate, Suite 1200
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 733-2498
      Fax: (562)733-2498
      Email: brent@buchsbaumhaag.com
             laurel@buchsbaumhaag.com


M. MALIUGINA STORE: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against M.Maliugina Store
LLC. The case is styled as Victor Lopez, on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. M.Maliugina Store LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00069
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 4, 2022).

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

M.Maliugina Store LLC was registered as a Profit Limited Liability
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



MARATHON DIGITAL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Feb. 15 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that a securities class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
acquired securities of Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. ("Marathon"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ:MARA) between October 13, 2020 and
November 15, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada and alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

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

Marathon is a digital asset technology company that mines
cryptocurrencies with a focus on the blockchain ecosystem and the
generation of digital assets in U.S. The Company was formerly known
as "Marathon Patent Group, Inc." and changed its name to "Marathon
Digital Holdings, Inc." on March 1, 2021.

In October 2020, Marathon announced the formation of a new joint
venture with Beowulf Energy LLC ("Beowulf"), purportedly focused on
delivering low-cost power to Marathon's Bitcoin mining operations
(the "Beowulf Joint Venture"). In connection with that joint
venture, Marathon entered into a series of agreements with multiple
parties to design and build a data center in Hardin, Montana (the
"Hardin Facility"), issuing 6 million shares of its common stock to
the parties of those agreements.

According to the complaint, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (i) the Beowulf Joint Venture, as it related to the Hardin
Facility, implicated potential regulatory violations, including
U.S. securities law violations; (ii) as a result, the Beowulf Joint
Venture subjected Marathon to a heightened risk of regulatory
scrutiny; (iii) the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a
material negative impact on the Company's business and commercial
prospects; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On November 15, 2021, Marathon disclosed that "the Company and
certain of its executives received a subpoena to produce documents
and communications concerning the Hardin, Montana data center
facility" and advised that the SEC may be investigating whether or
not there may have been any violations of the federal securities
laws.

On this news, Marathon's stock price fell $20.52 per share, or
27.03%, to close at $55.40 per share on November 15, 2021.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 15, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Marathon securities, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/marathondigitalholdingsinc-mara-shareholder-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-468/
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]

MEDALLION FINANCIAL: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Medallion Financial Corp. (NASDAQ: MFIN) resulting
from allegations that Medallion may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Medallion securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2234.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On December 29, 2021, before the market opened,
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), filed a
complaint alleging the Company and two of its corporate officers
engaged in schemes in attempts to reverse the Company's declining
stock price. Charges in the complaint include violating antifraud,
books and records, internal controls, and anti-touting provisions
of federal securities laws amongst others.

On this news, Medallion's stock price fell sharply during intraday
trading on December 29, 2021.

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

META MATERIALS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of March 4 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Jan. 3
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Meta Materials Inc. f/k/a
Torchlight Energy Resources, Inc. (NASDAQ: MMAT, TRCH) (OTC: MMTLP)
between September 21, 2020 and December 14, 2021, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Meta investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Meta class action, go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2224.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) the business combination of Torchlight Energy Resources, Inc.
and Metamaterial Inc. would result in an SEC investigation and
subpoena in the matter captioned In the Matter of Torchlight Energy
Resources, Inc.; (2) the Company has materially overstated its
business connections and dealings; (3) the Company has materially
overstated its ability to produce and commercialize its products;
(4) the Company has materially overstated its products' novelty and
capabilities; (5) the Company's products did not have the potential
to be disruptive because, among other things, the Company priced
its products too high; and (6) as a result, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 4,
2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2224.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.

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

Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

MICHIGAN: Faces Class Action Over Lead-Contaminated Water
---------------------------------------------------------
George Hunter, writing for The Detroit News, reports that a
class-action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of four Benton Harbor
women who accuse state officials of making decisions "which
ultimately caused thousands of people to drink and use knowingly
unsafe lead-contaminated water."

The lawsuit, filed on Dec. 29 in the Michigan Court of Claims
against the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and
Energy, is the latest salvo in the controversy surrounding Benton
Harbor's water supply. The city exceeded state and federal action
levels for three straight years before its samples in the latest
August-November period tested right at the action level of 15 parts
of lead per billion.

In November, 16 Benton Harbor residents filed a lawsuit in federal
court alleging state officials concealed a "toxic lead emergency."

"It has been less than six years since the declaration of emergency
that made the Flint water crisis worldwide news," the plaintiffs'
attorneys at Detroit law firm Liddle Sheets Coulson wrote in
50-page lawsuit. "Unthinkably, here we are again.

"In the nation's most water-rich state, lead-contaminated municipal
water in a majority African American city has once again been
pumped into the homes and bodies of thousands of people, including
vulnerable children," the suit said.

EGLE's Eric Oswald, who is director of the Drinking Water and
Environmental Health Division, is named as a co-defendant in the
state suit. Department spokesman Hugh McDiarmid indicated on Jan. 3
the department would likely not comment on the lawsuit.

"To our knowledge, and the Attorney General's office's knowledge,
no one from EGLE or the state has been served with that lawsuit
yet," McDiarmid said.

For more than two years, state and city officials treated Benton
Harbor's drinking water with a corrosion chemical blend that failed
to control harmful levels of lead. Officials also rejected federal
requirements to fully study the treatment's effectiveness, citing
the cost.

As state officials waited to see if the treatment reduced lead to
acceptable levels, they didn't warn residents that their water was
unsafe or provide bottled water until late September.

But the latest lead sampling results have encouraged state
officials. "This is encouraging news, an indication that corrosion
control treatment is taking hold and reducing the amount of lead
getting into the water," Oswald said in a mid-December statement.

The lawsuit is less enthusiastic.

"Benton Harbor's approximately 10,000 residents have received their
water from a

municipal system that repeatedly triggered alarms that required
specific State action. Yet, only recently . . . did the State take
the shamefully minimal step of telling them to stop drinking the
poisonous water," the state lawsuit said.

"While the State did not force Benton Harbor to change water
sources as it did with Flint, it nevertheless undertook a series of
affirmative, deliberate, and conscious acts and decisions directed
at Benton Harbor which ultimately caused thousands of people to
drink and use knowingly unsafe, lead-contaminated water from a
system it knew had higher lead levels than Flint's ever recorded,"
the suit said.

"The State knew that corrosive water was being sent through the
Benton Harbor municipal system's lead piping without adequate
corrosion control measures, yet continued to order Benton Harbor to
unilaterally apply knowingly ineffective corrosion control
measures, sending lead into people's homes and bodies without
informing the public about the dangers it knew were flowing through
the system," the lawsuit said.

The suit claims one of the plaintiffs, Angel Guyton, and her
children "have suffered serious physical and emotional injuries
including, but not limited to, skin rashes and blemishes, severe
emotional and psychological distress, and other injuries."

The other plaintiffs, Katie Lynn Reykjalin, Jennifer Janssen-Rogers
and Brooke Rosenbaum, each "suffered serious physical and emotional
injuries including, but not limited to, severe emotional and
psychological distress and other injuries," the lawsuit said.

Staff Writer Leonard N. Fleming contributed. [GN]

MITEK SYSTEMS: Class Action Says Firm Uses Improper Facial Scans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk at cookcountyrecord.com reports that Mitek Systems,
a provider of mobile and online identity verification, has been
targeted by a class action lawsuit, accusing the company of
digitally scanning users' faces allegedly without first obtaining
consent and providing certain notices required by Illinois'
biometrics privacy law.

On Dec. 16, attorneys with the firm of McGuire Law P.C., of
Chicago, filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against Mitek,
which is based in San Diego.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of named plaintiff Joshua Johnson,
identified in the complaint only as a resident of Illinois.

According to the lawsuit, Johnson claims to have uploaded an image
of his driver's license and a selfie photograph of his face, to
become a verified user of the HyreCar app. HyreCar is an online car
rental company, and is purportedly one of the clients that uses
Mitek's systems to quickly and remotely onboard new users.

According to the complaint, Mitek's systems then scanned the
digital images of Johnson's face, creating and storing a template
of his facial geometry, to allow HyreCar to quickly recognize and
verify Johnson's identity later.

According to the complaint, Mitek's sytems work similarly across
the network of clients to whom the company provides similar
customer identity verification services.

The complaint does not estimate how many such clients Mitek
services globally, or in Illinois.

However, the complaint asserts Mitek provides such services to
various clients operating in Illinois, without first obtaining
consent from those clients' customers, or providing those people
with certain data retention schedules and notices, allegedly as
required by the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA.)

The complaint seeks to expand the action to include anyone who
similarly uploaded their facial images to an online company which
used Mitek's systems to verify their identity. [GN]

MORGAN STANLEY: Settles Data Security Class Action for $60MM
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Morgan Stanley
(MS.N) agreed to pay $60 million to settle a lawsuit by customers
who said the Wall Street bank exposed their personal data when it
twice failed to properly retire some of its older information
technology.

A preliminary settlement of the proposed class action on behalf of
about 15 million customers was filed on Dec. 31 in Manhattan
federal court, and requires approval by U.S. District Judge Analisa
Torres.

Customers would receive at least two years of fraud insurance
coverage, and each can apply for reimbursement of up to $10,000 in
out-of-pocket losses.

Morgan Stanley denied wrongdoing in agreeing to settle, and has
made "substantial" upgrades to its data security practices,
according to settlement papers.

Customers accused Morgan Stanley of having in 2016 failed to
decommission two wealth management data centers before the
unencrypted equipment, which still contained customer data, was
resold to unauthorized third parties.

They also said some older servers containing customer data went
missing after Morgan Stanley transferred them in 2019 to an outside
vendor. Morgan Stanley later recovered the servers, court papers
show.

Morgan Stanley said in an email on Jan. 3 it had notified all
customers who may have been affected and was pleased to settle the
lawsuit.

In October 2020, Morgan Stanley agreed to pay a $60 million civil
fine to resolve U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
accusations concerning the incidents, including that its
information security practices were unsafe or unsound.

The case is In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 20-05914. [GN]

NATIONAL GAS: Metzler Slams Pre-recorded Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Metzler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. National Gas & Electric, LLC, Defendants, Case
22-cv-00005 (S.D. Tex., January 3, 2021) seeks damages, restitution
and injunctive relief arising from violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

National Gas & Electric is a power utility company. In order to
promote its services, it used an auto-dialer with a pre-recorded
message to call Metzler's cellular telephone number without his
prior express consent, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
      SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone: 305-479-2299
      Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


NATWEST MARKETS: Manipulates Secondary Cash Market, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT CHARLES CLASS A, L.P., individually on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATWEST MARKETS PLC,
NATWEST MARKETS SECURITIES INC. (F/K/A RBS SECURITIES INC.) AND
JOHN DOE 1-50 Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-01709 (D. Conn.,
December 23, 2021) is a class action seeking damages against the
Defendants to redress injury caused by their intentional
manipulation of secondary cash market of bills, notes, and bonds
issued by the United States Department of the Treasury and the
market for Treasury Securities for future delivery and options on
those contracts, that traded on various platforms during the period
of at least January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2018 in violation
of the Commodity Exchange Act and common law.

The Defendants allegedly used a manipulative device known as
"spoofing," whereby its employees placed orders for Treasury
Futures and Treasury Securities to send false and illegitimate
supply and demand signals to an otherwise efficient market and then
canceled those orders before execution. As a result, Defendants
caused prices in both markets to be artificial throughout the Class
Period to benefit their trading positions financially, at the
expense of other investors, like Plaintiff and the Class, says the
suit.

Plaintiff Robert Charles Class A, L.P. transacted in Treasury
Futures and Options during the Class Period on the Chicago Board of
Trade and was injured and suffered losses from trading at
artificial prices caused by Defendants' alleged manipulation.

NatWest Markets PLC, formerly known as The Royal Bank of Scotland
plc, is a global banking and financial services company that is
headquartered in London, England.

NatWest Markets Securities Inc. operates as a wholly owned
subsidiary of NWMP. NWMSI is registered with the SEC as a
broker-dealer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Erin Green Comite, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537-5537
          Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                  ecomite@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Thomas K. Boardman, Esq.
          Louis F. Burke, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: tboardman@scott-scott.com
                  lburke@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          600 West Broadway, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
          E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com

NCAA: Issue for Interlocutory Appeal Certified in Johnson Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RALPH "TREY" JOHNSON, ET AL., individually and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, ET AL., Civil Action No. 19-5230 (E.D. Pa.),
Judge John R. Padova of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania issued an Order-Memorandum:

   a. granting the Motion of the Attended Schools to Certify
      Interlocutory Appeal of Ruling Denying Their Motion to
      Dismiss; and

   b. certifying the issue for interlocutory appeal:

      Whether NCAA Division I student athletes can be employees
      of the colleges and universities they attend for purposes
      of the Fair Labor Standards Act solely by virtue of their
      participation in interscholastic athletics.

Background

The First Amended Complaint alleges that student athletes who
attend colleges and universities in Division I of the National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and who engage in Division I
interscholastic athletic activity for those colleges and
universities that is unrelated to academics are student employees
similar to students engaged in work study programs and should be
paid for the time they spend in NCAA Division I interscholastic
athletics as if they were work study students.

The Complaint asserts claims for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, 43 Pa.
Stat. Section 333.101, et seq. (the "PMWA"), the New York Labor
Law, N.Y. Lab. Law Section 191, et seq. ("NYLL"), and the
Connecticut Minimum Wage Act, C.G.S.A. Sections 31-58, et seq.
("CMWA"). The Complaint also asserts claims for unjust enrichment
under Pennsylvania, New York, and Connecticut common law against
all Defendants. The Complaint seeks the approval of an FLSA
collective and classes to pursue the Pennsylvania, New York, and
Connecticut law claims.

On Aug. 25, 2021, the Court denied the Attended Schools Defendants'
("ASD") Motion to Dismiss. The ASD moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
FLSA and state statutory law claims as against them on the ground
that the Complaint does not allege facts that would establish that
the Plaintiffs are their employees, which is a requirement for
bringing a claim under the FLSA and the relevant state statutes The
ASD argued that the Plaintiffs could not be their employees for
three reasons: (1) student athletes such as the Plaintiffs are
amateurs; (2) the Department of Labor has determined that
interscholastic athletes are not employees for purposes of the
FLSA; and (3) the Complaint does not plausibly allege that the
Plaintiffs are employees pursuant to a multi-factor test used to
determine whether individuals are employees. The Court denied the
Motion to Dismiss as to all three of these arguments.

The ASD now asks the Court to certify the following issue for
interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b): Whether
NCAA Division I student athletes can be employees of the colleges
and universities they attend for purposes of the Fair Labor
Standards Act solely by virtue of their participation in
interscholastic athletics.

Discussion

The ASD argues that certification of the two issues they have
identified for interlocutory appeal would satisfy these criteria
because (1) the Court's Aug. 25, 2021 Order and accompanying
Memorandum present a "controlling question of law" that, if
reversed by the Third Circuit would result in dismissal of the
case; (2) the Order and Memorandum address questions over which
there is "substantial ground for difference of opinion," because
the Court's Order differs from the decisions of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Berger v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association, 843 F.3d 285 (7th Cir. 2016) and the Northern
District of California in Dawson v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, 250 F.Supp.3d 401 (N.D. Cal. 2017); and 3) immediate
review of the Order and Memorandum will "materially advance the
ultimate termination of the litigation" because, if the Order is
reversed, it will end the litigation as to all Defendants.

A. Controlling Question of Law

In order to state cognizable claims for violation of the FLSA, the
PMWA, the NYLL, and the CMWA, the Complaint must plausibly allege
that Plaintiffs are employees of the colleges and universities they
attend. Thus, the Court's Order and Memorandum, which "concluded
that the Complaint plausibly alleges that the Plaintiffs are
employees of the ASD for purposes of the FLSA," involves a
controlling question of law because an incorrect determination of
this issue "would constitute reversible error if presented on final
appeal."

Moreover, Judge Padova's analysis of the ASD's argument in their
Motion to Dismiss that the Plaintiffs cannot be the employees of
the colleges and universities they attend and for which they
compete in NCAA Division I athletics simply because they are
amateurs did not involve mixed questions of law and fact.
Accordingly, Judge Padova concludes that the Court's Aug. 25, 2021
Order and Memorandum involves a controlling issue of law.

B. Substantial Ground for Difference of Opinion

The ASD argue that there is conflicting precedent as to the correct
legal standard because two of the four courts that have examined
the question of whether NCAA Division I student athletes can be
employees of the colleges and universities they attend for purposes
of the FLSA solely by virtue of their participation in
interscholastic athletics have found, as a matter of law, that they
cannot.

Judge Padova concludes that there is "conflicting precedent as to
the correct legal standard" and, thus, that "there is substantial
ground for difference of opinion" as to whether NCAA Division I
student athletes can be employees of the colleges and universities
they attend for purposes of the FLSA solely by virtue of their
participation in interscholastic athletics.

C. Material Advancement of this Litigation's Ultimate Termination

In considering whether an interlocutory appeal would materially
advance the ultimate termination of litigation, courts have focused
on whether an appeal would (1) eliminate the need for trial, (2)
eliminate complex issues so as to simplify the trial, or (3)
eliminate issues to make discovery easier and less costly.
Certification is more likely to materially advance the litigation
where the appeal occurs early in the litigation, before extensive
discovery has taken place and a trial date has been set.

As Judge Padova mentioned, the ASD did not move to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' state law unjust enrichment claims. Thus, an
interlocutory appeal cannot eliminate the need for a trial in the
case. However, if the Third Circuit were to both reverse the
Court's decision that the Complaint plausibly states claims under
the FLSA and state statutory law and hold, as a matter of law, that
NCAA Division I student athletes cannot be employees of the
colleges and universities they attend for purposes of the FLSA
solely by virtue of their participation in interscholastic
athletics, all of the Plaintiffs' claims under the FLSA and state
statutory law would have to be dismissed, which should simplify
both discovery and any eventual trial. Moreover, the parties in the
case have not yet commenced discovery. Consequently, Judge Padova
concludes that interlocutory appeal could materially advance the
litigation.

Conclusion

Judge Padova concludes, for the reasons he stated, that all three
of the 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) factors exist in the case and that
the ASD have satisfied their "'burden of persuading the district
court that exceptional circumstances exist that justify a departure
from the basic policy of postponing appellate review until after
the entry of final judgment.'" Accordingly, he granted the instant
motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 28, 2021 Order-Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/279m3zhh from Leagle.com.


NEOPHOTONICS CORP: Parshall Balks at Merger Deal With Lumentum
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES PARSHALL v. NEOPHOTONICS CORPORATION, CHARLES J. ABBE, BANDEL
L. CARANO, MICHAEL J. SOPHIE, KIMBERLY Y. CHAINEY, RAJIV RAMASWAMI,
IHAB TARAZI, TIMOTHY S. JENKS, YANBING LI, and SHERI SAVAGE v.
NEOPHOTONICS CORPORATION, CHARLES J. ABBE, BANDEL L. CARANO,
MICHAEL J. SOPHIE, KIMBERLY Y. CHAINEY, RAJIV RAMASWAMI, IHAB
TARAZI, TIMOTHY S. JENKS, YANBING LI, and SHERI SAVAGE, Case No.
5:22-cv-00055 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 5, 2022) is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging that the
NeoPhotonics  and the members of NeoPhotonics' Board of Directors
violate Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, arising out of
their attempt to sell the Company to Lumentum Holdings Inc.,
through Lumentum's subsidiary Neptune Merger Sub, Inc.

On November 4, 2021, NeoPhotonics and Lumentum announced that they
had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement") pursuant to which, each NeoPhotonics stockholder will
receive $16.00 in cash for each share of NeoPhotonics common stock
they own.

On December 23, 2021, NeoPhotonics filed a Schedule 14A Definitive
Proxy 8 Statement (the "Proxy") with the SEC. Allegedly, the Proxy
is materially deficient and misleading because it fails to disclose
material information regarding the Company's financial projections
and the financial analyses that support the fairness opinion
provided by the Company's financial advisor, Union Square Advisors
LLC.

The stockholder vote to approve the Proposed Transaction is
forthcoming. Under the Merger Agreement, following a successful
stockholder vote, the Proposed Transaction will be consummated. For
these, the Plaintiff seeks to enjoin defendants from conducting the
stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until the
material information discussed below is disclosed to the holders of
the Company common stock, or, in the event the Proposed Transaction
is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the defendants'
violations of the Exchange Act, says the suit.

The Plaintiff is a continuous stockholder of NeoPhotonics.

NeoPhotonics develops, manufactures, and sells optoelectronic
products that transmit, receive and switch high-speed digital
optical signals for cloud and hyper-scale data center internet
content provider and telecom networks. The Company is the world's
primary supplier of tunable lasers that emit the ultra-pure light
required for the highest speed over distance fiber optic
communications links.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

NEW ENGLAND: Court Sides With Mintz in Immigrant Bond Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit confirmed
that immigration courts in New England can no longer detain certain
immigrants in bond hearings without the government providing proof
that they need to be detained.

The decision affirms a key holding in a landmark class action filed
in 2019 by Mintz and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
affiliates in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, which ended the
government's detention by default practice throughout New England.
In the lawsuit, a Boston federal judge ruled that the government's
practice of detaining certain immigrants by default violated both
due process and the Administrative Procedure Act. The ruling held
that class members in New England are entitled to bond hearings at
which the government bears the burden of justifying an immigrant's
detention, among other requirements. The Trump administration
appealed the class action victory in 2020.

"For 20 years, immigration authorities systematically jailed people
in violation of their constitutional right to due process of law,"
said Dan McFadden, staff attorney at the ACLU of Massachusetts.
"This new decision confirms that the federal court in Boston
correctly put an end to two decades of flawed proceedings in the
immigration courts that unlawfully deprived countless people of
their liberty. Thousands of immigrants throughout New England have
already benefited from this class action victory, and we are
gratified that the court's declaration will continue to protect
many more people for years to come."

"The government's systemic violations of due process in the
detention of noncitizens accused of being in the country illegally
ran afoul of the U.S. constitution for years," said Mathilda
McGee-Tubb, an attorney with Mintz. "Since this first-of-its-kind
class action victory, immigrants now have access to a fairer
proceeding to determine whether they can remain in their
communities while their removal proceedings are ongoing."

The Mintz pro bono team includes Members Susan Finegan and Susan
Cohen, Special Counsel Andrew Nathanson, and Associates Mathilda
McGee-Tubb, Ryan Dougherty and Audrey McQuade.[GN]

OLD NAVY: May 31 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------
Hip2Save reports that if you made any in-store or online purchases
at an Old Navy store or an Old Navy Outlet Store between November
12, 2015, and December 2, 2021, you may be eligible to receive
store credit for up to $10 on a future purchase.

This class action settlement is the result of a court case (Barba
v. Old Navy et al.) that alleges Old Navy used false or misleading
listing prices and deceived customers about how much they were
saving on advertised sales.

Old Navy denies these allegations but has agreed to a settlement to
avoid the cost of a trial.

To file a claim, you must have made at least one purchase from Old
Navy in the US (with the exception of purchases made while in
Missouri) during the window of time mentioned above.

Customers who do not show proof of a qualifying purchase or who
show proof of qualifying purchases that total less than $90 will be
eligible to receive a $5 certificate that can be used at Old Navy.
Customers who show proof of qualifying purchases that total $90 or
more will be eligible to receive two $5 certificates for a total of
$10.

Claims must be filed (either online or by mail) by May 31, 2022.
Head on over here to submit a claim form or to learn more about
this class action settlement. [GN]

ORGANOGENESIS HOLDINGS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Firm Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP Organogenesis Holdings
Inc. Notifies investors that a class action proceeding has been
filed against ("Organogenesis") (NASDAQ: ORGO). The proceedings
accuse Organogenesis of breach of federal securities law, including
omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations related to the
company's business, operations, and prospects. Organogenesis
investors suffered significant losses as a result of virtually
misleading statements to the general public.

Plaintiff's deadline: February 8, 2022

Class period: March 17, 2021 finished October 11, 2021

Contact a lawyer to discuss your rights:

James Malo, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Call charges are free (844)
887-9500 or email info@ktmc.com

Organogenesis Alleged misconduct

Organogenesis is a regenerative medicine company that develops,
manufactures and commercializes solutions for the advanced wound
care, surgical and sports medicine markets. The company's advanced
wound care products include sheep membrane allogeneic wound wound
coatings and surgical barriers for application in chronic and acute
wound care or surgical transplants in spinal, orthopedic, and
sports medicine applications. Is included.

upon October 12, 2021, Anonymous Report, VIC Report, Addressing
Organogenesis Published in Value Investors Club. The report claimed
that organogenesis was improperly billing the federal government. $
250 million Every year. In addition, the VIC report claimed that
organogenesis set the price for its new wound covering, affinity,
"extremely high.[,]"Medicare has made refunds, allowing doctors to
take advantage of the product through large rebates, and
Organogenesis has adopted similar tactics for its new PuraPly XT
products. In addition, the report said," Organogenesis tells
doctors. Often gave an ethically questionable podiatrist. Hurt from
covid, rebate of affinity[,]"And it"[t]These rebates can be over
30%, and doctors pocket the spread between the amount paid and the
amount paid for organ formation. In response to this news, the
stock price of organ formation has fallen. $ 1.70 Close per share
or at 14.11% $ 10.35 Per share October 12, 2021.

Organogenesis Investors At the latest February 8, 2022Demands to be
appointed as the main plaintiff's representative of the class
through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP You may choose to remain
a member of another lawyer or class who was absent without doing
anything. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP We encourage
organogenesis investors who have suffered significant losses to
contact the company directly for more information.

Who can be the primary plaintiff?

The plaintiff chief is the representative party acting on behalf of
all class members in conducting proceedings. The main plaintiff is
usually an investor or a small group of investors who have the
greatest financial benefit and are appropriate and typical for the
proposed class of investors. The Chief Plaintiff selects the Chief
Plaintiff and the attorneys representing the class, who, if
approved by the court, are the Chief or Class attorneys. The
ability to share recovery is unaffected by the decision to act as
the main plaintiff.

About KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP Prosecute class actions in state
and federal courts nationwide and around the world. The company has
built a global reputation for excellence and has recovered billions
of dollars for victims of fraud and other corporate fraud. All of
our work is driven by the common goal of protecting investors,
consumers, employees and others from fraud, abuse, misconduct and
negligence by businesses and trustees. After all, if the bad guys
paid and recovered their assets, we were successful. The complaints
in this proceeding were not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP.For more information Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP Please
come www.ktmc.com.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
(844) 887-9500 (toll free) [GN]

ORGANOGENESIS HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Organogenesis Holdings Inc. ("Organogenesis" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: ORGO) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, and docketed under 21-cv-06845, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Organogenesis
securities between March 17, 2021 and October 11, 2021, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Organogenesis securities
during the Class Period, you have until February 8, 2022 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

[Click here for information about joining the class action]

Organogenesis is a regenerative medicine company that develops,
manufactures, and commercializes solutions for the advanced wound
care and surgical and sports medicine markets in the U.S. The
Company's products include, among others, "Affinity" and "PuraPly
XT". Affinity is a wound covering product used to support the
treatment of a variety of wound sizes and types. PuraPly XT is an
antimicrobial barrier used for a broad variety of wound types.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Organogenesis improperly billed the federal
government for its Affinity and PuraPly XT products by, among other
things, setting the price for those products multiple times higher
than similar products; (ii) the Company improperly induced doctors
to use its Affinity and PuraPly XT products through lucrative
reimbursements; (iii) as a result of all the foregoing, the
Company's revenue and profits derived from its Affinity and PuraPly
XT products were at least in substantial part unsustainable; and
(iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 12, 2021, an anonymous short report addressing
Organogenesis was published on Value Investors Club, an online
website where investors share investment ideas (the "VIC Report").
The VIC Report alleged, among other issues, that the Company has
been improperly billing the federal government for $250 million
annually. The VIC Report also alleged that the Company had set the
price for its new wound covering, Affinity, "exorbitantly high[,]"
which Medicare reimbursed, while making the product lucrative for
doctors to use through large rebates, and that the Company employed
a similar tactic for its new PuraPly XT product.

On this news, Organogenesis' stock price fell $1.70 per share, or
14.11%, to close at $10.35 per share on October 12, 2021.

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

PADDYWAX LLC: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paddywax, LLC. The
case is styled as Aretha Crosson, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Paddywax, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00034 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 4, 2022).

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

Paddywax -- https://paddywax.com/ -- is an artisan candle company
in Nashville, Tennessee, founded in 1996.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


PALISADES INSURANCE: Brown Files Suit in N.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Palisades Insurance
Company. The case is styled as Mayritta Brown, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Palisades Insurance
Company, Case No. 5:22-cv-00008-MAD-ATB (N.D.N.Y., Jan. 4, 2022).

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

Palisades Insurance Co. doing business as Plymouth Rock Assurance
Corporation -- https://www.plymouthrock.com/ -- operates as an
insurance company. The Company offers auto, home, motorcycle,
renters, condos, and umbrella insurance services
.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com


PANKOW OPERATING: Court Denies Sachs' Bid to Remand Wage Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KENT SACHS, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
PANKOW OPERATING, INC., a California Corporation, CHARLES PANKOW
BUILDERS, LTD., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-07742-AB (ADSx) (C.D.
Cal.), Judge Andre Birotte, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California denied Sachs' Motion to Remand.

Factual Background

In the Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint, he alleges that the
Defendant, a construction company, employed him as an "hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee" from June 2017 to June 2020, in the County of
Los Angeles. He alleges that the Defendant failed to compensate him
for all hours worked, for missed meal periods, and for missed rest
breaks. He alleges that the Defendant either knew or should have
known both that he was entitled to overtime compensation and that
he was not receiving such compensation for all overtimes hours
worked. Similar allegations are made concerning the way in which
work time was calculated.

Moreover, the Plaintiff alleges failures to provide proper rest
breaks and meal periods, failures to provide at least minimum wages
or compensation, failures to provide all unpaid wages at the time
of discharge or resignation, failures to provide complete and
accurate wage statements, failures to keep complete and accurate
payroll records, and failures to reimburse "necessary
business-related expenses." The Plaintiff's employment with Pankow
was governed by a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA").

Procedural Background

On July 27, 2021, the Plaintiff filed his Complaint against
Defendant (as well as Pankow Operating, Inc. and 100 Doe
defendants), including nine causes of action alleging violations of
the California Labor Code and one cause of action alleging
violation of the California Business & Professions Code. In
particular, the Plaintiff's causes of action allege (i) unpaid
overtime, (ii) unpaid meal period premiums, (iii) unpaid rest
period premiums, (iv) unpaid minimum wages, (v) final wages not
timely paid, (vi) wages not timely paid during employment, (vii)
non-compliant wage statements, (viii) failure to keep requisite
payroll records, (ix) unreimbursed business expenses, and (x)
unfair competition.

On Sept. 29, 2021, Defendant Charles Pankow Builders, Ltd. removed
the state court action to the Court, claiming it had a right to do
so on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. More
specifically, Pankow argued that removal was justified because
there was "federal preemption based on Section 301 of the Labor
Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. Section 185." On Oct.
29, 2021, the Plaintiff filed his Motion to Remand Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1447.

Discussion

Resolution of the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand depends on proper
interpretation and application of Section 301(a) of the Labor
Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), which states: Suits for
violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization
representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined
in this chapter, or between any such labor organizations, may be
brought in any district court of the United States having
jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in
controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.

In order to determine whether a cause of action is preempted by
Section 301, the Ninth Circuit follows the two-part Burnside test
(See Burnside v. Kiewit Pacific Corp., 491 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th
Cir. 2007)). At the first step, the Court must determine "whether
the asserted cause of action involves a right conferred upon an
employee by virtue of state law, not by a CBA. If the right exists
solely as a result of the CBA, then the claim is preempted, and our
analysis ends there." If the right exists independently of a CBA,
then, at the second step, the Court must determine whether the
right still "substantially depends" on analyzing the relevant CBA.
Where there is substantial dependence, there is preemption by
Section 301. Moreover, where the right in question neither exists
solely as a result of the CBA nor substantially depends on analysis
of the CBA, the cause of action is not preempted by Section 301 and
does not arise under federal law. In such cases, it would be proper
for the Court to remand the cause of action to state court.

A. Plaintiff's First Cause of Action

The Plaintiff's first cause of action alleges that the Defendant
failed to compensate him for overtime work. The Defendant argues
that removal of this claim was warranted because the Plaintiff's
right to overtime compensation existed solely as a result of the
CBA that governed the Plaintiff's employment. In other words,
Defendant argues that this cause of action is preempted by Section
301 because it does not get past the first step of the Burnside
test.

Judge Birotte agrees. On Plaintiff's view, there was no Section 301
preemption in the case because his first claim was brought in state
court, on the basis of a state-law right that is fully independent
of the applicable CBA. But the Plaintiff has no independent
state-law right to overtime compensation in the case, since neither
of the statutes he cites in fact apply to him; the Plaintiff's
right to overtime compensation exists solely as a result of the
applicable CBA. The Plaintiff's argument against preemption of his
first cause of action fails, meaning that his argument to remand
that claim fails as well.

B. Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action

The Plaintiff's second cause of action, alleging that the Defendant
did not pay him full meal period premiums, fails for similar
reasons. He Plaintiff bases his second cause of action on Cal. Lab.
Code Sections 226.7 and 512(a), as well as the "applicable IWC Wage
Order," which, again, is IWC Wage Order 16-2001.

Judge Birotte holds that neither the applicable Wage Order nor
Section 226.7 provides the Plaintiff with an independent state-law
right to meal period premiums. As with the Plaintiff's first cause
of action, the Plaintiff's second cause of action concerns a right
that solely exists as a result of the CBA. For this reason, the
Plaintiff's argument against preemption of the second cause of
action fails, as does his motion to remand that claim to state
court.

C. Plaintiff's Remaining Eight Causes of Action

The Defendant argues that the second step of the Burnside test
applies to these claims: Though these rights are grounded in state
law, they still "substantially depend" on analyzing the terms of
the CBA. To satisfy the second step of the Burnside test, the Court
must interpret the applicable CBA, rather than merely "look to" or
refer to it. That is, resolution of the claim in question must
require interpretation of a reasonably disputable part of the CBA.

At this stage in the litigation, Judge Birotte finds that it is
difficult for the Court to determine just what sort of role the CBA
will play in resolving these eight claims. Moreover, the Parties
say relatively little in their papers about why the remaining eight
claims do (or do not) satisfy the second part of the test. Since
"federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to
the right of removal," remanding these claims would ordinarily
appear to be appropriate.

However, it would be proper for the Court to exercise supplement
jurisdiction over these eight claims, because they and the first
two claims "derive from a common nucleus of operative fact." After
all, every one of the Plaintiff's claims are related to the
Defendant's alleged failures to pay the Plaintiff properly during
his time of employment with the Defendant. Therefore, Judge Birotte
chooses to exercise supplement jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's
remaining eight claims.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Birotte denied the Plaintiff's
Motion to Remand. The Motion is denied with respect to the first
two causes of action, on the grounds that they both concern rights
existing solely as a result of the applicable CBA (and are
therefore preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA). Moreover, the
Motion is denied with respect to the remaining eight causes of
action because the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over
them, on the grounds that they and the first two causes of action
derive from a common nucleus of operative fact. The Plaintiff's
case will remain before the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 28, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bdf2m3sr from Leagle.com.


PARTS AUTHORITY: Shortchanges Drivers' Reimbursements, Says Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berest Thompson, Andre Lesty, and Angel Terrero, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Parts Authority, LLC and Parts Authority, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 500141/2022 (N.Y. Sup., January 3, 2022) seeks
redress for Defendants' practice of paying employees' hourly wages
well below the minimum required by the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and various state labor laws.

Parts Authority, LLC and Parts Authority, Inc. together own and
operate a chain of approximately 200 automobile parts sales and
distribution stores in various states. It also operates numerous
automotive parts warehouses in various locations around the nation
and distribute automotive parts to their customers nationwide.

Parts Authority requires its delivery drivers to drive their own
personal vehicles to drive the "last leg" or "last mile" to deliver
the automotive parts to Parts Authority's customers. Plaintiffs
claim that Defendants systematically under-reimburses their
delivery drivers for vehicular wear and tear, gas, and other
driving-related expenses, thereby reducing their take home pay well
below the minimum wage. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
     FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
     One North Broadway, Suite 900
     White Plains, NY 10601
     Tel: (914) 298-3281
     Fax: (914) 824-1561
     Email: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com

            - and -

     Mark Potashnick, Esq.
     WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
     11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
     St. Louis, MO 63141
     Telephone: (314) 997-9150 ext. 2
     Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
     Email: markp@wp-attorneys.com


PAYSAFE LIMITED: Robbins Geller Reminds of February 8 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that
purchasers of Paysafe Limited f/k/a Foley Trasimene Acquisition
Corp. II (NYSE: PSFE; BFT) securities between December 7, 2020 and
November 10, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period") have
until February 8, 2022 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in
Wiley v. Paysafe Limited f/k/a Foley Trasimene Acquisition Corp.
II, No. 21-cv-10611 (S.D.N.Y.). Commenced on December 10, 2021 and
pending before Judge Alison J. Nathan, the Paysafe class action
lawsuit charges Paysafe and certain of Foley Trasimene Acquisition
Corp. II's ("FTAC") top executives with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Paysafe 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 Paysafe class action lawsuit must be filed with the
court no later than February 8, 2022.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: FTAC was a special purpose acquisition company
("SPAC" or "blank-check company") formed for the purpose of
effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition,
stock purchase, reorganization, or similar business combination
with one or more businesses. Paysafe provides digital commerce
solutions and claims that its solutions extend beyond the
card-based payments functionality of traditional payment vendors by
providing the advanced capabilities of digital wallets, alternative
payment methods, and digital currency transactions. On December 7,
2020, FTAC announced that it and Paysafe Group Holdings Limited
entered into a definitive agreement and plan of merger, and that
upon closing of the transaction the newly combined company will
operate as Paysafe with its shares listed on the New York Stock
Exchange under the symbol PSFE. Prior to the merger, FTAC's common
shares traded on the NYSE under the symbol BFT.

The Paysafe class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that: (i) Paysafe was being negatively impacted by
gambling regulations in key European markets; (ii) Paysafe was
encountering performance challenges in its Digital Wallet segment;
(iii) new eCommerce customer agreements were being pushed back; and
(iv) as a result, defendants' positive statements about Paysafe's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On November 11, 2021, Paysafe announced that it was revising its
revenue guidance for the full year 2021 downward from a range of
$1,530 - $1,550 to a range of $1,470 - $1,480. Paysafe attributed
the revision to "[g]ambling regulations and softness in key
European markets and performance challenges impacting the Digital
Wallet segment" and "[t]he modified scope and timing of new
eCommerce customer agreements relative to the Company's original
expectations for these agreements." On this news, Paysafe's share
price fell by more than 40%, 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 Paysafe
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Paysafe 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 Paysafe class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Paysafe class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the Paysafe 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]

PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA: Snee Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Philips North
America, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Thomas Snee,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Philips North America, LLC, Philips Healthcare Informatics, Inc.,
Philips RS North America LLC formerly known as: Respironics, Inc.,
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., Case No. 1:22-cv-10011 (D.
Mass., Jan. 4, 2022).

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

Philips -- https://www.usa.philips.com/ -- is a health technology
company improving people's health and well-being through meaningful
innovation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Pastor, Esq.
          PASTOR LAW OFFICE, LLP
          63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (617) 742-9700
          Fax: (617) 742-9701
          Email: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Fuller Appeals Ruling in Hogan Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Movant GEORGE JAMES FULLER filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled PATRICK HOGAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PILGRIM'S
PRIDE CORPORATION, WILLIAM W. LOVETTE, FABIO SANDRI, Defendants,
Case No. 16-cv-02611-RBJ, in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado - Denver.

The lawsuit is a federal securities action against Pilgrim, a
producer of broiler chickens; William W. Lovette, Pilgrim's CEO at
times relevant to the case; and Fabio Sandri, Pilgrim's CFO at
times relevant to the case ("Defendants"). The Lead Plaintiff,
George Fuller, asserts claims on behalf of himself and others, who
purchased Pilgrim securities between Feb. 21, 2014, and Nov. 17,
2016.

Patrick Hogan was the named plaintiff when this putative class
action was filed. There was some early jockeying for the "lead
plaintiff" designation, but George Fuller was ultimately appointed
as Lead Plaintiff on April 4, 2017. However, there has never been a
request to change the caption.

Mr. Fuller purchased 3,859 shares of Pilgrim stock on Jan. 16,
2015, at the price of $34 per share and 3,627 additional at $27.95
per share. The gist of his complaint is that the Defendants
concealed their participation in a price-fixing conspiracy that
began as early as 2007 and continued through at least November
2016, instead falsely attributing Pilgrim's success to operational
improvements, resulting in the Plaintiff's purchasing his Pilgrim
shares at artificially inflated prices.

On March 14, 2018, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss what by then was the Plaintiff's first amended complaint.
The Plaintiff moved for reconsideration, based in part on a
Northern District of Illinois case that he characterized as an
intervening change in the law.

The Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on June 8, 2020,
more than two years after the dismissal of the case without
prejudice and one and one-half years after leave to amend was
granted.

On July 31, 2020, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint. Their primary arguments were that the
Plaintiff's Section 10(b) claims were time-barred by the five year
statute of repose for securities actions found at 28 U.S.C. Section
1658(b)(2), and that the Plaintiff lacked standing to bring any
remaining claims.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on December 13, 2021, the
District of Colorado denied the Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration of the order and judgment dismissing his second
amended complaint.

Mr. Fuller now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated November
29, 2021, denying his motion to alter or amend the amended final
judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e); Court's
Order and Judgment dated April 16, 2021 and April 19, 2021,
granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint;
Court's Order dated November 9, 2018, denying his motion for
reconsideration; and Court's Order and Final Judgment dated March
14, 2018, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss.

The appellate case is captioned as Hogan, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride
Corporation, et al., Case No. 21-1445, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on December 29, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Docketing statement, transcript order form and notice of
appearance is due on January 12, 2022 for George James Fuller; and

   -- Notice of appearance is due on January 12, 2022 for William
W. Lovette, Pilgrim's Pride Corporation and Fabio Sandri.[BN]

Movant-Appellant GEORGE JAMES FULLER is represented by:

          Rusty Glenn, Esq.
          SHUMAN LAW FIRM - DENVER
          600 17th Street, Suite 2800 South
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 861-3003
          E-mail: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

               - and -

          J. Ryan Lopatka, Esq.
          Kim E. Miller, Esq.
          KAHN, SWICK & FOTI
          250 Park Avenue, Suite 2040
          New York, NY 10177
          Telephone: (212) 696-3730

Defendants-Appellees PILGRIM'S PRIDE CORPORATION, WILLIAM W.
LOVETTE, and FABIO SANDRI are represented by:

          Caitlin C. McHugh, Esq.
          LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE
          1630 Welton Street, Suite 200A
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 623-9000

               - and -

          Jonathan Polkes, Esq.
          Caroline J. Zalka, Esq.
          WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES
          767 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3301
          New York, NY 10153
          Telephone: (212) 310-8000
          E-mail: jonathan.polkes@weil.com
                  caroline.zalka@weil.com  

               - and -

          John Anderson Fagg, Jr., Esq.
          Mark A. Nebrig, Esq.
          Nicole E. Schiavo, Esq.
          MOORE & VAN ALLEN
          100 North Tryon Street, Suite 4700
          Charlotte, NC 28202-4003

PJ NORTH: Faces Davis Suit Over Unpaid OT for Delivery Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT DAVIS and BAILEY PADGETT, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PJ NORTH CAROLINA, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-00531-D (E.D.N.C., December 29, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to
compensate the Plaintiffs and similarly situated delivery drivers
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs Davis and Padgett were employed by the Defendant as an
hourly-paid delivery drivers from approximately June 2019 until
August 2020 and from approximately November 2020 until March 2021,
respectively.

PJ North Carolina, LLC is an owner and operator of multiple Papa
John's franchises in North Carolina. [BN]

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

                 - and –
        
         Kristin Oakley, Esq.
         RICCI LAW FIRM, P.A.
         2221 Stantonsburg Road
         Greenville, NC 27834
         Telephone: (252) 752-7785
         Facsimile: (252) 752-1016
         E-mail: kgoakley@riccilawnc.com

PRATT & WHITNEY: Tucker Sues Over Illegal "No-Poach Agreement"
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRYANT TUCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRATT & WHITNEY DIVISION; QUEST GLOBAL
SERVICES-NA, INC.; BELCAN LLC; CYIENT, INC.; PARAMETRIC SOLUTIONS,
INC.; and AGILIS ENGINEERING, INC., Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-01704 (D. Conn., December 23, 2021) is a class action
brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act arising from a
no-solicitation and no-hiring agreement, combination, or conspiracy
among Defendants pursuant to which each agreed not to recruit or
hire each other's employees without prior approval.

According to the complaint, beginning at least by 2011 and
continuing until at least 2019, senior executives and managers at
Defendants restrained competition in the labor market for employees
-- principally engineers and other skilled aerospace workers -- by
suppressing job mobility and compensation.

Allegedly, the Defendants prevented that competition through their
illegal conspiracy, apparently concluding that the profits to be
made by suppressing wages in the labor market outweighed the
benefits to be gained from competing with each other in the labor
market.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant QuEST and brings
this suit individually and on behalf of a proposed Class of
similarly-situated employees to recover damages and to prevent
Defendants from retaining the benefits of their antitrust
violations.

The Defendants include Pratt & Whitney, one of the largest
aerospace engine design, manufacture, and service companies in the
United States, as well as five outsource engineering supply
companies whose employees performed work for Pratt & Whitney on a
project basis. The Supplier Defendants include QuEST, Belcan,
Cyient, Parametric, and Agilis. The Supplier Defendants all
employed skilled aerospace workers to perform outsourcing projects
for Pratt & Whitney.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          N. Kane Bennett, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Shapiro, Esq.
          AETON LAW PARTNERS LLP
          311 Centerpoint Drive
          Middletown, CT 06457
          Telephone: (860) 724-2160
          E-mail: nkb@aetonlaw.com
                  jms@aetonlaw.com

               - and -

          Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
          Robert J. Wozniak, Jr., Esq.
          Brian M. Hogan, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Rd, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          E-mail: dmillen@fklmlaw.com
                  rwozniak@fklmlaw.com
                  bhogan@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
          Jonathan M Jagher, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          923 Fayette St.
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 234-6487
          E-mail: kjustice@fklmlaw.com
                  jjagher@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          John A. Kehoe, Esq.
          Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
          KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C.
          Two Penn Center Plaza
          1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 792-6676
          E-mail: jkehoe@kehoelawfirm.com
                  myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces DayQuil False Advertising Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action alleges Procter & Gamble has falsely advertised
DayQuil cough medicine as "Non-Drowsy" even though one of the
product's active ingredients is known to cause drowsiness.

According to the 21-page lawsuit, DayQuil over-the-counter cough
medicine contains dextromethorphan hydrobromide (DXM), a common
side effect of which is drowsiness. The case claims consumers have
been misled by the product's packaging into believing the medicine
would not cause drowsiness, and were thus overcharged for DayQuil.

"Defendant labeled the products this way because it intended
consumers to rely on the labels and to believe that the products
would not cause drowsiness, so that consumers would buy more
products or pay more for them," the complaint alleges.

Per the case, drowsiness is a documented side effect of DXM even at
recommended doses. Thus, because the DayQuil products are labeled
as non-drowsy, consumers reasonably expect that drowsiness is not a
side effect and that the medicine will not cause drowsiness, the
suit states.

According to the lawsuit, the DayQuil product's packaging contains
no language that a reasonable consumer would understand to mean
that the medication causes drowsiness. The complaint contends that
a medicine's propensity to cause drowsiness is material to a
reasonable consumer given non-drowsy medicines are preferred in
certain situations, including when an individual is planning to
engage in activities for which they're required to be alert, such
as work or driving.

The plaintiff in the case, who claims to have become "unexpectedly
drowsy" after taking DayQuil in late 2021, says she would not have
purchased the medicine had she known it would cause drowsiness.

The plaintiff looks to represent anyone who purchased a non-drowsy
DayQuil product in the U.S. during the applicable statute of
limitations, as well as several state-specific subclasses. [GN]

PURDUE PHARMA: Wyoming Set to Receive Opioid Settlement Payout
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jasmine Hall, writing for Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, reports that
Wyoming personal injury lawyer Jason Ochs spent years fighting for
accountability for primary pharmaceutical distributors' role in the
opioid epidemic, and it has finally paid off.

As the state Attorney General's office and individual
municipalities enter into the OneWyo Opioid Settlement Agreement
before the Jan. 2 deadline, many are set to receive a portion of
the $26 billion payout from the global class-action suit.

The funds are designed to be used for mitigation, treatment,
education and emergency assistance for opioid abatement. The
agreed-upon settlements will also impose transformative changes on
the way pharmaceutical companies conduct their business.

Within the proposed distribution plan of the $52 million included
in the OneWyo Opioid Settlement Agreement, the state will receive
35% of the funding, and cities, towns and counties will receive the
remaining 65%. This will go into general fund accounts, but must be
earmarked for specific uses.

Ochs represents the cities of Cheyenne, Casper, Rock Springs,
Riverton and Carbon County, with the latter being the first to
enter into litigation. He said due to their incorporation of
private counsel and lawsuits on the behalf of the local
governments, Wyoming received double the amount it could have
acquired.

"I think they deserve a lot of credit, because they stuck their
necks out, they engaged in something that was brand new," he said.
"This had never been done before."

The historic case resulted in a settlement agreement with two
separate payouts. Major pharmaceutical distributors McKesson,
Cardinal Health and AmerisourceBergen are responsible for $18
billion over the course of 18 years, and Janssen, a subsidiary of
Johnson and Johnson, will disburse $8 billion over 10 years.

According to Ochs, other local governments will likely receive an
additional payment from Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of
Oxycontin and the main target of the lawsuit. The company went
bankrupt during the litigation process, and now a bankruptcy court
will determine the level of compensation it will be responsible
for.

This is separate from the original case, as the companies did not
see their day in the courtroom for the national prescription opiate
litigation since a settlement agreement was reached.

Nonetheless, Ochs explained the twofold argument brought forward by
plaintiffs. They contended opioid manufacturers allegedly created a
public nuisance through negligence, because they were well aware of
how addictive the drugs were without disclosing the full effects.
Distributors are also obligated to file suspicious activity reports
if they saw large amounts of opioids going into certain
jurisdictions, and allegedly they ignored their responsibilities in
order to maximize profits.

He said he is conflicted in his feelings toward the out-of-court
resolution. It's been a long process to get to this point, and
local governments will receive funding as early as next year, but
the battle isn't over. He could see it going all the way to the
Supreme Court, which would risk the entire litigation
disappearing.

"Anytime we can bring money in to start, hopefully, curtailing this
issue is a good thing," he said. "But the other side of me is
frustrated because I don't know if the defendants are paying
enough."

Ochs started his journey leading up to this moment nearly four
years ago, after a close friend of his lost his son to an opioid
overdose. The son had received a 30-day prescription of OxyContin
following a shoulder surgery, but medical literature suggests any
use of the drug for longer than five or six days can lead to an
addiction.

"He was 19 years old, had the whole world ahead of him, and died in
his sleep from an overdose," he said. "I just saw the way that
impacted the family. I started meeting, through his father, other
parents who had the same story."

Although this has been a consistent issue across the nation, the
latest data available showed Wyoming providers wrote 57.1 opioid
prescriptions for every 100 persons, compared to the national
average of 51.4 prescriptions, according to the CDC.

The Wyoming Department of Health also recorded the deaths of 65
people within the state who died from opioid drug overdose in
2020.

Ochs and government officials said the settlement agreement is a
step in the right direction to address those impacts. Even the
language within the document holds pharmaceutical companies
responsible. It states, "Whereas, Pharmaceutical Supply Chain
Participants have contributed to the opioid epidemic, which has, in
turn, harmed the people and communities in the state of Wyoming."

Next year, participating local governments will receive their
allocated proportions to advance efforts to undo the damage.

Laramie County is currently set to receive the largest portion at
15.59%, which was based on population size and the significant
established ways they provide abatement assistance. Commissioner
Gunnar Malm confirmed the county entered and signed into the
agreement on Dec. 21. There is a possibility the county will
receive more than allotted if not every community joins in the
settlement.

"I know that addiction is a very real and deadly problem in our
community," said Malm. "But I do know that recovery is possible. I
know that personally. And so, I look forward to being able to
hopefully utilize these funds to restore people's lives and give
them a chance at a bonus life."

The next largest percentages of localized shares will go to Natrona
County at 7.9%, Sweetwater County at 7.6% and the city of Casper at
7.35%. Cities and towns had the opportunity to join in on the
settlement outside of their counties, which allocates funds
specifically to their local government body.

Cheyenne was a city that took on a private lawsuit with Ochs Law
Firm P.C. and authorized its representation to enter into the
agreement on Dec. 28. The City Council also approved a resolution
to allow Mayor Patrick Collins to execute settlement participation
forms for the Janssen settlement. The share includes 1.23%, which
comes out to be $414,740 over the next 18 years.

"It's to punish those who did it," said Collins, "but also to make
sure we use those dollars for good later." [GN]

PURITAN'S PRIDE: Loses Summary Judgment v. Mueller
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PENELOPE MUELLER, et al.,
PURITAN'S PRIDE, INC., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-06717-JD (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order denying summary
judgment across the board.

A status conference has been scheduled for January 27, 2022, at
10:00 a.m. The joint status conference statement should include the
parties' agreement on dates for the pretrial conference and trial,
says Judge Donato.

This order resolves defendant Puritan's Pride's motion for summary
judgment on plaintiffs' remaining claims in this class action.

The salient facts have been discussed in detail in prior orders.
Puritan's Pride markets and sells vitamins and supplements to
consumers through catalogs, email, mail and a website. Puritan's
Pride sells most of its products under buy-one-get-one (BOGO)
promotions, which plaintiffs challenge as deceptive.

The Plaintiffs alleged that these promotions were misleading
because the price of the offered "free" products were built into
the price of the purchased non-free product(s).

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 4, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t60d9Z at no extra charge.[CC]



R.C. BIGELOW: Class Certification Bid Filing Due May 3
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY BANKS and CAROL
CANTWELL, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. R.C. BIGELOW, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-06208-DDP-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge entered a scheduling order as follows:

   -- Last Date to Amend Pleadings or       February 4, 2022
      Add Parties

   -- Close of Class Certification          April 12, 2022
      Fact Discovery

   -- Last day to file Plaintiffs'          May 3, 2022
      Motion for Class Certification:

   -- Plaintiffs' Initial Expert            May 3, 2022
      Disclosures and Reports

   -- Last day to file Defendant's          July 1, 2022
      Opposition to Plaintiffs'
      Motion for Class Certification:

   -- Defendant's Expert Disclosures        July 1, 2022
      and Reports due:

   -- Last day to file Plaintiffs'          August 15, 2022
      Reply in Support of Motion
      for Class Certification:

   -- Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Expert           August 15, 2022
      Reports Due:

   -- Last Date to Conduct Settlement       August 22, 2022
      Conference or Mediation

   -- Hearing on Motion for Class           September 5, 2022
      Certification:

RC Bigelow manufactures specialty tea products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 3, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JNF3nf at no extra charge.[CC]



RAYMOND HANDLING: Faces Marquez's Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO MARQUEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself, all aggrieved
employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys
General v. RAYMOND HANDLING SOLUTIONS, INC., a California
Corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV46923 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., December 23, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's failure to comply with the California Labor Code
requirements due to alleged erroneous, willful, and intentional
employment practices and policies.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has had a consistent
policy and/or practice of: (1) failing to pay for all hours worked,
including overtime hours worked; (2) failing to pay minimum wage;
(3) failing to provide timely meal breaks; (4) failing to provide
proper cool-down rest periods; (5) failing to provide safe working
conditions; (6) failing to provide place of employment that is safe
and healthful; (7) failing to reimburse for required business
expenses; and (8) failing to provide accurate itemized wage
statements. The Defendant is allegedly liable for civil penalties
under the California Labor Code, including the Private Attorney
General Act.

Mr. Marquez worked for the Defendant as a utility worker from
November 2020 to June of 2021.

Raymond Handling Solutions, Inc. operates as a material handling
firm. The Company offers fleet solutions, warehouse designs,
conveyors and sortation, lighting, storage, parts, and other
related products. Raymond Handling Solutions serves customers in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
          KOUL LAW FIRM
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 761-5484
          Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
          E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com

               - and -

          Garen Majarian, Esq.
          MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC
          18250 Ventura Blvd.
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: garen@maiarianlawgroup.com

RED APPLE: Appellate Div. Affirms Dismissal of Flynn Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, JASON FLYNN, ETC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. RED APPLE
670 PACIFIC STREET, LLC, Defendant-Respondent. RENT STABILIZATION
ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK CITY, INC., COMMUNITY HOUSING IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM, INC. AND THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, Amici Curiae,
Index No. 159187/20, Appeal No. 14889, Case No. 2021-02737 ( N.Y.
App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New
York, First Department, issued an Order unanimously affirming,
without costs, the order of Judge Debra A. James of the Supreme
Court of New York County granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the putative class action to the extent of declaring in its favor.

The building at issue in the dispute received a temporary
certificate of occupancy on Aug. 8, 2016. On Aug. 8, 2016, the
building received a certification under Real Property Tax Law
(RPTL) Section 421-a (the 421-a program), which granted certain tax
benefits to the building, and, in exchange, the building became
subject to rent stabilization.

By rent-stabilized lease dated Aug. 18, 2016, Plaintiff Flynn, as
tenant, rented from the Defendant's predecessor in interest an
apartment in an 86-unit building at a rate of $3,350 per month for
the term Sept. 30, 2016 to Oct. 31, 2017. Together with the lease,
the Plaintiff executed a "One-Time Construction Concession Rider"
that provided in relevant part that "the legal regulated rent for
the subject apartment is $3,350 per month" and that the owner
granted the Plaintiff a one-time concession of $3,350 to be
credited during the 13th month of the lease term.

The building received its permanent certificate of occupancy on
Feb. 10, 2017. The Defendant purchased the building by deed dated
Feb. 1, 2018.

The Plaintiff brought the putative class action for rent
overcharges in violation of Rent Stabilization Law (Administrative
Code of City of NY) Section 26-512, based on the Defendant's
allegedly illegal calculation of the initial legal regulated rents
for apartments throughout the building. The complaint alleges that,
while the Defendant advertised to tenants the "net effective" rent,
which took certain rent concessions into account, when it
registered the legal regulated rent, the Defendant relied on the
higher, undiscounted figure in the lease.

The motion court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
complaint, declaring in its favor, that the one-time rent
concession did not constitute a basis for registering the "net
effective" rent under Rent Stabilization Code (RSC) (9 NYCRR)
Section 2521.1(g), which governs the registration of the initial
rents for buildings in the 421-a program. The court further held
that under the former version of CPLR 213-a, plaintiff's concession
rider was beyond the four-year lookback period, and that the
complaint did not allege a colorable claim of fraud so as to permit
examination of the full rent history.

The Defendant contends that, because the Plaintiff signed his lease
and the construction rider on Aug. 18, 2016, and the complaint was
filed on Oct. 29, 2020, the concession rider is outside the scope
of former CPLR 213-a's four-year lookback rule. However, the
limitations period was suspended under Executive Order 202.8, which
provides, "any specific time limit for the commencement, filing, or
service of any legal action, notice, motion, or other process or
proceeding, as prescribed by the procedural laws of the state,
including the civil practice law and rules is hereby tolled" from
March 20, 2020 to Nov. 3, 2020." Thus, the concession rider may be
considered under former CPLR 213-a.

The Plaintiff's chief contention is that the Defendant was required
under RSC 2521.1(g) to register his initial rent with the Division
of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR), taking into account the
one-month concession, and that, as the first tenant of the
apartment, he is an appropriate party to challenge whether
defendant registered the initial legal regulated rent for the
apartment correctly. RSC 2521.1(g) states in relevant part, "The
initial legal regulated rent for a housing accommodation
constructed pursuant to RPTL 421-a will be the initial adjusted
monthly rent charged and paid but not higher than the rent approved
by HPD."

The Defendant and amici curiae urge that DHCR has addressed this
very issue in its fact sheet 40, which provided that a one-time
rent concession that applies to a specific month, such as the
Plaintiff's, does not affect the legal regulated rent, whereas
prorated discounts are actually preferential rents, which must be
the rent registered under RSC 2521.1(g).

The Appellate Division holds that the Defendant is correct that the
concession rider must be read "in the light of the circumstances
existing at its making." Pursuant to the concession rider, the
parties plainly agreed that the one-month rent concession was a
one-time event that had no impact on the remainder of the
Plaintiff's rent payments. There is also no dispute that, at the
time the Plaintiff received the one-month rent concession, the
building had not yet received a permanent certificate of occupancy.
Under these circumstances, the Plaintiff failed to assert
allegations sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss his claim
that the Defendants attempted to defraud him by manipulating the
legal regulated rent.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 28, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2rurt9tv from Leagle.com.

Newman Ferrara LLP, New York (Roger A. Sachar -- rsachar@nfllp.com
-- of counsel), for the Appellant.

Belkin Burden Goldman, LLP, New York (Magda L. Cruz --
mcruz@bbgllp.com -- of counsel), for the Respondent.

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., New York (Jeffrey Turkel --
jturkel@rosenbergestis.com -- of counsel), for amici curiae.


REDWIRE CORPORATION: Robbins LLP Reminds of February 15 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP informs investors that a
class action was filed on behalf of all persons and entities that
purchased Redwire Corporation (NYSE: RDW) between August 11, 2021
and November 14, 2021. The complaint alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Redwire purports to offer mission
critical space solutions and high reliability components for the
next generation space economy.

There Were Material Weaknesses in Redwire Corporation's (RDW)
Internal Controls Over Financial Reporting

According to the complaint, Genesis Park Acquisition Corp., a
special purpose acquisition company, combined with certain entities
to become Redwire on September 2, 2021. On November 10, 2021,
Redwire announced it would postpone the release of its third
quarter earnings results. The Company "was notified by an employee
of potential accounting issues at a business subunit," and the
Audit Committee was investigating the allegations. On this news,
Redwire's stock price fell $1.92, or 16%, to close at $9.99 per
share on November 10, 2021. Then, on November 15, 2021, Redwire
stated it could not timely file its quarterly report for the period
ended September 30, 2021. Due to the investigation, "the Company
has not been able to finalize its financial statements or its
assessment of effectiveness of its disclosure controls and
procedures and any impact" on the report. On this news, the
Company's stock price fell over 8% over two consecutive trading
sessions to close at $10.32 per share on November 16, 2021, harming
investors.

If you purchased shares of Redwire Corporation (RDW) between August
11, 2021 and November 14, 2021, you have until February 15, 2022,
to ask the court to appoint you lead plaintiff for the class.

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

REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of February 8 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Revance Therapeutics, Inc. ("Revance" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: RVNC) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, and docketed under 21-cv-09585, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired Revance securities between November
25, 2019 and October 11, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Revance securities during
the Class Period, you have until February 8, 2022 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Revance, a biotechnology company, engages in the development,
manufacture, and commercialization of neuromodulators for various
aesthetic and therapeutic indications in the United States and
internationally. The Company's lead drug candidate is
DaxibotulinumtoxinA for injection ("DAXI"), which has completed
phase III clinical trials for the treatment of glabellar (frown)
lines and cervical dystonia; is in phase II clinical trials to
treat upper facial lines, moderate or severe dynamic forehead
lines, and moderate or severe lateral canthal lines; and has
completed Phase II clinical trials for the treatment of adult upper
limb spasticity and plantar fasciitis.

In November 2019, Revance issued a press release announcing that it
had submitted a Biologics License Application ("BLA") to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for DAXI to treat glabellar
(frown) lines (the "DAXI BLA").

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) quality control deficiencies
existed at the Company's manufacturing facility for DAXI; (ii) the
foregoing deficiencies decreased the likelihood that the FDA would
approve the DAXI BLA in its current form; (iii) accordingly, it was
unlikely that the DAXI BLA would obtain FDA approval within the
timeframe the Company had represented to investors; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On October 12, 2021, Revance disclosed that on July 2, 2021, the
FDA had issued a Form 483 notifying Revance of serious issues that
the FDA had observed during its inspection of the Company's
Northern California DAXI manufacturing facility. Among other
deficiencies, the FDA observed that "[t]he current manufacturing
process is not the process proposed for licensure" and Revance's
"Quality Unit lacks the responsibility and authority for control,
review, and approval for outsourced activities[.]" Significantly,
the Form 483 only came to light as a result of a Freedom of
Information Act request directed to the FDA.

On this news, Revance's stock price fell $6.85 per share, or 25%,
to close at $20.45 per share on October 12, 2021.

Then, on October 15, 2021, Revance issued a press release
announcing that it had received a Complete Response Letter ("CRL")
from the FDA, indicating that "the FDA has determined it is unable
to approve the BLA in its present form, and indicated that there
are deficiencies related to the FDA's onsite inspection at
Revance's manufacturing facility."

On this news, Revance's stock price fell $8.90 per share, or
39.19%, to close at $13.81 per share on October 18, 2021.

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

ROBERT BOSCH: Faces Class Action Over Titanium Drill Bit Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action alleges certain Bosch titanium drill bit products have
been falsely advertised in that they're made not from titanium but
an inferior-quality "nonstandard-US tool steel alloy," and are
coated with a "virtually non-existent" layer of titanium nitride.

The 49-page lawsuit against Robert Bosch Tool Corporation says that
optical emission spectrometer testing of a number of Bosch titanium
drill bits and drill bit sets has revealed that the products' base
metal is inferior to titanium. Similarly, energy dispersive x-ray
spectroscopic testing has revealed that the plating on the exterior
of the products is an ultra-thin ceramic layer of an entirely
different compound, the complaint claims.

The case charges that consumers have overpaid for the following
Bosch titanium drill bit items given the company has
"misrepresent[ed]" the products' composition, strength and overall
quality:

Bosch 9 pc. Titanium Drill Bit Set;
Bosch 5 pc. Titanium Drill Bit Set;
Bosch 14 pc. Titanium Drill Bit Set;
Bosch 21 pc. Titanium Drill Bit Set;
Bosch 23 pc. Titanium Drill Bit Set;
Bosch 29 pc. Titanium Drill Bit Set;
Bosch 10 pc. Titanium Drill Bit Set;
Bosch 15 pc. Titanium Drill Bit Set;
Bosch 3 Piece Titanium Step Drill Bit Set;
Bosch 13 in 1 Titanium Step Drill Bit;
Bosch 8 in 1 Titanium Step Drill Bit;
Bosch 1/2 Inch Titanium Countersink Drill Bit;
Bosch 27/64 Inch Titanium Drill Bit;
Bosch 25/64 Inch Titanium Drill Bit;
Bosch 1/4 Inch Titanium Drill Bit;
Bosch 3/8 Inch Titanium Drill Bit;
Bosch 1/2 Inch Titanium Drill Bit;
Bosch 1/8 Inch Titanium Drill Bit;
Bosch 1/16 Inch Titanium Drill Bit;
Bosch 13/64 Inch Titanium Drill Bit;
Bosch 9/64 Inch Titanium Drill Bit;
Bosch 5/64 Inch Titanium Drill Bit;
Bosch 7/64 Inch Titanium Drill Bit;
Bosch 5/32 Inch Titanium Drill Bit;
Bosch 3/16 Inch Titanium Drill Bit;
Bosch 7/16 Inch Titanium Drill Bit;
Bosch 1/16 Inch Titanium Drill Bit; and
Bosch 14 pc.

According to the complaint, the metal composition of a particular
tool is a material consideration for consumers given certain
metals, such as titanium, are significantly stronger than others. A
stronger metal means better strength-to-weight ratio, corrosion
resistance and a higher melting point compared to inferior
products, the lawsuit states. A reasonable consumer, the suit says,
believes higher quality metals such as titanium, one of the
strongest, most durable metals on the planet, can provide better
performance.

The case alleges, however, that the above-listed Bosch titanium
drill bits and drill bit sets, unbeknownst to buyers, are not made
of titanium as advertised. The lawsuit claims testing has revealed
that the products' base metal is made of an inferior quality
"nonstandard-US tool steel alloy," and that the titanium nitride
coating of the drill bits is a mere .00001535 inches thick.

The lawsuit alleges Bosch's misrepresentations are "likely to
continue to deceive and mislead reasonable consumers and the
general public."

"The Products Plaintiff received were worth less than the Products
for which he paid," the suit claims. "Plaintiff was injured in fact
and lost money as a result of Defendant's improper conduct."

The lawsuit looks to represent all consumers in the United States
who have purchased any of the Bosch titanium drill bit products
listed on this page. [GN]

ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Robbins LLP Reminds of February 15 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds investors that a
class action was filed on behalf of all persons and entities that
purchased Robinhood Markets, Inc. (NASDAQ: HOOD) pursuant to the
Company's July initial public offering ("IPO"). The complaint
alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Robinhood is a
financial services company known for pioneering commission-free
trades of stocks, exchange-traded funds ("ETFs") and
cryptocurrencies via a mobile app.

"significant investments designed to enhance the reliability and
scalability of [its] platform"

Robinhood Markets, Inc. (HOOD) Made Material Misstatements in its
Offering Documents in Support of its IPO

According to the complaint, Robinhood conducted its IPO on July 30,
2021, offering 55 million shares at $38 per share. According to the
Offering Documents supporting the IPO, Robinhood's significant
growth technology, and commitment to providing users a highly
accessible and safe trading experience is what "sets [it] apart"
from others in the financial services ecosystem. The Offering
Documents also touted Robinhood's growth, including the increase in
the Company's transaction-based revenue in the lead up to the IPO.
However, the Offering Documents were misleading because at the time
of the offering, Robinhood's revenue growth was experiencing a
major reversal, with transaction-based revenues from cryptocurrency
trading serving only as a short-term, transitory injection,
effectively masking what was stagnating growth. Further, the
Company's "significant investments designed to enhance the
reliability and scalability of [its] platform" were patently
inadequate and/or defective, which exposed the platform to
worsening service-level disruptions and security breaches,
particularly as the Company scaled its services to a larger user
base.

On October 26, 2021, Robinhood reported its third quarter 2021
results, revealing that it had missed analyst estimates by nearly
$73 million and experienced declines in its monthly active users,
funded accounts, assets under custody, and average revenue per
user. As a result, analysts such as JP Morgan downgraded their
target price and concluded "we believe Robinhood has been
overearning and guidance will weaken for '22." On this news,
Robinhood's stock declined nearly 10.5%, to close at $35.44 per
share on October 27, 2021. Then, on November 8, 2021, Robinhood
disclosed it had suffered an extensive "data security incident" on
November 3, 2021. On this news, the stock declined over two days to
close at $34.49 on November 10, 2021. The stock now trades at just
around $19.00, or at just 50% the IPO price.

If you purchased shares of Robinhood Markets, Inc. (HOOD) pursuant
to the Company's IPO, you have until February 15, 2022, to ask the
court to appoint you lead plaintiff for the class.

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

ROCHE LABORATORIES: Faces Suit Over Malaria Drug Side Effects
-------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. military veteran filed a federal class action lawsuit
Thursday against the makers of an antimalarial drug distributed to
military forces, claiming the drug made tens of thousands of
veterans permanently sick.

The lawsuit, filed in the Northern District of California by
veteran John Nelson, accuses drug makers Roche Laboratories and
Genentech of failing to inform the public of severe side effects of
mefloquine, carrying the brand name Lariam, a drug given to U.S.
service members to help prevent malaria.

The complaint states that the companies were aware of the drug's
effects, "including symptoms of paranoia, hallucinations, and
suicidal ideations."

"By 1994, Defendants knew or should have known that these adverse
reactions were permanent and irreversible," the complaint states.
"Since that time, numerous scientific studies have confirmed the
causal link between Mefloquine and permanent neuropsychiatric
effects."

The drug, which was originally developed by the U.S. Army and
entered the commercial market in 1989, was marketed by Roche. In
2013, the Food and Drug Administration required the drug to carry a
black box warning due to the severity of its side effects. Roche
pulled Lariam from the U.S. market in 2009, but generic versions
are still available.

The lawsuit claims the companies concealed the dangers of Lariam
and "recklessly sold the drug as a safe and effective first-line
treatment for malaria prevention."

"Defendants had no desire to re-brand Mefloquine as a mere
secondary or alternative option for malaria prevention, as that
would have extinguished its hold on the market and strong demand
for it by the U.S. military," the complaint states.

Neither attorneys for the plaintiff nor the companies immediately
responded to requests for comments made after business hours
Thursday. [GN]

ROCK BORDELON: Holland Seeks to Extend Class Cert Filing Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRYSTAL HOLLAND, RENEE
MONTGOMERY, JULIUS PETTY, JOE DAUGHERTY, and MOHANNED AHMED, Each
Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
ROCK BORDELON; ALLEGIANCE HOSPITAL OF NOTH LITTLE ROCK, LLC, d/b/a
NorthMetro Medical Center; T. JASON REED; FREEDOM BEHAVIORAL
HOSPITAL OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS, LLC; GPN/JACKSONVILLE, LLC; and
ALLEGIANCE HEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-00344-KGB
(E.D. Ark.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
extending the January 14, 2022 motion for class certification
deadline, and for any other relief that the Court deems just and
proper.

On September 10, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved that the Court
conditionally certify this cause as a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act. The Court has not yet ruled on the
September 10, 2021 Motion for Conditional Certification.

As the Court has not ruled on the initial conditional
certification, and accordingly Defendants have not yet produced a
list with the universe of potential collective members sufficient
to examine the numerosity of a class, the class certification
deadline will pass without an extension, the lawsuit says.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 4, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3q3i7bE at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Chris W. Burks, Esq.
          WH LAW, PLLC
          Riverfront Pl. STE 745
          North Little Rock, AR 72114
          Telephone: (501) 891-6000
          E-mail: chris@whlawoffices.com

ROI SOLUTIONS: Court Grants Stenulson Leave to Amend Wage Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VERONICA STENULSON, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROI SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00614-DBB-JCB (D. Utah), Magistrate Judge Jared C.
Bennett of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah granted
the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint.

Background

Ms. Stenulson's original complaint was filed on Sept. 2, 2020, and
asserts an individual and collective-action claim for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as well as an individual and
class-action claim for violations of the Montana Wage Payment Act.4
The original complaint generally alleges that Ms. Stenulson -- who
worked for Defendant ROI in Montana during the relevant time
period—and other similarly situated ROI employees were not paid
for all hours worked or the correct amount of overtime. On Oct. 15,
2020, Merrill Lowe -- who worked for ROI in Utah during the
relevant time period -- filed a "Consent to Join Wage Claim" in
which he consented to participate in Ms. Stenulson's
collective-action claim under the FLSA.

ROI subsequently moved for summary judgment on Ms. Stenulson's
original complaint on Dec. 4, 2020. Thereafter, Ms. Stenulson moved
for conditional certification of and notice to the putative class
members. Ms. Stenulson also moved to continue ROI's motion for
summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d).9

On Jan. 19, 2021, the parties filed an Attorney Planning Meeting
Report in which they agreed that a revised Attorney Planning
Meeting Report would be necessary after Judge Barlow ruled on the
three motions referenced. The parties further agreed that no
discovery should take place until Judge Barlow ruled on those
motions. Based upon the parties' agreements, the Court entered an
order the following day memorializing those agreements and
requiring the parties to submit a revised Attorney Planning Meeting
Report within fourteen days after Judge Barlow's ruling on the
motions.

After the parties' motions were fully briefed, Judge Barlow held
oral argument on the motions. At the hearing, Judge Barlow denied
ROI's motion for summary judgment, denied as moot Ms. Stenulson's
Rule 56(d) motion, and granted Ms. Stenulson's motion for
conditional certification of and notice to the putative class
members. The same day, Judge Barlow issued an order memorializing
those rulings. That order also required the parties to meet and
confer concerning a stipulated class notice for submission to the
Court and ordered that discovery would currently be limited to only
that pertaining directly to Ms. Stenulson's claims against ROI.

ROI later filed an unopposed motion for an extension of time for
the parties to submit an Attorney Planning Meeting Report, which
the Court granted. The parties filed their Attorney Planning
Meeting Report on the extended deadline of Oct. 15, 2021. In that
report, the parties disagree about numerous scheduling matters and
deadlines. The Court has not yet entered a scheduling order.

On Oct. 19, 2021, Ms. Stenulson filed her motion for leave to amend
her complaint. Her proposed amended complaint seeks to add Mr. Lowe
as a named plaintiff, assert the FLSA claim on his behalf, and
assert a new individual and class-action claim on his behalf for
violations of the Utah Payment of Wages Act ("UPWA"). Like the
original complaint, the proposed amended complaint generally
alleges that Ms. Stenulson, Mr. Lowe, and other similarly situated
persons who worked for ROI were not paid for all hours worked or
the correct amount of overtime. ROI opposes Ms. Stenulson's
motion.

After the parties' impasse regarding a stipulation to the form of a
class notice and a notice plan, the parties each filed a brief on
that issue on Oct. 25, 2019. Judge Bennett will address the
parties' dispute on that issue by way of a forthcoming separate
order.

Analysis

Judge Bennett addresses Ms. Stenulson's motion for leave to amend
her complaint, followed by the parties' Attorney Planning Meeting
Report.

I. The Court Grants Ms. Stenulson's Motion for Leave to Amend Her
Complaint.

Ms. Stenulson's motion is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2),
which provides that "the court should freely give leave" to amend
pleadings "when justice so requires." The decision about whether to
provide a party leave to amend its pleadings "is within the
discretion of the trial court." "Refusing leave to amend is
generally only justified upon a showing of undue delay, undue
prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith or dilatory motive,
failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or
futility of amendment."

ROI argues only the factors of futility and undue delay.

A. Ms. Stenulson's Proposed Amended Complaint Is Not Futile.

Ms. Stenulson's proposed amended complaint is not futile. In
arguing futility of amendment, ROI does not contend that allowing
Mr. Lowe to assert the FLSA claim is futile. Thus, Judge Bennett
assumes that claim is not futile. ROI contends only that Mr. Lowe's
proposed claim for violations of the UPWA is futile because it is
barred by a one-year statute of limitations contained in the UPWA.

Judge Bennett finds that here is a factual nexus between the
original complaint and the UPWA claim in the proposed amended
complaint. Indeed, the proposed UPWA claim arises from the same set
of operative facts (i.e., that ROI failed to pay its workers for
all hours worked or the correct amount of overtime). The proposed
amended complaint simply seeks to add a new claim under the UPWA
based on those same facts, which is exactly what Rule 15(c)(1)(B)
contemplates. Therefore, the proposed amended complaint relates
back to either the date of the original complaint or the date that
Mr. Lowe filed his consent form. In either case, even if the Court
assumes without deciding that a one-year statute of limitations in
the UPWA applies, the UPWA claim is not time-barred. Thus, contrary
to ROI's argument, the UPWA claim is not futile.

B. Ms. Stenulson's Motion Was Not Unduly Delayed.

Ms. Stenulson's motion for leave to amend was not unduly delayed.
In considering undue delay, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit has stated that courts should focus "primarily on the
reasons for the delay" and determine whether there is an "adequate
explanation for the delay." The Tenth Circuit has also stated that
the "emphasis is on the adjective: Lateness does not of itself
justify the denial of the amendment. Rule 15(a) does not restrict a
party's ability to amend its pleadings to a particular stage in the
action."

First, Judge Bennett finds that although there was some delay in
the case, it was not undue because there is an adequate explanation
for any delay. Second, he finds that Ms. Stenulson's motion was
filed before any deadline for amending pleadings had been set,
which further weighs against a finding of undue delay.

C. ROI Has Not Shown That It Will Be Prejudiced by Ms. Stenulson's
Proposed Amendment.

ROI does not argue this most important factor, which leaves Judge
Bennett to conclude that ROI will not be prejudiced by Ms.
Stenulson's proposed amendment. And, even if ROI had argued
prejudice, he would conclude that there is none. Ms. Stenulson's
proposed amendment will not affect ROI's ability to defend against
her claims, and, as noted, the proposed amended complaint does not
arise out of different subject matter or raise any new important
factual issues.

As demonstrated, ROI's arguments concerning futility and undue
delay are without merit. Furthermore, ROI fails to show, or even
argue, that it would suffer any prejudice from Ms. Stenulson's
proposed amendment. For those reasons, Judge Bennett grants Ms.
Stenulson's motion for leave to amend her complaint and orders her
to file her amended complaint within seven days of the date of the
Memorandum Decision and Order.

II. The Court Orders the Parties to Submit a New Attorney Planning
Meeting Report.

As noted, the parties filed their Attorney Planning Meeting Report
on Oct. 15, 2021. After that filing, Ms. Stenulson moved for leave
to amend her complaint.

Given the passage of time associated with the briefing on Ms.
Stenulson's motion and Judge Bennett's consideration of the motion,
it appears that many of the deadlines in the Attorney Planning
Meeting Report are no longer workable. Accordingly, Judge Bennett
orders the parties to meet and confer again to attempt to agree
upon a proposed scheduling order. Within 14 days of the date of the
Memorandum Decision and Order, the parties are ordered to file
either a stipulated Attorney Planning Meeting Report and proposed
scheduling order or an Attorney Planning Meeting Report outlining
their respective positions on scheduling. Upon receipt of the
filing, Judge Bennett will address any necessary scheduling
matters.

Conclusion & Order

Judge Bennett concludes that Ms. Stenulson's proposed amended
complaint: (A) is not futile, (B) was not unduly delayed, and (C)
does not prejudice ROI. Therefore, the court grants Ms. Stenulson's
motion.

Judge Bennett granted Ms. Stenulson's motion for leave to amend her
complaint. Ms. Stenulson will file her amended complaint within
seven days of the date of this Memorandum Decision and Order. The
parties will meet and confer to attempt to agree upon a proposed
scheduling order. Within 14 days of the date of the Memorandum
Decision and Order, the parties will file either a stipulated
Attorney Planning Meeting Report and proposed scheduling order or
an Attorney Planning Meeting Report outlining their respective
positions on scheduling.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 28, 2021 Memorandum Decision &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/33sznh9v from
Leagle.com.


S.C. JOHNSON: Sued Over Ziploc Unbeatable Freshness Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action alleges consumers have been misled by the claim that
Ziploc bags with "Power Shield" and "Grip 'n Seal" technology offer
unbeatable protection and freshness.

The 14-page case in Illinois alleges that the tests on which
defendant S.C. Johnson & Son bases the "unbeatable protection" tag
are misleading in that they are "not relevant and/or of limited
applicability" to how a regular consumer would use the Ziploc bags.
Similarly, the suit alleges the moisture loss test the company uses
to back its "unbeatable freshness" claim ignores a number of ways a
food product can spoil aside from loss of moisture.

Overall, S.C. Johnson & Son has deceived consumers by failing to
prominently describe and explain the tests' standards, the
complaint claims.

"Reasonable consumers must and do rely on a company to honestly
identify and describe the components, attributes, and features of a
product, relative to itself and other comparable products or
alternatives," the suit argues. "The value of the Product that
Plaintiff purchased was materially less than its value as
represented by defendant."

According to the lawsuit, a consumer who sees the defendant's
"Power Shield Technology – Unbeatable Protection" claim expects
the Ziploc bags to offer best-in-class protection for whatever they
put inside the product. In the upper right-hand corner of the
Ziploc bags' packaging appear the words "Stronger* Than Hefty,"
followed by "On Punctures and Tears" in smaller black text
underneath, the case says.

Per the suit, the asterisk in the "Stronger* Than Hefty" claim
refers to a disclaimer on the back of the Ziploc box that states
"Bag film tested using ASTM D1709 Dart Drop and ASTM D2582 PPT,"
the standard test method used by global standards organization ASTM
for impact resistance of plastic film by the free-falling dart
method and the standard test for puncture-propagation tear
resistance of plastic film and thin sheeting, respectively.

The lawsuit contends, however, that S.C. Johnson & Son's reliance
on these tests is "misleading," in part because the ASTM standards
and their limitations are not prominently described or explained to
consumers. The case charges that although the small print in the
corner of the Ziploc packaging "attempts to qualify" the unbeatable
protection claim by limiting it to punctures and tears, consumers
are "unlikely to connect the two statements" given their proximity
to each other on the box and lack of a link between the two
claims.

"Instead, consumers will expect the Product to be made with the
most resilient plastic, contain the strongest seal possible, will
expand the most, and keep out all air," the filing says.

Moreover, the case contends that although the defendant's
"Unbeatable Freshness" claim, which can be found on packages of
Ziploc bags made with "Grip 'n Seal" technology, suggests to buyers
that the product is superior to similar items, the moisture loss
test on which S.C. Johnson & Son bases the boast is "misleading for
various reasons." As the lawsuit tells it, the moisture loss test,
during which a Ziploc bag containing sliced bread is weighed before
and after a 24-hour period, centers on only one way a food can
spoil, and one criterion for evaluating a food's freshness.

Some spoilage criteria not taken into account by S.C. Johnson &
Son's test includes enzymatic activity, lipid oxidation, fat
crystallization, freezer burn, starch retrogradation and sugar
crystallization, as well as storage variables such as oxygen,
humidity, temperature, light, handling and oxidation, the lawsuit
states.

"The claim of unbeatable freshness is misleading because it
misleads consumers who do not know advanced chemistry about food
preservation to think its Product will be useful in all
circumstances, when it will not," the lawsuit alleges. "No single
type of storage device can preserve freshness for the range of
foods that consumers would put in the bags."

The case looks to represent consumers in Illinois, Michigan, Iowa,
Rhode Island, Georgia, North Dakota, Texas, New Mexico, North
Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, South Dakota and Oklahoma who
bought plastic Ziploc bags within the applicable statute of
limitations period. [GN]

SABI TRUCKING: Faces Almendarez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARVIN JANSIEL ALMENDAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SABI TRUCKING, INC. and WILMER
MAYORGA, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-07157 (E.D.N.Y., December 29,
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 overtime wages, failure to provide wage notice, and
failure to provide wage statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an appliance
installer, assembler, and helper from June 2021 until November
2021.

Sabi Trucking, Inc., is a trucking company, with a principal
executive office located 20 W. Smith Street, Amityville, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
         HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
         Kew Gardens, NY 11415
         Telephone: (718) 263-9591
         Facsimile: (718) 263-9598

SAKE HIBACHI: Williams Appeals Judgment in FLSA Suit to 5th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Catherine Williams filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Catherine Williams, Individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
section 216(b), the Plaintiffs, v. Sake Hibachi Sushi & Bar, Inc.
and Wen Qin Lu, Individually, the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-00517-D, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks to
recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and
Class Members in accordance with the FLSA in that Defendants failed
to lawfully administer a "tip credit" system, thereby violating the
minimum wage provisions of Section 206 of the FLSA. The Plaintiff
and Class Members were paid a sub-minimum hourly wage plus tips,
which were improperly shared with other employees and managers, who
may not lawfully participate in a tip pool. Furthermore, Defendants
also unlawfully deducted other amounts from Plaintiff and Class
Members' tips, which is also a violation of condition two of the
tip credit, says the complaint.

Ms. Williams now seeks a review of the Court's Memorandum Opinion
and Order and Judgment dated December 2, 2021, granting Defendants'
motion for judgment as a matter of law; granting her motion for
service award; and granting in part, denying in part her motion for
attorney fees and costs as prevailing party under the FLSA.

The appellate case is captioned as Williams v. Sake Hibachi Sushi &
Bar, Case No. 21-11287, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, filed on December 30, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Catherine Williams, Individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), is
represented by:

          Jerry Murad, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JERRY MURAD
          P.O. Box 470067
          Fort Worth, TX 76147
          Telephone: (817) 335-5691
          E-mail: jerrymurad@mac.com

Defendants-Appellees Sake Hibachi Sushi & Bar, Incorporated, Amy
Chen and Wen Qin Lu, Individually, are represented by:

          Michael S. Martinez, Esq.
          MARTINEZ HSU, P.C.
          4001 Airport Freeway
          Bedford, TX 76021
          Telephone: (682) 224-7810
          E-mail: msmartinez@mhlegalgroup.com

               - and -

          Matthew Roy Scott, Esq.
          SCOTT LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.
          900 Jackson Street
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 965-9675

SALESFORCE.COM INC: Averts TPC Class Action in the Netherlands
--------------------------------------------------------------
AdExchanger reports that Salesforce and Oracle got a holiday gift
from the Court of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, which dismissed a
lawsuit brought against them by The Privacy Collective (TPC), a
data privacy advocacy group.

TPC alleged that the companies breached the GDPR because their
respective DMP appended cookie-based data to audience IDs. Clients
could then use those IDs for targeted advertising - amounting to a
consumer data breach. The court didn't rule on the validity of
TPC's argument, because it rejected the group's standing to bring
the case in the first place.

Although TPC signed up more than 75,000 supporters for the
class-action suit, it collected the signatures via a button on its
site along with the copy: "Support the taking to court by TPC of
two tech companies for bringing in and selling data from millions
of Dutch people, without permission."

The court said that isn't a strong enough basis to argue in defense
of Dutch citizens. The group only collected emails for some users,
and since the group is privacy-focused, it doesn't record names or
have any way to follow up with supporters or even prove that
they're Dutch. Read the decision with translation. [GN]

SCHUTZ CONTAINER: Underpays Machine Operators, Balderas Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELI BALDERAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCHUTZ CONTAINER SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:21-cv-02427 (N.D. Ohio, December 29, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act,
and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff
and similarly situated employees overtime pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a machine operator/team
lead from October 2014 until May 2021.

Schutz Container Systems, Inc. is a manufacturer of carbon fiber,
drums, and container, doing business in Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
         COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
         1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite 126
         Columbus, OH 43220
         Telephone: (614) 949-1181
         Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
         E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

                  - and –

         Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
         BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
         1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
         Columbus, OH 43220
         Telephone: (614) 704-0546
         Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
         E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com

                  - and –

         Matthew B. Bryant, Esq.
         BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
         3450 W Central Ave., Suite 370
         Toledo, OH 43606
         Telephone: (419) 824-4439
         Facsimile: (419) 932-6719
         E-mail: Mbryant@bryantlegalllc.com

SCWORX CORP: Announces Settlements of Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
SCWorx Corp. has entered into binding agreements to settle both the
securities class action and derivative action lawsuits which were
commenced in 2020.

The class action was consolidated under the caption Yannes v.
SCWorx Corp. (1:20-cv-03349). The proposed settlement resolves all
claims asserted against SCWorx and the other named defendants
without any admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Company or
any defendant. Under the terms of the class action agreement, (i)
the insurers for the Company and Marc Schessel (former CEO) will
make a cash payment to the class plaintiffs and (ii) the Company
will issue $600,000 worth of common stock to the class Plaintiffs,
in exchange for which all parties will be released from all claims
related to the securities class action litigation. The class action
agreement provides that the parties will negotiate in good faith to
enter into a definitive settlement agreement within thirty days.
Once the Company issues the $600,000 worth of stock, the Company
believes it will have satisfied its obligations with respect to the
payment of the $750,000 accrued retention liability applicable to
its D&O insurance policy. The final settlement agreement will be
subject to court approval.

In addition, the Company and the Director Defendants (Marc
Schessel, Steven Wallitt, Charles Miller and Robert Christie)
entered into a binding agreement with the shareholder derivative
plaintiffs to settle the derivative litigation in which SCWorx was
a nominal defendant. Under the terms of this agreement, (i) the
insurers for the Director Defendants will make a cash payment to
legal counsel for the shareholder derivative Plaintiffs to cover
their legal fees and (ii) the Company will adopt certain corporate
governance reforms within 60 days of court approval of the
settlement, in exchange for which all parties will be released from
all claims related to the derivative class action litigation. This
agreement provides that the parties will negotiate in good faith to
enter into a definitive settlement agreement within thirty days,
which agreement will be subject to court approval.

"One of my primary goals since becoming CEO of SCWorx has been to
resolve the class and derivative actions and move forward with
focusing on our core data management business," said Tim Hannibal,
Chief Executive Officer of SCWorx. "I would like to thank our
Board, management team and legal counsel in helping to achieve
these goals and put these issues behind us. We look forward to
continuing to deliver our SaaS service offerings to healthcare
providers as they struggle with the difficulties caused by
Covid-19. Our service offerings help solve the challenges which
hospitals experience within their supply chain and deliver the
analytics and visibility to achieve desired cost savings."

                          About SCWorx Corp.

SCWorx has created an advanced attributed virtualized item data
warehouse utilizing machine learning and artificial intelligence to
offer a suite of software-as-a-service-based solutions for
healthcare providers. The value proposition for customers revolves
around the full integration of all solution modules with the
company's data platform for cost savings, operational efficiency
and accurate benchmarking and reporting. The solution modules
include Virtual Item Master, data cleanse and normalization,
contract management and request for pricing (RFP) module, automated
rebate management module, data interoperability (EMR, MMIS,
finance) module, Automated Item Add Portal, Virtual General Ledger,
and the data analytics module. SCWorx creates a single source for
information for the healthcare provider's data governance and
analytics requirements. [GN]

SECURCAPITAL CORP: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Securcapital Corp, et
al. The case is styled as Terry Fabricant, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Securcapital Corp, Does
1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:22-cv-00037
(C.D. Cal., Jan. 4, 2022).

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

SecurCapital -- https://www.securcapital.com/ -- is a supply chain
finance company empowering logistics and small businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SF HILTON: Non-Managerial Employees Win Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLEMENTE R. FLORENDO, et
al., v. SF HILTON LLC, et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-01523-JSW (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey S. White entered an order granting
motion for class certification of:

   "all non-managerial service employees who have worked for the
   Defendant San Francisco Hilton between January 6, 2010 and
   the present and who have received a portion of the food and
   beverage service charge."

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant includes a service charge
in its bookings for banquets and large events at the hotel and
provides only a portion of the charge to its non-managerial service
employees and instead retains a portion of this service charge for
itself and distributes a portion to managerial employees. This
practice, the Plaintiffs allege, violates Section 351 of the
California Labor Code as the service charge constitutes a gratuity
which, they allege, should properly be distributed in full to the
non-managerial service employees who staffed the events.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 3, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/32RTGoZ at no extra charge.[CC]

SHELLBACK TACTICAL: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shellback Tactical,
LLC. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Shellback Tactical, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00010 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 3, 2022).

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

Shellback Tactical Inc. -- https://www.shellbacktactical.com/ -- is
a defense industry company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SIPS BY: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sips By, LLC. The
case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Sips By,
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00030 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 4, 2022).

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

The Sips by Box -- https://www.sipsby.com/ -- is the only
multi-brand, personalized tea subscription box.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


SKANSKA AB: Faces Class Action Over Pensacola Bay Bridge Outage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Little, writing for Pensacola News Journal, reports that a new
class action lawsuit was filed against Skanska on behalf of
Northwest Florida commuters seeking to recover their increased
costs from the loss of the Pensacola Bay Bridge for nine months
following Hurricane Sally.

The lawsuit is the latest in the ongoing legal battle against
Skanska over its construction barges knocking out the Pensacola Bay
Bridge when they broke free of the moorings during the hurricane.

The lawsuit was filed the same day that a federal judge found that
Skanska was negligent in its preparations ahead of the September
2020 hurricane. The federal judge ruled that Skanska was not able
to limit its financial liability over the incident to the $1.2
million value of the barges as the company had sought to do.

Hundreds of lawsuits have already been filed on behalf of business
and property owners who were financially impacted by the bridge
disaster, but the class action lawsuit is the first to seek
compensation for everyday commuters who were hurt by the loss of
the bridge.

If it survives, the lawsuit could attract thousands of plaintiffs
who live in Escambia, Santa Rosa or Okaloosa counties.

"This is a really important class of just everyday folks that were
absolutely affected by this bridge outage," Sam Geisler, an
attorney with the Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis and Overholtz law firm,
told the News Journal. ". . . If you think about folks that live in
Pensacola and work on the beach for tips, they were getting it on
both ends because they had a huge jump in their gas expenses. And
then also the damage to their income was slashed because of the
lack of traffic (at the beach)."

Attorney Nikki Guntner, also with the Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis and
Overholtz firm, said they are evaluating the case of anyone who
believes they suffered economic loss as a result of the bridge
outage.

"This class action is really a way to make sure that people who
were having to deal with this commute every single day -- sometimes
two or three hours, one direction going to and from work -- that
they're represented, that their interests are represented, and that
hopefully, they will be able to be compensated for those losses,"
Guntner said.

Geisler said the federal court ruling cleared the way for the state
lawsuit, including this new class-action lawsuit, to continue, and
though he expects Skanska to continue to fight the federal court
ruling, he believes it will stand.

"It's a pretty airtight opinion," Geisler said.

Skanska declined to comment to the News Journal on this latest
lawsuit, but said in a statement that it disagreed with the federal
court's ruling.

"Skanska remains adamant that it took all appropriate measures with
the information available at the time to prepare for the storm,"
the company said in its statement. "Immediately following the
storm, Skanska put forth its full resources to address the damage
as quickly and as safely as possible and reconnect the communities
impacted." [GN]

SNYDERS-LANCE: Vazquez Files Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Snyders-Lance, Inc.
The case is styled as Joseph Vazquez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Snyders-Lance, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00026 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 3, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.

Snyder's-Lance, Inc. -- https://www.lance.com/ -- is the second
largest salty snack maker in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer I. Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Road, Ste. 409
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 260-7080
          Fax: (516) 234-7800
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com



SPECIALIZED LOAN: Hurster Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES HURSTER, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated, v. SPECIALIZED LOAN
SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00318-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following
two distinct classes:

   a. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) class:

      "All persons with a Missouri postal address, with a
      delinquent account prior to Defendant servicing the
      account, to whom Defendant sent a pre-recorded voicemail
      message, during the one-year period prior to the filing of
      this Petition, and the voicemail failed to disclose that
      the pre-recorded voicemail was from a debt collector."

   b. Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class:

      "All persons with a Missouri postal address, who revoked
      any consent to be called, to whom Defendant sent a pre-
      recorded voicemail message to said person's cellular
      telephone during the four-year period prior to the filing
      of this Petition."

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify classes dated Dec. 29,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33aEGCn
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dominic M. Pontello, Esq.
          Isaac J. Bressler, Esq.
          PONTELLO & BRESSLER, LLC
          406 Boones Lick Rd
          St. Charles, MO 63301
          Telephone: (636) 896-4170
          Facsimile: (636) 246-0141
          E-mail: dominic@pontellolaw.com
                  ibressler@pontellolaw.com

SPIRAFLEX: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spiraflex, Inc. The
case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Spiraflex, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00014 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 3, 2022).

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

SpiraFlex -- https://spinoff.nasa.gov/spinoff2001/ch2.html -- is a
revolutionary new patented technology for storing and delivering
mechanical power in industrial, consumer, and fitness
equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SPRUCE 1209: Appeals Court Affirms Certification Order in Chernett
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, ELIZABETH CHERNETT, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents v.
SPRUCE 1209, LLC, Defendant-Appellant. RENT STABILIZATION
ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK CITY, INC., COMMUNITY HOUSING IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM, INC. AND THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, Amici Curiae,
Index No. 159188/20, Appeal No. 14890-14890A, Case Nos. 2021-01849,
2021-02733 ( N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court of New York, First Department, issued an Order unanimously
affirming, without costs, the orders of Judge Arlene P. Bluth of
the Supreme Court of New York County.

Judge Bluth entered the orders on April 23, 2021, and July 15,
2021, which, respectively, denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the putative class action complaint and granted the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify the class and subclass.

The Defendant is the owner of a building that contains 127
residential apartments. The building received a permanent
certificate of occupancy on Oct. 23, 2013. On Nov. 9, 2016, the
building received a certification from the New York City Department
of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) under Real Property
Tax Law (RPTL) Section 421-a (the 421-a program), which granted it
certain tax benefits, and, in exchange, the building became subject
to rent stabilization.

Plaintiffs Elizabeth Chernett and Michael Rapin, as tenants in the
building, brought the putative class action for rent overcharges in
violation of Rent Stabilization Law (Administrative Code of City of
NY) Section 26-512, based on the Defendant's allegedly illegal
calculation of the initial legal regulated rents for apartments
throughout the building. The complaint alleges that, while the
Defendant advertised to tenants the "net effective" rent, which
took certain rent concessions into account, when it registered the
legal regulated rent, the Defendant relied on the higher,
undiscounted figure in the lease. It is alleged that this
contravenes Rent Stabilization Code (RSC) (9 NYCRR) 2521.1(g),
which governs the registration of the initial rents for buildings
in the 421-a program. The Plaintiffs contend that, in effect, this
means that preferential rents are not permitted for initial tenants
of 421-a buildings because the actual amount "charged and paid" by
the tenant must be registered as the legal regulated rent.

The Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing, among other
things, that the four-year lookback rule barred review of the
Plaintiffs' predecessors' rent history and that it properly
registered the amount "charged and paid" by the Plaintiffs, as
required under 9 NYCRR 2521.1(g), which was the amount set forth in
the lease, without taking into account the concession rider. The
Defendant and amici curiae contended that the Division of Housing
and Community Renewal (DHCR) had addressed this very issue in fact
sheet 40, which provided that one-time rent concessions that apply
to a specific month, such as those in the case, do not affect the
legal regulated rent, whereas prorated discounts were actually
preferential rents, which must be the rent registered under section
2521.1(g). The Defendant acknowledges that fact sheet 40 has been
revised and no longer discusses rent concessions, but argues that
it remains a valid interpretation of the law.

The Appellate Division holds that the motion court correctly denied
the Defendant's motion, finding that the complaint stated a cause
of action for overcharges based on an alleged fraudulent scheme to
evade the requirements of the 421-a program so as to charge higher
rents by providing "construction concessions" well after
construction was complete.

The Appellate Division says, the Defendant is correct that the
statute of limitations in the former version of CPLR 213-a would
apply to the overcharges incurred before the statute was amended by
the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (L 2019, ch
36). However, the claims in the Oct. 29, 2020 complaint are timely
under the former statute of limitations. As Rapin's lease commenced
on April 26, 2017, and Chernett's lease commenced on Feb. 26, 2019,
their respective predecessor tenants' leases may appropriately be
reviewed within the four-year lookback period.

The Appellate Division agrees with the motion court that the
allegations in the complaint warrant discovery to determine whether
the concessions were functionally equivalent to a preferential
rent; "simply calling it a concession does not transform it into a
permissible activity under the applicable statutory scheme."
Although the Defendant contends that DHCR's fact sheet 40
distinguishes between a permissible one-time concession for a
specific month and a preferential rent and that it properly
deferred to DHCR, discovery is needed to determine whether that is
so.

With respect to class certification, the Appellate Division finds
that the Plaintiffs meet the requirements of CPLR 901 and 902,
which are to be construed liberally in favor of class
certification. It finds that although the Defendant contends that
the Plaintiffs failed to present any evidence that the initial
legal regulated rents were improperly registered, it is sufficient
that the motion court had already determined that the claims had
merit and should survive dismissal.

As to the Defendant's argument that the Plaintiffs failed to waive
recourse to the default formula, which it labels a penalty under
CPLR 901(b), the Appellate Division has expressly held that "the
default formula is not a penalty." Contrary to the Defendant's
contention that the motion court did not address the CPLR 902
elements, the court expressly found that they were "easily met" in
the case, and the Appellate Division agrees.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 28, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mrxf4t2b from Leagle.com.

Belkin Burden Goldman LLP, New York (Magda L. Cruz --
mcruz@bbgllp.com -- of counsel), for the Appellant.

Newman Ferrara LLP, New York (Roger A. Sachar -- rsachar@nfllp.com
-- of counsel), for the Respondents.

Rosenberg & Estis, P.C., New York (Jeffrey Turkel --
jturkel@rosenbergestis.com -- of counsel), for amici curiae.


STEAK N SHAKE: Brown Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALTER BROWN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STEAK N SHAKE
INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-04474-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order granting conditional certification and
issuance of notice under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29
U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf of:

   "all current and former servers who worked for Defendant
   Steak N Shake, Inc. for at least one week during the three
   year period prior to the date the Court grants conditional
   certification to the present (the "collective action")."

Steak N Shake operate a nationwide chain of restaurants.

The Plaintiff worked for Steak N Shake as a server in Alpharetta,
Georgia. Like the Collective Action Members, he was not paid wages
at the federal minimum wage rate of $7.25 per hour for all hours
that he worked, the lawsuit says.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Dec. 31,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t7FoLi
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, LLP
          4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com

               - and -

          John Mays, Esq.
          A. Lee Parks, Jr., Esq.
          John L. Mays, Esq.
          PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C.
          E-mail: lparks@pcwlawfirm.com
                  jmays@pcwlawfirm.com
          75 Fourteenth Street, 26th Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 873-8000
          Facsimile: (404) 873-8050

               - and -

          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER
          HOLT, OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com

               - and -

          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq.
          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Heritage Building, Suite 250
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard
          Moreland Hills, OH
          Telephone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  lori@lazzarolawfirm.com

SUN COMMUNITIES: Denial of Class Cert. Bid in Yamaoka Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIMOTHY YAMAOKA, JOE BURGETT, and TINA PHILLIPS,
Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants-Appellants v. SUN COMMUNITIES, INC.,
and SUN COMMUNITIES OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
Defendants-Appellees, and ASPEN-TOWN & COUNTRY ASSOCIATES II, LLC,
Defendant/Counterplaintiff/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, and
APPLE-CARR VILLAGE MOBILE HOME PARK, LLC,
Defendant/Counterplaintiff-Appellee, and ANA SIEKIERK and GABRIEL
KOEWERS, Third-Party Defendants, Case No. 355446 (Mich. App.), the
Court of Appeals of Michigan affirmed the order of the trial
court:

   (1) denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

   (2) granting summary disposition to the Defendants under MCR
       2.116(C)(10) with regard to the individual claims by Joe
       Burgett and Tina Phillips; and

   (3) granting summary disposition to the Defendants on
       jurisdictional grounds under MCR 2.116(C)(4) on the only
       remaining claims -- Timothy Yamaoka's individual claims --
       because the amount in controversy did not exceed $25,000.

Background

The Plaintiffs filed a class-action lawsuit, claiming conversion
and unjust enrichment on the basis that the Defendants violated the
Mobile Home Commission Act, MCL 125.2301 et seq., by applying for
title to their mobile homes. The Defendants are interrelated
corporate entities that own and operate mobile-home parks in
Michigan.

The named Plaintiffs are former mobile-home owners, who each once
lived in one of the Defendants' mobile-home parks. Specifically,
Yamaoka owned a 1970 Vindale mobile home, and he rented a
mobile-home lot from Aspen-Town & Country Associates II, LLC in
Traverse City, Michigan. Burgett and Phillips owned a 1974 Schult
mobile home, and they rented a mobile-home lot from Apple-Carr
Village Mobile Home Park, LLC in Muskegon, Michigan.

In 2016, Burgett and Phillips failed to make their rental payments
under the terms of their lease and, as a result, Apple-Carr filed a
district-court action against them for nonpayment of rent. The
district court entered a judgment in Apple-Carr's favor, and when
Burgett and Phillips failed to pay the past-due rent, an order of
eviction was entered against them. Burgett and Phillips vacated
their mobile-home lot at Apple-Carr; they did not remove their
mobile home from the site when they left.

Apple-Carr applied for title to the mobile home, using what has
been referred to as the "surety-bond method" of obtaining title. At
the time, this method had been endorsed by the Secretary of State
as one of three methods for obtaining title to an abandoned mobile
home. It submitted an application for title accompanied by a surety
bond and a certification statement regarding the abandonment of the
mobile home. Thereafter, Apple-Carr was issued a Certificate of
Manufactured Home Ownership. It later transferred the mobile home
to a third party.

The basic facts are similar with regard to Yamaoka and Aspen-Town.
In the amended complaint, Yamaoka alleges that he purchased his
mobile home in April 2016 for $10,000. In support, however, he
points to a certificate of assignment that indicates that he only
paid $5,000 for the mobile home. In any event, by the fall of 2016,
Yamaoka and his roommates had failed to make their rent payments,
resulting in summary proceedings in district court and eventually
an order of eviction. Yamaoka and the others vacated the premises.
When he left, Yamaoka did not remove his mobile home, but he did
attempt to sell it. Unlike Burgett and Philips' lease with
Apple-Carr, Yamaoka's lease with Aspen-Town did not contain a
provision regarding whether property left behind would be deemed
abandoned, i.e., there was no provision materially similar to the
other lease's Paragraph 28.

Aspen-Town treated the mobile home as abandoned. Using the
surety-bond method, Aspen-Town applied for, and obtained, a
certificate of title for the mobile home. Aspen-Town later
transferred the mobile home to a third party.

In February 2019, Yamaoka, Burgett, and Phillips filed a
class-action complaint against defendants, alleging statutory
conversion, common-law conversion, and unjust enrichment. Briefly
stated, the Plaintiffs allege that, in violation of the Mobile Home
Commission Act, the Defendants had an ongoing practice of
converting former tenants' mobile homes by claiming ownership of a
mobile home on grounds of abandonment after the owner left the
mobile-home park without removing the mobile home from the park.
The Plaintiffs assert that the surety-bond method is not a
permissible means of obtaining title to a mobile home.

The Plaintiffs accompanied their complaint with a motion for class
certification. In their brief in support of their motion for class
certification, the Plaintiffs define the proposed class as: "All
mobile home owners throughout Michigan who have rented lots in
mobile home parks owned or operated by Defendants and whose title
to their mobile homes were unlawfully converted by Defendants, and
will be unlawfully converted by Defendants in the future, through
mobile home title applications that contained materially false
information that Defendants submitted to the Michigan Department of
State, and through surety bonds that Defendants obtained from
insurance companies through false pretenses."

On the basis of a search of public records involving mobile-home
applications by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs estimated a class of
183 members.

The trial court denied the motion for class certification,
concluding that the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate commonality.
Following motions by the Defendants, the trial court also granted
summary disposition to them under MCR 2.116(C)(10) with regard to
the claims by Burgett and Phillips, concluding that the undisputed
facts established that they had abandoned their mobile home. The
Defendants also sought summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10)
with regard to Yamaoka's individual claims, but the trial court
denied the motion, concluding that material questions of fact
remained regarding whether he intended to abandon the mobile home.
With Yamaoka's individual claims the only remaining claims, the
trial court granted summary disposition to the Defendants under MCR
2.116(C)(4) because Yamaoka failed to establish that the amount in
controversy exceeded $25,000.

The Plaintiffs now appeal to the Court.

Analysis

A. Class Certification

On appeal, the Plaintiffs first argue that the trial court erred by
concluding that they failed to show commonality and by denying
their motion for class certification. A decision whether to certify
a class involves both questions of fact and discretionary
determinations. The Court of Appeals reviews the trial court's
factual findings for clear error and the trial court's
discretionary decisions for an abuse of discretion.

Under MCR 3.501(A)(1), one or more members of a class may sue as
representative members on behalf of all members in a class action
only if five prerequisites -- often referred to as numerosity,
commonality, typicality, adequacy, and superiority -- are
established. The party seeking class certification bears the burden
of establishing each of these prerequisites. When ruling on a
motion for class certification, "a court may base its decision on
the pleadings alone only if the pleadings set forth sufficient
information to satisfy the court that each prerequisite is in fact
met." Otherwise, "the court must look to additional information
beyond the pleadings to determine whether class certification is
proper."

The Court of Appeals opines that the two leases at issue differ
materially with respect to the issue of abandonment. Thus,
individualized proofs preponderate over commonality and the trial
court correctly denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. Because it concludes that the trial court correctly
found that the purported class lacked commonality, the Court of
Appeals declines to address the other four prerequisites for class
certification.

B. Burgett & Phillips' Claims

With regard to the individual claims by Burgett and Phillips, they
argue that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition to
defendants under MCR 2.116(C)(10) because there are disputes of
material fact regarding whether they abandoned their mobile home.
The Court of Appeals reviews de novo a trial court's decision to
grant or deny a motion for summary disposition." When deciding a
motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), it considers
the evidence submitted in a light most favorable to the nonmoving
party. Summary disposition is appropriate if there is no genuine
issue regarding any material fact and the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.

The Plaintiffs argue that the abandonment provision applies only to
circumstances in which the resident voluntarily vacates the
premises. The Court of Appeals opines that while provisions of
Paragraph 28 do deal with the situation when a resident voluntarily
vacates the premises, there is no language limiting other
provisions from dealing with an involuntary situation. Indeed, the
italicized language is sufficiently broad to cover both situations.
Considering the contract as a whole, there is no basis for limiting
the term "vacates" in the last sentence of Paragraph 28 solely to
voluntary situations. The Plaintiffs' argument to the contrary
lacks merit.

The Plaintiffs additionally argue that the contract is illegal
because it violates the Mobile Home Commission Act by allowing
Apple-Carr to apply for title to their mobile home without being
the mobile home's owner. The Plaintiffs are correct that the Mobile
Home Commission Act includes provisions addressing the transfer of
title for a mobile home, the Court of Appeals finds. The
Plaintiffs' argument ignores, however, the distinction between
abandoning property and selling or transferring property. The
contract's abandonment provision does not violate the Mobile Home
Commission Act because it does not address transfer of title.

The Plaintiffs also argue that the contract is unconscionable
because it allowed defendants to claim ownership of Burgett and
Phillips' mobile home without compensating them. Burgett and
Phillips argue that they were compelled to rent from Apple-Carr,
but they offer no evidence whatsoever that they did not have any
realistic alternatives, such as leasing property from a mobile home
park other than Apple-Carr. Thus, the contract was not procedurally
unconscionable.

The Plaintiffs raise additional arguments seeking to avoid the
application of Paragraph 28's abandonment provision. But, the Court
of Appeals finds no merit in their arguments on appeal with respect
to their statutory and common-law conversion claims and,
accordingly, it affirms the trial court's grant of summary
disposition in favor of defendants on those claims. Similarly,
Burgett and Phillips' unjust enrichment claim fails because they
had a contract with Apple-Carr addressing ownership of their mobile
home after they vacated the premises. Accordingly, the trial court
correctly granted summary disposition to defendants on this claim
as well.

C. Yamaoka's Claims - Circuit Court Jurisdiction

Yamaoka asserts that the trial court erred by dismissing his claims
under MCR 2.116(C)(4). The Court of Appeals reviews de novo the
trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition under
MCR 2.116(C)(4). It finds that Yamaoka has not asserted on appeal
that the amount in controversy includes reasonable attorney fees,
nor has he provided an estimate of such fees, and the interest that
he contends should be included in the amount in controversy is less
than $1,000. Thus, even if the interest that Yamaoka believes
should be included is taken into account, the amount in controversy
on Yamaoka's statutory-conversion claim is less than $16,000.
Furthermore, Yamaoka does not argue that he would be entitled to
damages for common-law conversion or unjust enrichment in addition
to those for statutory conversion.

Nor can Yamaoka rely on other prayers for relief in his amended
complaint to establish subject-matter jurisdiction. This is not a
class-action suit, as explained earlier, and therefore jurisdiction
cannot hinge on class allegations in the amended complaint. As for
declaratory relief, a district court can grant such relief in
appropriate circumstances, notwithstanding plaintiff's argument to
the contrary. Finally, with respect to both declaratory and
injunctive relief, such relief is intended to guide future conduct,
there are no plausible allegations that such relief would be
appropriate with respect to the Defendants' conduct vis-a-vis
Yamaoka, and Yamaoka cannot pursue the rights of others with
respect to future conduct. Accordingly, the trial court did not err
in granting summary disposition to the Defendants under MCR
2.116(C)(4).

Conclusion

For the reasons stated in its Opinion, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial court's order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. Similarly, it affirmed the trial court's grant
of summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) with respect to the
claims of Burgett and Phillips as well as its grant of summary
disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(4) with respect to the claims of
Yamaoka. Having prevailed in full, the Defendants may tax costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 28, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5n8ep5vk from Leagle.com.


SUN-MAID GROWERS: Court Stays Velasquez Suit
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR VELASQUEZ, an
individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, v. SUN-MAID GROWERS OF CALIFORNIA, Case No.
1:21-cv-00194-AWI-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Erica P. Grosjean
entered an order granting stipulation to stay case and vacating
scheduling order.

   1. This action is stayed until issuance of a ruling on the
      motion for class certification filed in David Diaz v. Sun-
      Maid Growers of California, Case No. 18CECG04502, pending
      before the Fresno County Superior Court (the "Diaz
      Action").

   2. The Scheduling Order entered on June 16, 2021 is vacated.

   3. Within seven days after the state court issues an order on
      the pending motion for class certification in the Diaz
      Action, the parties shall provide a joint status report
      advising the Court of the status of this case and the Diaz
      Action, as well as the parties' proposal(s) for
      rescheduling the remainder of this lawsuit or otherwise
      terminating the lawsuit.

   4. Within six months of entry of this order, if the state
      court has not yet issued a ruling on the motion for class
      certification, the parties shall file a joint status
      report advising the Court of the status of the Diaz Action
      and the parties' positions on continuing the stay.

   5. The Court reserves the right to lift the stay to the
      extent there is undue delay with the Diaz Action.

Sun-Maid Growers of California an American privately owned
cooperative of raisin growers headquartered in Fresno, California.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 3, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3G9qGr2 at no extra charge.[CC]


SXSW LLC: Seeks Resolution of Federal's Duty to Defend Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Kaczmarczyk and Philip He at policyholderpulse.com report
that the widespread denial of coverage under first-party property
insurance policies for business interruption losses resulting from
the COVID-19 pandemic has been extensively reported, but so far
less attention has been paid to related third-party claims and
attendant coverage issues arising under liability insurance
policies. When ticketed attendees sued the organizer of the South
by Southwest (SXSW) music and film festival, SXSW LLC, for refunds
after the 2020 annual event was cancelled because of the COVID-19
pandemic, the company's liability insurer, Federal Insurance
Company, refused to make good its duty to defend. SXSW has now sued
Federal in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas seeking a declaration that Federal owes a duty to defend SXSW
against the underlying putative class action, providing insight on
COVID-19-related liability coverage issues.

The underlying lawsuit arose from the City of Austin's cancellation
of the SXSW festival due to the COVID-19 pandemic. When some
attendees requested refunds and credit card chargebacks, SXSW
invoked its long-standing no-refund policy for credential
purchases, which is expressly stated in its terms and conditions.
In lieu of a refund, SXSW offered credential purchasers the
opportunity to defer their SXSW 2020 credentials to a future year
and the right to purchase credentials for another year at a 50
percent discount. Those who accepted this offer granted a release
of claims to SXSW. Other purchasers asserted claims against SXSW,
seeking refunds despite the no-refund policy.

The underlying class action lawsuit, filed in April 2020, alleged
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion against SXSW.
Subsequently, SXSW promptly tendered the underlying lawsuit to its
insurer, Federal, which issued a policy that includes coverage for
both directors and officers and entity liability. The policy
expressly states that Federal will pay for loss resulting from a
claim made against SXSW for a "Wrongful Act." The policy broadly
defines "Wrongful Act" as "any actual or alleged error,
misstatement, misleading statement, act, omission, neglect, or
breach of duty committed, attempted, or allegedly committed or
attempted." Federal's policy promises to pay the amount SXSW
becomes legally obligated to pay as a result of the claim,
including compensatory damages, judgments, settlements, and defense
costs.

But Federal denied the defense of the underlying class action,
relying on two purported exclusions to coverage. First, Federal
cited an exclusion barring coverage when allegations are "based
upon, arise from and are in consequence of liability in connection
with any oral or written contract or agreement to which [SXSW] is a
party." But this exclusion has an exception restoring coverage "to
the extent [SXSW] would have been liable in the absence of such
contract or agreement." Federal asserted that the credentials
attendees purchased from SXSW were a contract, and maintained that
the exception to the exclusion did not apply.

Second, Federal argued that the Professional Services Exclusion
contained in a Service Industry Endorsement to the policy bars
coverage "because SXSW 'provided a service-scheduling, overseeing,
organizing and managing South by Southwest-for which it collected a
fee thus precluding coverage.'" The Professional Services Exclusion
reads: "The Company shall not be liable under this Coverage Part
for Loss on account of any Claim based upon, arising from, or in
consequence of the rendering of, or failure to render, any
Professional Services by an Insured." Although the endorsement does
not contain a definition of "Professional Services," Federal cited
a vague definition of "Professional Services" elsewhere in the
policy with the following definition: "services which are performed
for others for a fee."

After the underlying class action settled, SXSW filed an insurance
coverage lawsuit against Federal in October 2020. In its motion for
partial summary judgment, SXSW argued that neither exclusion
applies to the underlying class action. First, the underlying class
action complaint does not claim that SXSW's inability to host the
2020 festival breached the contract; no contract terms impose
liability on SXSW to refund money when a festival is cancelled by a
government agency due to a public health emergency. Moreover, the
underlying class action accused SXSW of unjust enrichment and
conversion, liability claims that are not based on the contract.
SXSW argued that because the carrier owes a duty to defend if any
one claim is potentially covered, even if others are not, Federal
must provide SXSW a full defense.

Second, SXSW argued that the Professional Services Exclusion does
not apply because "SXSW is not being sued for failing to render
professional services." The endorsement where this exclusion
appears does not define what constitutes "professional services."
Therefore, SXSW relied on definitions of "professional services"
used in Texas statutes and case law generally, as "[u]ndefined
contract terms are given their ordinary meaning as commonly
understood." SXSW argued that it "is not a law, accounting,
engineering or other professional service firm." Rather, SXSW
organizes and hosts a film, music and interactive festival, which
does not constitute what is commonly understood to be a
professional service. In addition, SXSW argued that it was sued for
refusing to issue refunds after the City of Austin made hosting the
festival legally impossible. Refusing to issue a refund is not a
"professional service" excluded from coverage under the policy.

Federal's denial of the duty to defend the underlying class action
against SXSW is unsurprising: it is part of insurance companies'
recent strategy to combat a new wave of insurance claims that arise
from event cancellations or delays due to COVID-19. Which
interpretation of SXSW's policy terms wins the day remains to be
seen. But policyholders should not take such denials lying down.
Event organizers or others impacted by cancellations or delays of
events due to COVID-19 and facing liability for decisions made
regarding refunds or other actions should look closely at their
liability insurance policies and, with the help of qualified
insurance coverage counsel, assess coverage that might defray the
cost of defending resulting lawsuits and how best to respond to
insurer denials of their defense obligations. [GN]

TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Ct. Modifies Class Certification Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES
DISTRICT COUNCIL 82 HEALTH CARE FUND, a third-party healthcare
payor fund, ANNIE M. SNYDER, a California consumer, RICKEY D. ROSE,
a Missouri consumer, JOHN CARDARELLI, a New Jersey consumer,
MARLYON K. BUCKNER, a Florida consumer, and SYLVIE BIGORD, a
Massachusetts consumer, on behalf of themselves and ALL others
similarly situated, v. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED, a
Japanese corporation; TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, Inc., an Illinois
corporation (fka TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS NORTH AMERICA, Inc.); and
ELI LILLY & COMPANY, an Indiana corporation, Case No.
2:17-cv-07223-JWH-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John W. Holcomb
entered an order granting the joint stipulation of the parties for
an order modifying class certification schedule.

   -- Deadline for filing Plaintiffs'         January 6, 2022
      Opposition to Defendants'
      Motion to Strike:

   -- Deadline for filing Defendants'         January 13, 2022
      Reply in Support of Motion
      to Strike:

   -- Hearing date for Plaintiffs'            February 17, 2022
      Motion for Class Certification
      and accompanying Motions:

Takeda Pharmaceutical is a Japanese multinational pharmaceutical
company.

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

TD AMERITRADE: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Klein Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Gerald Klein, et al. v. TD
Ameritrade Holding Corp., et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-00396-JFB, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha.

The complaint alleges that, when routing client orders to various
market centers, the Defendants did not seek best execution, and
instead routed clients' orders to market venues that pay TD
Ameritrade, Inc. the most money for order flow. The Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendants made misrepresentations and omissions
regarding the Company's order routing practices.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Joseph F.
Bataillon has certified a class consisting of:

     All clients of TD Ameritrade between September 15, 2011 and
     September 15, 2014 who placed orders that did not receive
     best execution, in connection with which TD Ameritrade
     received either liquidity rebates or payment for order flow,
     and who were thereby damaged (the "Class").

On June 3, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration.

On December 23, 2021, Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon entered an
order denying Defendants' motion to compel arbitration without
prejudice as it is premature, and denying as moot Defendants'
motion to stay.

The Defendants now seek a review of that order.

The appellate case is captioned as TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., et
al. v. Gerald Klein, et al., Case No. 21-3991, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on December 29,
2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Transcript is due on or before February 7, 2022;

   -- Appendix is due on February 17, 2022;

   -- BRIEF APPELLANT, TD Ameritrade, TD Ameritrade Holding
Corporation and Frederic J. Tomczyk is due on February 17, 2022;
and

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, TD
Ameritrade, Inc., and Frederic J. Tomczyk are represented by:

          Victoria H. Buter, Esq.
          Thomas Harlan Dahlk, Esq.
          KUTAK & ROCK
          The Omaha Building
          1650 Farnam Street
          Omaha, NE 68102-0000
          Telephone: (402) 346-6000
          E-mail: vicki.buter@kutakrock.com
                  tom.dahlk@kutakrock.com

               - and -

          Eamon Paul Joyce, Esq.
          Alex J. Kaplan, Esq.
          Jonathan Warren Muenz, Esq.  
          SIDLEY & AUSTIN
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019-0000
          Telephone: (202) 839-5300
          E-mail: ajkaplan@sidley.com
                
Plaintiffs-Appellees Gerald J. Klein, on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated; and Roderick Ford are represented by:

          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
          LITE & DEPALMA
          Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          E-amil: jdepalma@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 546-0100
          E-mail: ek@zlk.com

               - and -

          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          878 Old Field Road
          Fairfield, CT 06824
          Telephone: (860) 869-5525
          E-mail: nkulesa@zlk.com  

               - and -

          Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
          FIELDS & KUPKA
          1441 Broadway, Suite 6161
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 231-1500
       
               - and -

          Patrice D. Ott, Esq.
          Gregory Carl Scaglione, Esq.
          KOLEY & JESSEN
          800 One Pacific Place
          1125 S. 103rd Street
          Omaha, NE 68124-0000
          Telephone: (320) 654-4100
          E-mail: patrice.ott@koleyjessen.com  

               - and -

          Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY
          10th Floor, 55 Broadway
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500

TENDERLOIN NEIGHBORHOOD: Ceasar Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tenderloin
Neighborhood Development Corporation, et al. The case is styled as
Lajuana G. Ceasar, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Tenderloin Neighborhood Development
Corporation, Does 1 through 20, Inclusive, Case No. CGC21597398
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Jan. 3, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaint (Class
Action Complaint For: failure to pay minimum wages and failure to
pay overtime wages)."

Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation (TNDC) housing --
https://www.tndc.org/ -- is a non-profit organization in San
Francisco, California that has been a vital resource for people
from all walks of life as they reach their own version of stability
and build their future.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TERRASLATE PAPER: Contreras Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TerraSlate Paper,
LLC. The case is styled as Yensy Contreras, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. TerraSlate Paper, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00012 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 3, 2022).

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

TerraSlate Paper -- https://terraslatepaper.com/ -- delivers a full
line of waterproof paper & printing solutions - all on a fully
synthetic, treeless, and recyclable paper.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TERRY TUSSEY: Hampton Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Terry Tussey, Jr. The
case is styled as Bryan Hampton, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Terry Tussey, Jr., Case No.
4:22-cv-04002-SOH (W.D. Ark., Jan. 5, 2022).

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

Terry Tussey Jr. -- https://www.texarkanatireandwheel.com/About --
owns Texarkana Tire & Wheel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM
          10800 Financial Centre Parkway
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Phone: (501) 904-1649
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

TI GROUP: Class Status Bid Filing Due Jan. 31
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY BRADY, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. TI GROUP AUTOMOTIVE
SYSTEMS, L.L.C, Case No. 2:21-cv-11905-AJT-CI (E.D. Mich.), the
Hon. Judge Arthur J. Tarnow entered a joint initial scheduling
order as follows:

   1. The Plaintiffs shall file their        January 31, 2022
      Motion for Class Certification
      on or before:

   2. The Defendant shall file its           March 2, 2022.
      Response Brief in Opposition
      to Plaintiffs' Motion for
      Class Certification on or
      before:

   3. The Plaintiffs shall file their        March 17, 2022
      Reply Brief in Support of their
      Motion for Class Certification
      on or before:

TI Group design and manufactures automotive fluid systems.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HNABmG at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennifer Lossia McManus, Esq.
          FAGAN MCMANUS, P.C.
          25892 Woodward Avenue
          Royal Oak, Ml 48067-0910
          Telephone: (248) 542-6300
          Facsimile: (248) 542-6301
          E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com

               - and -

          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
          Alanna Klein Fischer, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Telephone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  alanna@lazzarolawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mahesh K. Nayak, Esq.
          Angelina R. Delmastro, Esq.
          M. Reid Estes, Jr., Esq.
          DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
          2600 W. Big Beaver Rd., Ste. 300
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (248) 433-7200
          Facsimile: (844) 670-6009
          E-mail: mnayak@dickinsonwright.com
                  adelmastro@dickinsonwright.com
                  restes@dickinsonwright.com

TOSHIBA CORPORATION: Wins Bid to Strike Economist's Second Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK STOYAS, NEW ENGLAND
TEAMSTERS & TRUCKING INDUSTRY PENSION FUND, and AUTOMOTIVE
INDUSTRIES PENSION TRUST FUND, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, a Japanese Corporation, v. TOSHIBA
CORPORATION, a Japanese Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-04194-DDP-JC
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dean D. Pregerson entered an order
granting the Defendant's motion to strike the Proposed Second
Report of Plaintiffs' Economist Dr. Matthew D. Cain.

The court will disregard all references to Dr. Cain's Second Reply
Report in Plaintiffs' Reply in support of its Motion for Class
Certification. Because the Plaintiffs' improper disclosure was
neither substantially justified nor harmless, the court grants
Defendant's motion to strike, says Judge Pregerson.

Toshiba Corporation is a Japanese multinational conglomerate
headquartered in Minato, Tokyo. Its diversified products and
services include power, industrial and social infrastructure.

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

TRANSDEV SERVICES: Ct. Resets Class Cert. Deadlines in Hakeem
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAUENGA M. HAKEEM, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. TRANSDEV
SERVICES, INC.; TRANSDEV NORTH AMERICA, INC.; TRANSDEV; and DOES
1-100, inclusive, Case No. 4:21-cv-01077-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order resetting the following case
deadlines relating to class certification:

                Event                Old           New
                                     Deadline      Deadline

  -- Class certification         May 19, 2022    August 26, 2022
     motion due:

  -- Class certification         June 16, 2022   Sept. 30, 2022
     opposition due:

  -- Class certification         July 14, 2022   Oct. 28, 2022
     reply due:

Transdev provides passenger transportation services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 3, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HML7dC at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          N. Nick Ebrahimian, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          Courtney M. Miller, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  nebrahimian@lelawfirm.com
                  vgranberry@lelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Torey Joseph Favarote, Esq.
          Jing Tong, Esq.
          GLEASON & FAVAROTE, LLP
          4014 Long Beach Blvd., Suite 300
          Long Beach, CA 90807
          Telephone: (213) 452-0510
          Facsimile: (213) 452-0514
          E-mail: tfavarote@gleasonfavarote.com
                  jtong@gleasonfavarote.com

TRILLER INC: Faces Biometric Data Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Jake Holland, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that video-sharing
social media app Triller Inc. illegally obtains and stores users'
biometric and video viewing information, according to a proposed
class action filed in New York federal court.

Triller's practices are a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act and the Video Privacy Protection Act, plaintiff Tamara Wilson
argued in a lawsuit filed Dec. 31 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The app analyzes users' "facial imprints" with its audio syncing
feature, alleged Wilson, an Illinois resident who says she used the
app for about six months. [GN]


TROJAN TUBULAR: Tom Wagoner Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
TOM WAGONER, Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly
Situated v. TROJAN TUBULAR SERVICES LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-00004
(E.D. Tex., Jan. 5, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid wages and unpaid
overtime wages and other damages from Defendant Trojan Tubular
Services LLC under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Wagoner worked for the Defendant TTS as a hydrostatic crew
supervisor from October 1, 2019, until March 1, 2020.

Mr. Wagoner and the other similarly situated employees who worked
for the Defendant in the last three years regularly worked more
than 40 hours per workweek.

Wagoner, and the putative collective action members, were not paid
for every hour that they worked, and did not receive overtime
premium payments for hours worked in excess of 40 hours during the
workweek, the lawsuit says.

TROJAN TUBULAR SERVICES LLC is a Texas-based company that is part
of the specialty trade contractors industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq.
          Matthew S. Yezierski, Esq.
          McDonald Worley, PC
          1770 St. James St., Suite 100
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 523-5500
          Facsimile: (713) 523-5501
          E-mail: gassaad@mcdonaldworley.com
                  matt@mcdonaldworley.com

TRUCK INSURANCE: Court Denies 50-40 Brewing's Bid to Remand Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, 54-40 BREWING COMPANY LLC, Plaintiff v. TRUCK
INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Defendant, Case No. C21-5586 BHS (W.D. Wash.),
Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Tacoma, denied Plaintiff 54-40's Motion to
Remand and for attorneys' fees.

Background

The matter is before the Court on Plaintiff 54-40's Motion to
Remand. 54-40 operates a brewery and restaurant in Washougal,
Washington. It purchased from Defendant Truck Insurance Exchange
("TIE") what it describes as an "all risk" business property
insurance policy.

54-40 sued in Clark County Superior Court on March 16, 2021. It
alleges that, as the result of COVID-19 and the Governor of
Washington's responsive proclamations and orders limiting various
business and social activities, it suffered business income losses
covered under its TIE policy. It alleges that it "sustained direct
physical loss or damage caused by the Governor's Orders."

54-40 made a claim under the policy for losses allegedly covered by
the policy's business income, extra expense, and civil authority
coverages. It alleges that TIE "cursorily denied" its claim and
similarly denied similar claims made by similarly impacted insureds
under similar TIE insurance policies.

54-40 seeks to represent four classes of similarly situated
insureds and seeks declaratory judgments that the losses are
covered under the TIE policies. 54-40 alleges that the number of
class members is "in the hundreds, if not thousands," and that the
classes' aggregate losses are "likely to be in the millions of
dollars."

TIE removed the case to the Court five months later, on Aug. 13,
2021. It asserted that the amount in controversy was not
ascertainable from the face of the Complaint and that it had
propounded discovery seeking to determine whether the case was
removable under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), which makes
a class action removable when the amount in controversy exceeds $5
million and the class contains more than 100 members.

TIE's notice of removal asserts (and demonstrates) that 54-40 did
not answer interrogatories seeking to identify the amount in
controversy and refused to produce any documents. It asserts that
the classes described in 54-40's Complaint are virtually identical
to those in a prior, similar class action, R2B2 LLC v. Truck
Insurance Exchange, Cause No. 21-cv-5585 BHS (W.D. Wash.). That
case was filed in Thurston County in January 2021, and TIE removed
it to the Court the same day it removed the instant case.

TIE alleges that it removed both cases because it obtained, on July
16, 2021, R2B2's production of confidential documents demonstrating
that it had suffered losses so large that CAFA's jurisdictional
minimum would be met if the class had only 25 similarly situated
members. TIE's Aug. 13, 2021 Notice of Removal did not specifically
describe the nature of the confidential documents it received, and
it did not attach them.

54-40 seeks remand, arguing that TIE's removal was defective
because it provided "no evidence" in support of its claim that the
amount in controversy exceeds CAFA's $5 million jurisdictional
minimum. It argues that the information TIE obtained from R2B2 is
not "other paper" upon which it may rely to remove under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1446(b)(3). 54-40 argues that TIE's "proffered evidence" is
legally insufficient and that there is no proof that the amount in
controversy is met. It asks the Court to remand the case to Clark
County and award it attorneys' fees.

Discussion

Putative class actions are removable under CAFA when the aggregate
amount in controversy exceeds $5 million for the entire class,
exclusive of interest and costs. The issue is whether TIE has met
its burden of demonstrating that the amount in controversy exceeds
$5 million.

54-40 argues that that the information TIE obtained from another
plaintiff in another case is not "other paper" upon which it may
rely to remove under 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(3). It claims the
only case on the subject that it located is Dalton v. Walgreen Co.,
which came out the other way. Dkt. 26 at 4 (citing Dalton v.
Walgreen Co., 721 F.3d 492 (8th Cir. 2013)). There, the Eighth
Circuit held that the defendant's attorney's receipt of written
discovery responses from the plaintiff in a different class action
asserting similar claims against a different defendant (the
attorney happened represent both defendants) was not "other paper"
for purposes of Section 1446(b)(3), and Walgreens had no statutory
basis for its removal. 54-40 emphasizes that it has not produced
any documents to TIE.

TIE argues that it is not required to "prove" the amount in
controversy to validly remove a class action; it instead is
required only to provide a short, plain statement of the grounds
for removal, consistent with the pleading requirements of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). It accurately points out that 54-40
does not actually challenge its conclusion that the amount in
controversy is met, and that even if it had, TIE now supplies the
evidence upon which it based its removal, and its good faith
reasoning about the amount in controversy is sound and plausible.
54-40's motion focuses on the propriety of relying on a document
produced by a different plaintiff in a different case; it does not
challenge the timeliness of removal, and it does not claim that the
amount in controversy is less than $5 million.

Judge Settle finds that 54-40's motion is based on the argument
that TIE cannot yet know how much is at stake in the class action.
That argument is not persuasive, he says. As it did R2B2, Judge
Settle concludes that TIE has met its burden of providing competent
proof that the amount in controversy likely exceeds $5 million, by
large margin. This assertion is based on good faith, and plausible
and logical assumptions and conclusions. The fact that its removal
was based on information provided by a class member who is not the
named plaintiff in this action does not alter that conclusion.

Order

Plaintiff 54-40's Motion to Remand and for attorneys' fees denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 28, 2021 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/57awf2sn from Leagle.com.


TRUE SELECT: Larson Seeks to Certify Class of Home Care Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOYCE LARSON, individually
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. TRUE SELECT,
LLC, et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-00077-TTC (W.D. Va.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "all persons who are working or have performed work in the
      United States for True Select and/or GuardianLight as a
      Home Care Worker (including but not limited to Caregivers,
      Home Health Aides, Certified Nursing Assistants, Care
      Coordinators, Companion Care Assistants and Personal Care
      Assistants) at any time within the past three years and
      who were not paid overtime compensation at 150% of their
      applicable regular rates of pay in a workweek in which
      they worked in excess of 40 hours (collectively "Home Care
      Workers" or the "Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Class");

   2. directing the Defendant to produce to Plaintiff's counsel
      the names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and
      email addresses of all potential members of the FLSA Class
      within 10 days of the date of Order;

   3. permitting the Plaintiff to issue notice to all potential
      members of the FLSA Class by first-class mail, electronic
      mail and text message, informing them of their right to
      opt in to this case;

   4. scheduling an opt-in period of 60 days, beginning from the
      date of Plaintiff's first issuance of notice;

   5. allowing Plaintiff to send reminder notices by first-class
      mail and electronic mail and text message to all potential
      members of the FLSA Class who have not yet responded to
      notice within 30 days of the first issuance of notice; and

   6. approving Plaintiff's proposed form of notice, and
      Plaintiff's proposed Opt-In Consent Form, to be included
      in the issuance of notice.

True Select is a health care provider.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Jan. 4,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3G7hyDm
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Goodley, Esq.
          Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq.
          GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC
          1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 394-0541
          E-mail: james@gmlaborlaw.com
                  ryan@gmlaborlaw.com

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Calabrese Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs James Calabrese, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled JAMES CALABRESE, GREGORY
CABANILLAS, and MATTHEW MECHANIC, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
and RASIER, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3-19-cv-18371, in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The lawsuit seeks all available relief for unpaid minimum wages
unpaid overtime wages and unreimbursed business expenses pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law,
New Jersey Wage and Hour Regulations, the New York Labor Law and
the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on December 6, 2021, Judge
Freda L. Wolfson of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey granted Uber's motion to compel arbitration.

Uber moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act
("FAA") pursuant to a clause in Plaintiffs' contracts. The
Plaintiffs argued that arbitration is inappropriate because they
fall within an exemption to the FAA as transportation workers who
move riders across state lines. Uber responded that the Plaintiffs
do not belong to such a class of workers because interstate rides
constitute a small fraction of all rides, and in any event, the
Court should order arbitration under the New Jersey Arbitration Act
("NJAA"), which embodies the same pro-arbitration policy as the FAA
without the exemptions.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of Arbitration Order entered by
Judge Wolfson as well as Court's Order dated November 23, 2021,
granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying as
moot Plaintiffs' motion to certify class.

The appellate case is captioned as James Calabrese, et al v. Uber
Technologies Inc, et al., Case No. 21-3363, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on December 28,
2021.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JAMES CALABRESE, GREGORY CABANILLAS, and
MATTHEW MECHANIC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Catherine E. Anderson, Esq.
          GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON
          11 Broadway, Suite 2150
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 847-8315
          E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com

               - and -

          Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROOSEVELT N. NESMITH, LLC
          363 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 2-C
          Montclair, NJ 07042
          Telephone: (973) 259-6990
          E-mail: roosevelt@nesmithlaw.com

               - and -

          Russell S. Warren, Jr., Esq.
          473 Sylvan Avenue
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: (201) 503-0773
          E-mail: mail@rwarrenlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. and RAISER LLC are
represented by:

          Paul C. Lantis, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON
          1601 Cherry Street
          Three Parkway, Suite 1400
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 402-3000
          E-mail: plantis@littler.com

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action in Nevada Seeks Uber Pool Refunds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Katelyn Newberg, writing for Las Vegas Review-Journal, reports that
a class-action lawsuit demands refunds for all passengers who used
Uber Pool in Nevada in the past six years, alleging that the
carpool service should not have been allowed in the state.

The lawsuit, filed on Dec. 28 in Clark County District Court,
alleges that Uber never obtained permission or a business license
in Nevada for the service that allows passengers to share
discounted rides with other users.

Attorney Craig Drummond, who filed the lawsuit, said Nevada law
allows for ride-sharing companies to operate in the state but does
not permit them to run carpooling services.

"They've never been authorized to do this," Drummond said.

Uber first tried operating in Nevada in 2014 but had to halt
services after only a month after losing a court case. The next
year, the Nevada Legislature passed a bill authorizing ride-hailing
companies in the state.

According to Nevada law, the regulations passed in 2015 do not
apply to a "digital network or software application" that allows
people "who are interested in sharing expenses for transportation
to a destination, commonly known as carpooling, to connect with
each other."

"Uber, at some point after that happened, decided to implement Uber
Pool without anyone's permission," Drummond said.

The company should be able to refund anyone who has used Uber Pool
in Nevada, the suit alleges, because user information "is kept and
stored in Uber's electronic database."

Uber did not respond to request for comment sent on Dec. 30.

To operate Uber Pool in Nevada, the law would have to be changed or
the company would need to seek permission from the Nevada
Transportation Authority, Drummond said.

According to a copy of a Dec. 14 letter from the agency obtained by
the Review-Journal, the Nevada Transportation Authority was "not
aware of any approvals ever being granted" to Uber for the
carpooling service.

Drummond said he requested the letter from the agency in a 2020
lawsuit filed against Uber by Steven Terry, who is also a plaintiff
in the Dec. 28 class action lawsuit.

In May 2018, Terry was in an Uber Pool when he and the driver were
kidnapped by two other passengers -- Aveyon Nevitt and Raitasha
Williams-Gardner, according to the lawsuit. Nevitt struck Terry in
the head with a firearm, forced the Uber driver onto a highway
towards Arizona and shot at passing semi-trucks while near the
Hoover Dam, the lawsuit said.

Nevitt pleaded guilty to kidnapping, aggravated assault and theft
of means of transportation. A judge in Kingman, Arizona, sentenced
him in April 2019 to 20 years in prison, while Williams-Gardner was
sentenced to seven years and six months, according to The
Associated Press.

Drummond said Terry's kidnapping was an example of the safety
concerns inherent in Uber Pool. If the car pooling service was
properly licensed, Drummond said, then the Legislature or the
Nevada Transportation Authority could impose safety precautions.

"It's a safety concern when you put random people together in
vehicles," Drummond said. [GN]

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class-Action Lawsuit Calls for Uber Pool Refunds
-------------------------------------------------------------------
reviewjournal.com reports that a class-action lawsuit demands
refunds for all passengers who used Uber Pool in Nevada in the past
six years, alleging that the carpool service should not have been
allowed in the state.

The lawsuit, filed in Clark County District Court, alleges that
Uber never obtained permission or a business license in Nevada for
the service that allows passengers to share discounted rides with
other users.

Attorney Craig Drummond, who filed the lawsuit, said Nevada law
allows for ride-sharing companies to operate in the state but does
not permit them to run carpooling services.

"They've never been authorized to do this," Drummond said.

Uber first tried operating in Nevada in 2014 but had to halt
services after only a month after losing a court case. The next
year, the Nevada Legislature passed a bill authorizing ride-hailing
companies in the state.

According to Nevada law, the regulations passed in 2015 do not
apply to a "digital network or software application" that allows
people "who are interested in sharing expenses for transportation
to a destination, commonly known as carpooling, to connect with
each other."

"Uber, at some point after that happened, decided to implement Uber
Pool without anyone's permission," Drummond said.

The company should be able to refund anyone who has used Uber Pool
in Nevada, the suit alleges, because user information "is kept and
stored in Uber's electronic database."

Uber did not respond to request for comment sent Thursday.

To operate Uber Pool in Nevada, the law would have to be changed or
the company would need to seek permission from the Nevada
Transportation Authority, Drummond said.

According to a copy of a Dec. 14 letter from the agency obtained by
the Review-Journal, the Nevada Transportation Authority was "not
aware of any approvals ever being granted" to Uber for the
carpooling service.

Drummond said he requested the letter from the agency in a 2020
lawsuit filed against Uber by Steven Terry, who is also a plaintiff
in Tuesday's class action lawsuit.

In May 2018, Terry was in an Uber Pool when he and the driver were
kidnapped by two other passengers - Aveyon Nevitt and Raitasha
Williams-Gardner, according to the lawsuit. Nevitt struck Terry in
the head with a firearm, forced the Uber driver onto a highway
towards Arizona and shot at passing semi-trucks while near the
Hoover Dam, the lawsuit said.

Nevitt pleaded guilty to kidnapping, aggravated assault and theft
of means of transportation. A judge in Kingman, Arizona, sentenced
him in April 2019 to 20 years in prison, while Williams-Gardner was
sentenced to seven years and six months, according to The
Associated Press.

Drummond said Terry's kidnapping was an example of the safety
concerns inherent in Uber Pool. If the car pooling service was
properly licensed, Drummond said, then the Legislature or the
Nevada Transportation Authority could impose safety precautions.

"It's a safety concern when you put random people together in
vehicles," Drummond said. [GN]

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Grosse Sues Over Attempted Assault Incident
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Grosse, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and Isaiah Grady,
Defendants Case No. DC-21-18239 (Tex. Dist., Dallas Cty., December
23, 2021) arises from Defendants Uber and Grady's false and
deceptive representations to consumers in violation of the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the consequences and dangers customers
routinely encounter as result of Uber's knowing and intentional
misrepresentations are exemplified in this case at bar, when
Plaintiff, Stacy Grosse, in reliance on Uber's false
representations, got into an Uber on the morning of March 11th,
2021, was taken to an off-route location at over 107 miles per
hour, where the driver attempted to assault her with his vehicle.

The Defendants allegedly engaged in an "unconscionable action or
course of action" to the detriment of Plaintiff as that term is
defined by Section 17.45(5) of the Texas Business and Commerce
Code, by taking advantage of the lack of knowledge, ability,
experience, or capacity of Plaintiff to grossly unfair degree.

In the course of the transactions between Plaintiff and Defendants,
Defendants owed Plaintiff duty to both (l) monitor Plaintiff's
ride; and/or (2) disclose to Plaintiff the significant limitations
of Uber's "ride monitoring" technology and efforts, asserts the
complaint.

Uber Technologies, Inc., commonly known as Uber, is an American
mobility service provider based in San Francisco, California with
operations in over 900 metropolitan areas worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles Jordan Farrar, Esq.
          William D. Farrar, Esq.
          THE FARRAR LAW GROUP, ATTORNEYS COUNSELORS
          1021 ESE Loop 323, Suite 120
          Tyler, TX 75701
          Telephone: (903) 520-0399
          Facsimile: (888) 511-5462  
          E-mail: jordan.farrar@wdfarrarlaw.com
                  will@wdfarrarlaw.com

UNITED SERVICES: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Spielman Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled LESTER I. SPIELMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION and USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 2:19-cv-01359-TJH-MAA, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 16, 2021, the
Plaintiff asked the Court to enter an order granting class
certification pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure of the following Class:

   "All individuals and entities in California insured by United
   Services Automobile Association or USAA Casualty Insurance
   Company and whose insurance covered or covers a leased
   vehicle with private-passenger physical damage coverage,
   including collision or physical damage other than collision
   coverage, who made a first-party claim, filed within four
   years of the date the lawsuit was filed through September 12,
   2020, that was adjusted by United Services Automobile
   Association or USAA Casualty Insurance Company as a total
   loss and who received an actual cash value payment from
   United Services Automobile Association or USAA Casualty
   Insurance Company that did not include sales tax and/or
   Vehicle Title and Registration Fees."

On December 9, 2021, Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. entered an order
granting Plaintiff's motion to certify the class.

The Defendant seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE
ASSOCIATION v. LESTER SPIELMAN, Case No. 21-80132, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December
27, 2021.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION is
represented by:

          Patrick Downes, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1350
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 901-8700

Plaintiff-Respondent LESTER I SPIELMAN, individually and behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jason Henry Alperstein, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  streisfeld@kolawyers.com  

               - and -

          Annick Persinger, Esq.
          TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com

UNITED STATES: Declaratory Judgment in Brito v. DOJ Partly Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, GILBERTO PEREIRA BRITO, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated; FLORENTIN AVILA LUCAS, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated; JACKY CELICOURT,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Petitioners, Appellants/Cross-Appellees v. MERRICK B. GARLAND,
Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; TIMOTHY S. ROBBINS,
Acting Field Office Director, Enforcement and Removal Operations,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; TAE D. JOHNSON, Acting
Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; ALEJANDRO
MAYORKAS, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; JEAN F.
KING, Director, Executive Office of Immigration Review, U.S.
Department of Justice; ANTONE MONIZ, Superintendent of the Plymouth
County Correctional Facility; YOLANDA SMITH, Superintendent of the
Suffolk County House of Corrections; STEVEN J. SOUZA,
Superintendent of the Bristol County House of Corrections;
CHRISTOPHER BRACKETT, Superintendent of the Strafford County
Department of Corrections; LORI STREETER, Superintendent of the
Franklin County House of Corrections, Respondents,
Appellees/Cross-Appellants, Case Nos. 20-1037, 20-1119 (1st Cir.),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued an Opinion:

   a. affirming the district court's declaratory judgment to the
      extent it declared that if the government refuses to offer
      release subject to bond to a noncitizen detained pursuant
      to 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(a), it must either prove by clear
      and convincing evidence that the noncitizen is dangerous or
      prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the
      noncitizen poses a flight risk; and

   b. vacating the district court's declaratory judgment and
      permanent injunction, and remanding for entry of judgment
      in accordance with its Opinion.

Background

The class action presents a due process challenge to the bond
procedures used to detain noncitizens during the pendency of
removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(a), the
discretionary immigration detention provision. The three
petitioners, who serve as named class representatives in the action
-- Gilberto Pereira Brito, Florentin Avila Lucas, and Jacky
Celicourt -- are noncitizens who were detained by Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers. None has committed a criminal
offense that would subject them to mandatory detention pending the
duration of their removal proceedings. They were therefore detained
under section 1226(a), which provides that the government "may
release" a detained noncitizen on "bond of at least $1,500 or
conditional parole."

Each promptly petitioned for release on bond pending the completion
of removal proceedings. Each also received a hearing before an
immigration judge (IJ). At the hearings, the burden was placed on
the petitioners in accordance with then-operative agency
regulations requiring a detainee to prove that he or she is neither
a danger to the community nor a flight risk. And in each instance,
the IJ denied release based on a failure to carry that burden.

The three petitioners subsequently filed a habeas corpus petition
and class action complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The petition contains two claims.

In the first claim, the petitioners assert that the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires the government to bear "the
burden to justify continued detention by proving by clear and
convincing evidence that the detainee is a danger to others or a
flight risk, and, even if he or she is, that no condition or
combination of conditions will reasonably assure the detainee's
future appearance and the safety of the community." This claim also
asserts that a constitutionally adequate bond hearing must include
"consideration of the detainee's ability to pay in selecting the
amount of any bond and consideration of suitability for release on
alternative conditions of supervision."

In their second claim, the petitioners allege that placing the
burden of proof in a bond hearing on the noncitizen -- rather than
on the government -- violates the Immigration and Nationality Act
and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

After the petitioners moved for class certification, ICE issued new
custody determinations for each of the three petitioners
authorizing their release on bond. All three declined to request
review of those custody determinations before an IJ. Rather, they
promptly posted bond and were released. At the same time, they
expressed their willingness to continue to serve as class
representatives. The district court in turn ruled that the class
claims remained alive, citing Genesis Healthcare Corporation v.
Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 76 (2013).

The district court certified two subclasses of noncitizens who have
been detained by ICE under section 1226(a) in Massachusetts or are
otherwise within the jurisdiction of the Boston Immigration Court.
The first subclass consists of those detainees who have not yet
received a bond hearing before an immigration judge (pre-hearing
class), while the second consists of those who have already been
denied release following a hearing (post-hearing class). The
district court then granted summary judgment in favor of both
subclasses on the due process claim and issued a declaratory order
and a permanent injunction.

The court's declaratory order first held that noncitizens "detained
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(a) are entitled to receive a bond
hearing at which the Government must prove the alien is either
dangerous by clear and convincing evidence or a risk of flight by a
preponderance of the evidence and that no condition or combination
of conditions will reasonably assure the alien's future appearance
and the safety of the community."

The district court then held that at any future bond hearing, "the
immigration judge must evaluate the alien's ability to pay in
setting bond above $1,500 and must consider alternative conditions
of release, such as GPS monitoring, that reasonably assure the
safety of the community and the alien's future appearances." In its
permanent injunction, the district court ordered immigration courts
to follow the requirements set forth in its declaratory order. Both
sides appealed.

The government raises two jurisdictional issues. First, it argues
that a statute -- 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(f)(1) -- precluded the
district court from issuing "classwide injunctive relief and
corresponding declaratory relief to enjoin or restrain the
operation of the provisions of 8 U.S.C. Sections 1221-1254a on a
classwide basis." Second, in response to the First Circuit's
request for supplemental briefing, the government argues that the
petitioners lack standing to press their claims that their IJs
should have considered alternatives to detention and the
noncitizens' ability to pay bond.

As to the merits, many of the issues the parties briefed on appeal
were resolved by the First Circuit's decision in Hernandez-Lara v.
Lyons, 10 F.4th 19 (1st Cir. 2021). In that opinion, the First
Circuit held that the minimum requirements of due process dictate
that, in order to detain a person under section 1226(a) who is
prepared to put up whatever bond is properly required, the
government must either prove by clear and convincing evidence that
the person is a danger to the community, or prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the person is a flight risk. The
First Circuit reaffirms that conclusion in the instant case.

Having cleared away the issues already decided in Hernandez-Lara,
the First Circuit considers several questions that remain: Whether
8 U.S.C. Section 1252 (f)(1) barred the classwide injunction
entered; whether the petitioners have standing to argue that their
IJs should have considered alternatives to detention and the
petitioners' ability to pay bond; and, if so, whether these
procedural due process claims have merit.

Discussion

I.

The First Circuit turns now to the government's contention that 8
U.S.C. Section 1252(f)(1) precludes the issuance of the classwide
injunctive relief granted by the district court. It finds that
Section 1252(f)(1) by itself posed no jurisdictional bar to
granting injunctive relief in favor of any individual class member
to the extent that each could show that he or she was "an
individual alien against whom proceedings" under section 1226(a)
had been initiated. The question then becomes how a court with
jurisdiction over multiple individuals' claims for injunctive
relief can go about managing the adjudication of those claims.

The government maintains that in cases like this, section
1252(f)(1) should be read as removing from the district court's
customary toolbox the option of grouping and adjudicating similar
individual claims on a class-wide basis. The government also has a
trump card in its hand: The Supreme Court has on three occasions
stated in dicta that section 1252(f)(1) "prohibits federal courts
from granting classwide injunctive relief against the operation of
Sections 1221-1231."

The Supreme Court in Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S.Ct. 830, 851
(2018) -- after flatly stating that section 1252(f)(1) "'prohibits
federal courts from granting class-wide injunctive relief against
the operation of 8 U.S.C. Sections 1221-32'" -- instructed the
Ninth Circuit to "consider on remand whether it may issue classwide
injunctive relief based on the noncitizens' constitutional claims."
In Jennings, the Supreme Court noted that the Ninth Circuit had not
yet analyzed whether injunctive relief on the noncitizens'
constitutional claims would enjoin or restrain the statutory
provisions at issue. If an injunction would do no such thing,
section 1252(f)(1) would not bar the relief. Thus, the Court's
instructions for remand might even suggest that its earlier
statement about classwide injunctions was a holding rather than
dictum because it took off the table any reconsideration of that
statement on remand.

The First Circuit therefore sets aside any attempt to determine in
the first instance how best to read the statutory text and instead
follows the Supreme Court's thrice-repeated, and quite express,
declaration. That leads it to the following inquiry: Does the
classwide injunction in this case "enjoin or restrain the
operation" of section 1226(a)?

The petitioners contend that the injunction only "bears upon agency
practice in implementing a discretionary statutory provision, and
not upon statutory requirements," which, according to them, are
"silent" on the procedural requirements at issue. But, the First
Circuit finds that, at least in the context of section 1226(a),
this is a distinction without a difference. The fact that the
statute may be "silent" as to procedural issues like the burden of
proof does not change the fact that the district court's injunction
restrains the operation of section 1226(a): Under the injunction,
if the government cannot bear the burden of showing a noncitizen is
a flight risk or a danger, the government may not continue
detaining that individual.

The First Circuit has considered the possibility that section
1226(a) might be construed (so as to avoid a possible
constitutional defect) to not grant the government the discretion
to detain without carrying the burden of proving flight risk or
dangerousness. With the statute thus construed, it says, one could
argue that the requested injunction bars only conduct by the
government that is beyond the scope of the discretion granted by
the statute. But Jennings cautions against such an ambitious use of
the constitutional avoidance canon. Without the benefit of any
briefing on such an argument, the First Circuit opts not to pursue
that path. Instead, it regards the district court's injunction to
be what it appears to be: A classwide injunction that restrains the
operation of section 1226(a) by requiring something that the
statute itself does not require. As such, it must be set aside
pursuant to section 1252(f)(1), as repeatedly described by the
Supreme Court.

Of course, the inability to use a class-wide injunction does not
deprive the district courts of their other tools for fairly and
efficiently managing similar individual requests for injunctive
relief. And the First Circuit's decision in Hernandez-Lara
establishes binding precedent that adds to that toolbox by
effectively accelerating the adjudication of similar habeas
petitions within this circuit.

II.

The First Circuit considers next the petitioners' fallback
contention that even if the district court lacked jurisdiction to
enjoin the government as it did, it retained jurisdiction to grant
declaratory relief. The government develops no argument that
section 1252(f)(1) itself bars classwide declaratory relief.
Nonetheless, because section 1252(f)(1) appears to limit our
statutory jurisdiction, the First Circuit addresses this issue. The
Jennings majority reserved the question whether the lower courts
"may issue only declaratory relief" under section 1252(f)(1).
Absent a Supreme Court decision resolving this question, the First
Circuit begins with the statutory text.

It opines that the statutory provision strips courts of
jurisdiction to "enjoin or restrain" the operation of certain
statutes. Nothing about that text suggests that it bars declaratory
relief. Moreover, Congress knows how to prohibit declaratory relief
when it so chooses. To be sure, the Supreme Court has on occasion
determined that declaratory relief is unavailable under a statute
that only expressly prohibits injunctive relief. But, the Court has
made clear that "declaratory relief may be available even though an
injunction is not." Because section 1252(f)(1) concerns federal
courts' ability to enjoin the operation of federal law, it does not
implicate federalism concerns.

Absent such concerns, the First Circuit concludes that declaratory
relief remains available under section 1252(f)(1). In so holding,
it reaches the unremarkable conclusion that Congress meant only
what it said -- and not what it did not say.

III.

The district court also declared that "the immigration judge must
evaluate the alien's ability to pay in setting bond above the
statutory minimum of $1,500 and must consider alternative
conditions of release, such as GPS monitoring, that reasonably
assure the safety of the community and the alien's future
appearances."

The First Circuit explains, threshold considerations of the
petitioners' standing and their failure to exhaust their claim
administratively combine to eliminate the need to consider the
government's challenge to this declaration on the merits. First,
the petitioners lack standing to press their claim that the Due
Process Clause requires an IJ to consider a noncitizen's ability to
pay bonds exceeding $1,500. Second, another "threshold ground"
prevents the First Circuit from reaching the merits of the
petitioners' alternatives-to-detention claim: It is barred by the
doctrine of administrative exhaustion. Third, the First Circuit
declines to review the petitioners' unexhausted
alternatives-to-release claim because the petitioners do not argue
that they exhausted their alternatives-to-detention claims.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the First Circuit affirms the district
court's declaratory judgment to the extent it declared that if the
government refuses to offer release subject to bond to a noncitizen
detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(a), it must either prove
by clear and convincing evidence that the noncitizen is dangerous
or prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the noncitizen
poses a flight risk. The First Circuit otherwise vacates the
district court's declaratory judgment and permanent injunction, and
remands for entry of judgment in accordance with its opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 28, 2021 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y84nparc from Leagle.com.

Daniel McFadden, with whom Matthew R. Segal, Adrian Lafaille,
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Massachusetts, Inc.,
Gilles R. Bissonnette -- gilles@aclu-nh.org -- Henry R.
Klementowicz -- henry@aclu-nh.org -- SangYeob Kim --
sangyeob@aclu-nh.org -- American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
of New Hampshire, New Hampshire Immigrants' Rights Project, Michael
K. T. Tan -- mtan@aclu.org -- ACLU Foundation Immigrants' Rights
Project, Susan M. Finegan -- sfinegan@mintz.com -- Susan J. Cohen
-- SJCohen@mintz.com -- Andrew Nathanson -- ANNathanson@mintz.com
-- Mathilda S. McGee-Tubb -- MSMcGee-Tubb@mintz.com -- Ryan
Dougherty -- RTDougherty@mintz.com -- and Mintz, Levin, Cohn,
Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. were on brief, for the
Appellants/Cross-Appellees.

Maura Heale, Attorney General of Massachusetts, Amanda Hainsworth,
Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, Mark R. Herring,
Attorney General of Virginia, William Tong, Attorney General of
Connecticut, Claire Kindall, Solicitor General of Connecticut,
Joshua Perry, Special Counsel for Civil Rights, Xavier Becerra,
Attorney General of California, Kathleen Jennings, Attorney General
of Delaware, Clare E. Connors, Attorney General of Hawai'i, Kwame
Raoul, Attorney General of Illinois, Aaron M. Frey, Attorney
General of Maine, Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General of Maryland,
Dana Nessel, Attorney General of Michigan, Keith Ellison, Attorney
General of Minnesota, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General of Nevada,
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General of New Jersey, Hector Balderas,
Attorney General of New Mexico, Letitia James, Attorney General of
New York, Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General of Oregon, Peter F.
Neronha, Attorney General of Rhode Island, Thomas J. Donavan, Jr.,
Attorney General of Vermont, Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General
of Washington, and Karl A. Racine, Attorney General for the
District of Columbia, on brief for the Commonwealths of
Massachusetts and Virginia, the States of Connecticut, California,
Delaware, Hawai'i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island,
Vermont, and Washington, and the District of Columbia, amici
curiae.

Benjamin Casper Sanchez, Mimi Alworth, Valkyrie Jensen, Mengying
Yao, and James H. Binger Center for New Americans, University of
Minnesota Law School on brief for American Immigration Lawyers
Association, amicus curiae.

Dayna J. Zolle, Elizabeth B. Wydra, Brianne J. Gorod, and Brian R.
Frazelle, on brief for Constitutional Accountability Center, amicus
curiae.

Huy M. Le, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, with
whom Ethan P. Davis, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Division, William C. Peachey, Director, District Court Section,
Office of Immigration Litigation, Elianis N. Perez, Assistant
Director, C. Frederick Sheffield, Senior Litigation Counsel, and J.
Max Weintraub, Senior Litigation Counsel, were on brief, for the
Appellees/Cross-Appellants.


UNITED STATES: Navy Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Red Hill Spill
------------------------------------------------------------------
maritime-executive.com reports that in addition to its troubles
with state and local regulators in Hawaii, the U.S. Navy may soon
face a class-action lawsuit over the recent water contamination
event at its Red Hill fuel storage facility, a WWII-era underground
tank farm on the outskirts of Honolulu.

On November 20, the facility recently released 17,000 gallons of
fuel/water mixture from a ruptured drain line, the result of a
"cart crash" inside its tunnels. This resulted in fuel
contamination in a water system that supplies 93,000 servicemembers
and their families. Since the problem was discovered in early
December, about 4,000 personnel have been relocated to temporary
housing, and the U.S. Army has stepped up to provide short-term
food and drinking water while the Navy works to flush the system.

On Thursday, Honolulu-based attorney Michael Green told local media
that the circumstances of the accident are ripe for a class-action
lawsuit for servicemembers' dependents. Children, spouses and even
pregnant women were exposed to the water, which had concentrations
of fuel up to 350 times the state's emergency action level,
according to the state department of health.

"I have reason to believe the documents that could go to show the
reckless conduct [at Red Hill] - if not criminal conduct - [have]
been reclassified by the Navy," Green told local KHON2 News. "So
that's going to make it almost impossible for us to get those
documents without a court order."

Navy continues fight against state closure order

Following the discovery of water contamination at Red Hill,
Hawaiian Gov. David Ige and the state's health department ordered
the Navy to close and drain the facility until it is inspected and
proven safe. Hawaiian Deputy Attorney General David Day upheld the
order after a series of contentious hearings last week, and the
Department of Health will make a final decision on whether it
should be executed within 30 days.

The Navy is still fighting the order. On Thursday, it filed a
written objection to the hearing officer's findings, arguing that
the decision did not lay out a sufficient factual basis to prove
that there is an emergency. "There is no evidence in the record
showing that [Red Hill] operations pose an inherent risk of causing
harm, such that merely resuming operations would automatically give
rise to 'grave risk; jeopardy; danger' that is 'likely to occur at
any moment,'" argued the Navy's counsel in a detailed 43-page
objection.  

Honolulu's Bureau of Water Supply, which has fought to close Red
Hill for years, called on the Navy to accept the decision. The BWS
said that the service's latest objections "largely reiterate the
same flawed arguments that were already raised, considered and
rejected in full and fair contested case proceeding." [GN]

UNLIMITED POTENTIAL: West Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA, OPPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reuben West, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Unlimited Potential Pizza, Inc.; Best Pizza, LLC; DW & KV Pizza,
Inc.; Milford Pizza, Inc.; Sandeaver, Inc; Symmes Pizza, Inc.; TGD
Food Group, Inc.; Weaver Dream Team, Inc.; MaryLu Weaver; John Doe
1-10; Doe Corporation 1-10, Case No. 1:22-cv-00007-MWM (S.D. Ohio,
Jan. 5, 2022) seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and
equitable relief based on Defendants' alleged willful failure to
compensate the Plaintiff and similarly-situated individuals with
minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Ohio's "Prompt Pay Act", and unjust enrichment.

The Defendants allegedly failed to adequately reimburse delivery
drivers for their delivery-related expenses, thereby failing to pay
delivery drivers the legally mandated minimum wage for all hours
worked.

The Defendants operate several Jet's Pizza franchises in Ohio and
Michigan.

Plaintiff Reuben West is a resident of Ohio and, at all material
times herein, Plaintiff worked within the boundaries of Southern
District of Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel Elswick, Jr., Esq.
          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Samuel D. Elswick, Jr., Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          www.billerkimble.com
          8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
          Cincinnati, OH 45236
          Telephone: (513) 202-0710
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
                  akimble@billerkimble.com
                  selswick@billerkimble.com

URBAN GARDEN: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Urban Garden Center
LLC. The case is styled as Victor Lopez, on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Urban Garden Center LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00070 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 4, 2022).

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

Urban Garden Center -- http://www.urbangardencenter.net/-- is the
source for all your indoor and outdoor gardening needs in
Maine.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VAN'S INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Misleading Waffle Product Labels
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Collins, writing for Law Street, reports that Molly Brown
filed a complaint in the Northern District of California against
Van's International Foods, Inc. for the misleading labels of their
Power Grains Protein Original Waffles for allegedly not having a
reasonable amount of protein per serving.

On the label of Van's waffles products, the complaint explained,
the company claims the food contains "10g PLANT-BASED protein." The
plaintiffs argued that they would "reasonably expect that each
product will actually provide the amount of protein per serving
claimed on the front of the product package."

According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), however, not
all proteins contain all nine essential amino acids; others contain
proteins that humans cannot digest. In order to measure the quality
of proteins, the FDA uses the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino
Acid Score (PDCAAS) which labels each protein on a scale from 0.0
to 1.0. A PDCAAS of 0.5 means that 50% of the protein contained in
the product is digestible.

The complaint contends that Van's waffles are illegally labeled
since they do not contain a percent daily value of protein, which
is required by FDA regulations. Furthermore, the PDCAAS of the
wheats and oats in these waffles are 0.4-0.5, meaning that only 4-5
grams of protein, out of the 10 grams advertised per serving, are
actually digestible and usable by the human body, per the
complaint.

As a result, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants'
advertising is "unlawful, misleading, and intended to induce
consumers to purchase the Products at a premium price, while
ultimately failing to meet consumer expectations." Furthermore, by
advertising that these products have increased protein, this
allowed the defendants to charge more money for each box of their
waffles for "premium" ingredients. Thus, the plaintiffs are suing
for violations of the Business and Professions Code, Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs are seeking class certification, injunctive relief
permanently enjoining the defendants from continuing their unlawful
business practices, compensatory damages, statutory damages,
punitive damages, treble damages, restitution, and pre- and
post-judgment interest.

The plaintiffs are represented by Gutride Safier LLP. [GN]

VECTOR STRUCTURAL: Cajamarca Sues Over Unpaid OT for Brick Layers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MAURO CAJAMARCA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VECTOR STRUCTURAL PRESERVATION CORP.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-07169 (E.D.N.Y., December 29, 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 overtime wages, failure to provide accurate wage notices, and
failure to furnish proper wage statements.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a brick layer from March
2019 until mid-February 2020.

Vector Structural Preservation Corp. is a construction company,
with its principal place of business located at 21 Willowdale
Avenue, Port Washington, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Danielle Petretta, 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

VENTURE SOLAR: Perrong Files TCPA Suit in D. Connecticut
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Venture Solar
Capital, LLC. The case is styled as Andrew Perrong, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Venture Solar
Capital, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00005-KAD (D. Conn., Jan. 3, 2022).

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

Venture Solar Capital are providers of high-efficiency solar panel
systems for the best value in the area, offering installation,
financing & solar leasing options.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Phone: (615) 485-0018
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com


VERIZON BUSINESS: Underpays Salespeople, Hogue Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY HOGUE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES, LLC, a
limited liability company; VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES, INC.,
a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 21STCV47026 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
December 27, 2021) is a class action brought for California Labor
Code violations and unfair business practices stemming from
Defendants' failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and
permit rest periods, failure to maintain accurate records of hours
worked and meal periods, failure to timely pay all wages to
terminated employees, failure to indemnify necessary business
expenses, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a salesperson from
approximately 2017 to January 2021.

Verizon Business Network Services, was founded in 1998. The
company's line of business includes providing telephone voice and
data communications services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kane Moon, Esq.
          Lilit Ter-Astvatsatryan, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 232-3128
          Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
          E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
                  lilit@moonyanglaw.com

VICTORIA'S SECRET: Lizama Remanded to St. Louis Cty. Circuit Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ABRAHAM LIZAMA, on behalf of Himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES, LLC and
VICTORIA'S SECRET DIRECT, LLC Defendants, Case No. 4:21CV763 HEA
(E.D. Mo.), Judge Henry Edward Autrey of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted the
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.

Background

The lawsuit is a putative class action filed by the Plaintiff in
the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri against the
Defendants on behalf of himself and all persons and entities who
purchased a product from Victoria's Secret through remote sales
channels, including its internet website, that was delivered from
an out-of-state facility to a Missouri delivery address and who
were allegedly charged tax monies at a higher tax rate than the
correct applicable use tax rate. According to the Petition,
Missouri law requires retailers to charge sales or use tax on the
sales of their products to Missouri purchasers.

Missouri state law mandates that retailers with tax nexus charge a
use tax on sales of their products through remote means, including
an internet website, telephone, catalog or other remote
communications systems channel(s)") to Missouri purchasers that are
shipped from an out-of-state facility. The state use tax rate for
these sales is 4.225%. There may also be additional local use taxes
that are imposed on sales made through remote sales channels based
on the delivery address of the Missouri purchasers. The state use
tax rate of 4.225% plus any applicable local use tax impositions is
the cumulative use tax rate for any given location.

The Plaintiff seeks damages for the overcollection of excess tax.
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief as well as damages and costs for
violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"), Mo
Rev. Stat. Section 407.010 et seq., as well as damages for unjust
enrichment, negligence, and money had and received. The Plaintiff
seeks to represent all persons who were charged excess taxes.

The Defendants removed the case from the Circuit Court of St. Louis
County to the Court on June 24, 2021. They assert original
jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C.
1332(d) ("CAFA"). CAFA authorizes removal if, there is minimal
diversity, the proposed class contains at least 100 members, and
the amount in controversy is at least $5 million in the aggregate.
The Defendants based the removal on the following: $2.5 million in
estimated actual damages, which it claims represents the amount of
excess taxes it over collected during the class period, a 33%
attorney fee award of the estimated actual damages which would be
$825,000, and injunctive relief based on the taxes that Victoria's
Secret would annually cease collecting, which equals an
undiscounted $2.5 million over the next 5 years and $5 million over
the next 10 years.

Discussion

The Defendants argue that the amount of actual damages it collected
is $2.5 million in excess taxes during the class period. This
figure represents the net difference, from the total of $9 million
in taxes collected, between the allegedly proper tax rate of 4.225%
and the rate applied at the time of purchase. The Defendants then
add to this figure a "permissible" range of attorney's fees,
$825,000 (33% of actual damages), and "the value of injunctive
relief."

Judge Autrey opines that the Defendants' speculative costs of
injunctive relief cannot factor into the determination. Even if the
Court were to consider the Defendants' figures, they have not
presented any authority that an award of injunctive relief analysis
should include the Defendants' inability to collect future taxes.
To base CAFA jurisdiction on the future value of the Defendants'
conduct on arbitrary time factors, such as five or ten years, or ad
infinitum is not reasonable.

Conclusion

Judge Autrey concludes that the amount of compensatory damages in
controversy for purposes of determining CAFA jurisdiction at the
time the case was removed from state court totals $2.5 million.
Adding a 33% attorneys' fee award to this amount brings the total
to $3.325 million. There are no punitive damages or injunctive
relief values to consider. Accordingly, the total amount in
controversy reasonably expected at the time of removal was well
below the $5 million threshold required for CAFA jurisdiction.

Based on the foregoing, the Defendants have not met their burden of
showing that federal CAFA jurisdiction exists because they have
failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the
amount in controversy in the action met the $5 million threshold
required for such jurisdiction at the time of removal. The matter
will be remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Accordingly, Judge Autrey granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.
The action is remanded to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County,
Missouri.

A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 28, 2021 Opinion, Memorandum &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yckxfh8t from
Leagle.com.


WALGREEN BOOTS: Hall Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Walgreens Boots
Alliance, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Tracy Hall,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., Walgreen Co., Case No.
1:22-cv-00024 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 3, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.
--https://www.walgreensbootsalliance.com/ -- is an American holding
company headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois that owns the retail
pharmacy chains Walgreens and Boots, as well as several
pharmaceutical manufacturing and distribution companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonas Jacobson, Esq.
          DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
          201 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 600
          Santa Monica CA, CA 90401
          Phone: (310) 656-7066
          Email: jonas@dovel.com


WESTMINSTER PINES: Case Management, Sched Order Entered in Noriega
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Edwin Noriega v. WESTMINSTER PINES, INC.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-01014-BJD-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Brian J.
Davis entered a case management and scheduling order as follows:

   -- Move for Class Certification by:       Jan. 13, 2023

   -- Conduct mediation hearing by:          Feb. 28, 2023

   -- Discovery due by:                      March 17, 2023

   -- Dispositive motions due by:            April 12, 2023

   -- Pretrial statement due by:             Sept. 13, 2023

   -- Final Pretrial Conference set for:     Sept. 20, 2023

Westminster Pines is a church-related non-profit community service
organization.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 4, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nabti1 at no extra charge.[CC]



WILDCAT INVESTMENTS: Scheduling Entered in Foley Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES FOLEY v. WILDCAT
INVESTMENTS, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-05234-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered an scheduling order as
follows:

  -- Initial Disclosures due by:            Feb. 21, 2022

  -- Joinder of Parties & Motions           Feb. 21, 2022
     to Amend due by:

  -- Class Certification Motion             March 1, 2022
     due by:

  -- Settlement Demand due by:              Feb. 21, 2022

  -- Response to Settlement Demand          March 21, 2022
     due by:

  -- Case is referred to Mediation in:      June 6, 2022

Wildcat Investments is franchise development company specializing
in restaurant concepts.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 3, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3q8OV2M at no extra charge.[CC]

WOLFGANG'S VAULT: Court Breaks Up Classes in Copyright Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Blake Brittain, writing for Reuters, reports that online concert
archive Wolfgang's Vault on Jan. 3 persuaded a U.S. appeals court
to break up two classes of musicians and composers who sued it for
copyright infringement.

Musician Greg Kihn failed to prove that issues common to the
classes predominated over his own individual claims, the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals said.

Wolfgang's Vault has thousands of audio and video recordings of
concerts by hundreds of performers including the Rolling Stones,
the Grateful Dead and Janis Joplin. It and owner William Sagan have
faced multiple copyright infringement lawsuits, including one
brought by the Doors, Carlos Santana and others that settled in
2008, and another in which a group of publishers won nearly
$200,000 from the site in 2020.

The site offered recordings of several performances by The Greg
Kihn Band. Kihn argued that he never approved the recording or
distribution of his shows, and sued Wolfgang's Vault in San
Francisco in 2017 on behalf of himself and others whose concert
recordings it allegedly offered without permission.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers certified two classes of
composers and performers whose works had supposedly been
"reproduced, performed, distributed, or otherwise exploited" by the
website since 2014.

Wolfgang's Vault appealed the order, arguing it was wrong to
"expand a personal dispute" between Kihn and the site into an
"exceedingly rare and unmanageable copyright class action."

A unanimous three-judge 9th Circuit panel agreed, writing in a
joint opinion that Kihn had improperly tailored the classes to his
own claims.

After the site provided evidence that Kihn had licensed some of the
recordings, the court said he had tried to redefine the classes to
exclude those recordings from the case. But the panel said Kihn and
his publishing company "may not accommodate differentiated evidence
of their own consent while asking that every other artist's
recordings be presumed unauthorized."

"If the case were litigated to judgment, individual issues of
license and consent would predominate for the absent class members,
who have not yet had the opportunity Plaintiffs had to sift through
their claims and exclude those that lack merit," the court said.

The appeals court sent the case back to San Francisco for further
proceedings.

U.S. Circuit Judges Michelle Friedland, Daniel Bress, and Patrick
Bumatay wrote the opinion.

Wolfgang's Vault and the parties' attorneys didn't immediately
respond to a request for comment.

The case is Kihn v. Bill Graham Archives LLC d/b/a Wolfgang's
Vault, No. 20-17397, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

For Kihn: Daniel Warshaw of Pearson, Simon & Warshaw; and Neville
Johnson of Johnson & Johnson.

For the Archives: Michael Elkin of Winston & Strawn [GN]


WORLD WRESTLING: Appeals Sanctions Ruling in McCullough PI Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled RUSS MCCULLOUGH, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs v. WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 15-cv-1074, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, New Haven.

On April 9, 2015, a lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District Court
for the Central District of California, entitled Russ McCullough,
a/k/a "Big Russ McCullough," Ryan Sakoda, and Matthew R. Wiese
a/k/a "Luther Reigns," individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.,
asserting similar allegations to Haynes. The Company moved to
transfer the lawsuit to Connecticut due to forum-selection clauses
in the contracts between WWE and the plaintiffs, which the
California court granted on July 10, 2015.

The suit was one of the consolidated cases involving personal
injury claims by professional wrestlers against World Wrestling
Entertainment, Inc., Vincent K. McMahon, and other defendants. The
case was previously assigned to Judge Vanessa Bryant, and she
entered orders in 2018 dismissing the plaintiffs' consolidated
claims and granting motions by WWE and McMahon for sanctions under
Rules 11 and 37 against the plaintiffs' attorney, Konstantine W.
Kyros, and his law firm, Kyros Law P.C.

The Defendants now seek a review of the Court's Order dated
November 24, 2021, denying Defendants' motion to alter and/or for
relief from judgment; Court's Order dated September 30, 2021,
adopting the recommended ruling that Plaintiffs' motion to Strike
be denied as moot and granting in part Defendants' motions for
sanctions; Court's Judgment dated September 27, 2018; Court's Order
dated September 17, 2018, granting Defendants' motion for judgment
on the pleadings, motions to dismiss, and granting in part and
denying in part Defendants' motion for sanctions; and Court's Order
dated July 22, 2018, adopting Defendants' motion for sanctions be
granted in part. These sanctions orders required Kyros and his law
firm to pay the legal fees and costs incurred by the Defendants in
litigating the motions for sanctions.

The appellate case is captioned as Russ McCullough v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Case No. 21-3136, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on December 28,
2021.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants World Wrestling Entertainment, Incorporated;
and Vincent K. McMahon, Individually and as The Trustee of the
Vincent K. McMahon Irrevocable Trust U/T/A dtd. June 24, 2004, as
the Trustee of the Vincent K. McMahon 2008, and as Special Trustee
of the Vincent K. McMahon 2013 Irrev. Trust U/A dtd. December 5,
2013 and as Trust, are represented by:

          Jeffrey Mueller, Esq.
          DAY PITNEY LLP
          242 Trumbull Street
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 275-0164
          E-mail: jpmueller@daypitney.com

Respondents-Appellees Kyros Law P.C. and Konstantine W. Kyros,
appear pro se.

WORLD WRESTLING: Kyros Law Appeals Ruling in McCullough Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' counsel, Konstantine W. Kyros, and his law firm, Kyros
Law P.C., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit styled RUSS MCCULLOUGH, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. WORLD
WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-1074, in
the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

The lawsuit involves seven cases consolidated in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut. Each of the cases
was brought against World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (WWE), by
one or more former WWE wrestlers. The Plaintiffs all alleged that
as a result of physical trauma they experienced while performing
for WWE, they suffered neurological damage resulting in diseases
such as chronic traumatic encephalopathy, as well as other
significant physical and mental-health impairments. All of the
cases were consolidated in the district court based on disputed
forum-selection clauses in the wrestlers' contracts with WWE. The
cases filed by William Albert Haynes III in October 2014 and by
Russ McCullough, Ryan Sakoda, and Matthew Robert Wiese in April
2015 were putative class actions in which the matter in controversy
exceeded $5 million and involved a class member who was a citizen
of a State different from any defendant, thus giving rise to
federal jurisdiction in the district court under 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d)(2)(A).

Plaintiffs' counsel, Konstantine W. Kyros, and his law firm, Kyros
Law P.C., now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated September
17, 2018 and Judgment dated September 27, 2018, granting
Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings and motions to
dismiss and granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion
for sanctions; Court's Order dated September 30, 2021, granting in
part Defendants' motions for sanctions and denying as moot
Plaintiffs' motion to strike; Court's Order dated November 24,
2021, denying Plaintiffs' motion to alter and/or for relief from
judgment; and Court's Order dated July 22, 2018, granting in part
and denying in part Defendants' motion for sanctions, consistent
with the Court's Order.

The appellate case is captioned as Russ McCullough v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Case No. 21-3127, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on December 27,
2021.[BN]

Defendants-Appellees World Wrestling Entertainment, Incorporated;
and Vincent K. McMahon, Individually and as The Trustee of the
Vincent K. McMahon Irrevocable Trust U/T/A dtd. June 24, 2004, as
the Trustee of the Vincent K. McMahon 2008, and as Special Trustee
of the Vincent K. McMahon 2013 Irrev. Trust U/A dtd. December 5,
2013 and as Trust, are represented by:

          Jeffrey Mueller, Esq.
          DAY PITNEY LLP
          242 Trumbull Street
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 275-0164
          E-mail: jpmueller@daypitney.com

XPO LAST: Class Cert. Briefing Schedule Amended in Green Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Green, et al., v. XPO Last
Mile, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-01896 (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge
Jeffrey A. Meyer entered an order granting the joint motion to
amend class certification briefing schedule as follows:

   -- Plaintiffs' motion by January 24, 2022

   -- Defendant's opposition by March 7, 2022

   -- Plaintiff's reply by March 28, 2022

The nature of suit states other labor litigation.[CC]

ZENDESK INC: Juan Monteverde Investigates Momentive Global Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities class action firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2020
ISS Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at
the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating
ZenDesk, Inc. ("ZEN" or the "Company") (ZEN), relating to its
merger with Momentive Global, Inc. Under the terms of the
agreement, ZEN shareholders will own approximately 78% of the
combined company.

The investigation focuses on whether ZEN and its Board of Directors
violated securities laws and/or breached their fiduciary duties to
the Company by 1) failing to conduct a fair process, and 2) whether
the transaction is properly valued.

Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/zendesk-inc. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

About Monteverde & Associates PC

Monteverde & Associates PC is a national class action securities
litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars and is
committed to protecting shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. It
is listed in the Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Report. Its lawyers have significant experience
litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr.
Monteverde is recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in
Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less
than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been
selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. Our
firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant
victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e)
of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, over the years the firm has recovered or secured over a dozen
cash common funds for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class
action cases.

If you owned common stock in the Company and wish to obtain
additional information and protect your investments free of charge,
please visit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either
via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at
(212) 971-1341.

Contact:

Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341

Attorney Advertising. (C) 2022 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates
PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]

ZOOM VIDEO: Victims Get $15 for False End-to-End Encryption Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Davi Ottenheimer, writing for Security Boulevard, reports that this
lawsuit settlement with Zoom begs the question how much Facebook
users should get, given similar false claims of end-to-end
encryption.

Strangely, the lawsuit excludes large customers who may have
suffered the most egregious violations of trust.

That's a similar problem to Facebook's false representation of its
implementation of encryption.

Technically however Zoom made a different set of mistakes, and a
court doc like this one all about the details.

For example, the court says the plaintiffs might be right about
Facebook and Zoom conspiring to violate privacy (after all, Zoom
hired the disgraced ex-CSO of Facebook to help drive its
Titanic-level errors) yet plaintiffs could not always provide
evidence of how they themselves had been affected by each flaw.

"The Court concludes that one former Plaintiff may have adequately
alleged that Zoom shared her personal data through the Facebook
SDK. Specifically, former Plaintiff Cynthia Gormezano alleges using
Zoom on an iPhone "in March of 2020," FAC 52 -- which is likely
while Zoom's iOS app still implemented Facebook's SDK. However, on
February 18, 2021, Gormezano voluntarily dismissed her claims
against Zoom without prejudice. ECF No. 158. Thus, the question is
whether the remaining Plaintiffs adequately allege that Zoom
disclosed their device data through Facebook's SDK."

And on that note, with Plaintiff Cynthia Gormezano dismissing her
"adequate" claims an important specific flaw was swept under a
rug.

Is $15 enough compensation for a failure of encryption and
disclosure of details to Facebook, who themselves failed massively
at privacy?

A copy of the Settlement Notice is available at:

https://www.zoommeetingsclassaction.com/Content/Documents/Notice.pdf
[GN]

[*] Affected Families Urged to Join Forces Over "Land Grabs" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
royalgazette.com reports that an American who claims an island off
Southampton may have been misappropriated from her family a century
ago is calling on others with evidence of "land grabs" to join
forces for a class-action lawsuit.

Helen Muise said affected families should consider taking legal
action against local law firms involved in conveyances where there
were question marks about the title deeds and true ownership.

"I would like to get the residents of Bermuda together to get a
class-action lawsuit started because nobody is really doing
anything," she said.

"They are listening now, which is great, but now is the time for
action."

Ms Muise, from Wyoming, only began researching her family's Bermuda
property history this summer, so missed the opportunity to have the
matter reviewed by the Commission of Inquiry into Historic Land
Losses, whose report was tabled in Parliament by the Premier on
December 10.

She said she hoped the commission would resume to look at more
cases, although there is no suggestion that this will happen.

And she questioned why the panel was unable to find Bermuda wills,
which she said could be easily located on familysearch.org, a free
genealogical website run by the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints.

"I find it very odd," she said.

The call for a class-action lawsuit is being backed by two
Bermudians who wanted to testify before the commission and claim
they were barred from doing so.

Raymond Davis, also known as Khalid Wasi, and Myron Piper called
for a judicial review into the commission last year, claiming it
was a sham and that the commissioners had conflicts of interest.

The Royal Gazette revealed that the judicial review never went
ahead because no judge could be found who was not conflicted.

Mr Davis is now calling for a Royal Commission of Inquiry to be set
up with commissioners appointed from overseas.

Mr Davis said that he and others would support a class action.

Ms Muise told The Royal Gazette she had long been aware of a story
told by her late uncle, Ben Nunn, about how the family lost Perot
Island and other properties in Bermuda.

In August, she finally found the time to look through old files
that had been left to the family by her uncle.

"The property was willed to my great-great-grandfather, Ormond
Leigh Dickinson, by his uncle, Joseph Catlin Dickinson, to be
dispersed," said Ms Muise.

"In 1917, there was a sale ad for Perot Island. I think they tried
to sell the island but because there was not a deed, they weren't
able to."

Ms Muise said her research led her to believe the original deed was
lost on a shipwreck.

The trail goes cold after 1917 and the next record she could find
was from 1928, when Claudia Darrell, the parish registrar for
Southampton, claimed to own the land via deed and tried to sell
it.

Conveyance records from 1937 show the land divided between three
owners - Claudia Darrell, parliamentarian Henry Thompson North -
who is named in the COI report in relation to another matter - and
Thornton Wallace Orr, who built a mansion there.

Ms Muise alleged that Ms Darrell, who died in 1949, forged a title
deed.

She said attempts were made to change the name of Perot Island -
her great-great- great uncle had bought it from the Perot family -
to Crumb Brush Island or Tibby's Island.

She said it has since changed ownership several times.

Ms Muise said her late uncle Ben Nunn, who was born in Bermuda in
the 1950s, made inquiries about the sale of the property in the
1980s but was given short shrift by the Bank of Bermuda.

Now she is unsure how to confirm her belief that the island was
misappropriated from her ancestors.

"I have contacted many lawyers over there [in Bermuda]," she said.

"None of them will respond to my e-mails. I have contacted
whereismyland.org, I have contacted the FBI."

Anyone who believes thay have lost land and wishes to contact Ms
Muise can e-mail her at helynoftroy@gmail.com

The commission was established in October 2019 "to inquire into
historic losses of citizens' property in Bermuda".

It was beset by a number of controversies after its first public
hearings got under way in September, 2020.

In October 2020, Ivan Whitehall, the commission's senior counsel,
stepped down for "personal reasons" and was replaced by Dirk
Harrison.

A month later, two COI investigators wrote to the commissioners
expressing concerns over "the integrity of the commission's
proceedings", including the protection of witnesses and alleged
conflicts of interest among commissioners. When the contracts of
the two investigators expired shortly after, they were not
renewed.

In November 2020 police launched an inquiry after one investigator
claimed that documents and personal papers were removed from her
desk.

In January 2021, the commission was branded a sham by two witnesses
who claimed they were barred from giving evidence at the hearing.

The pair filed an affidavit calling for an injunction and a
judicial review, claiming that the commissioners were conflicted
because they had close links to the institutions under
investigation.

But their reasons for wanting a judicial review were never heard -
because all commercial judges on the island were conflicted.

In its final report, which was presented to the House of Assembly
earlier this month, the commissioners wrote: "The COI acknowledges
that it received some claims that were refused because they did not
fit into the COI's mandate.

"Regrettably, because their claims were refused, some claimants and
some persons who were engaged by the COI publicly criticised the
Inquiry, questioning the integrity of the process and the
partiality of certain commissioners.

"As a creature of statute and a quasi-judicial body, the COI
practised the required judicial restraint and did not engage in
public debate when criticised." [GN]

[*] Food Industry Must Reach Balance in Consumer Product Labeling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Darren K. Cottriel, Esq., Rebekah Byers Kcehowski, Esq., Kelly G.
Laudon, Esq., and Sharyl A. Reisman, Esq., of Jones Day, in an
article for Mondaq, report that earlier in 2021, the FDA issued a
notice that it will be conducting preliminary consumer research on
the use of a voluntary symbol that could be used to depict the
nutrient content claim "healthy" on packaged foods. Congress has
also introduced the Food Labeling Modernization Act of 2021 that
would, among several things, require front-of-pack labels to
include health-oriented symbols related to the nutrients in the
food. All this comes at a time when consumers' demand for healthy
food is driving manufacturers and other industry participants to
innovate and share their brand developments. However, given the
regulatory landscape (and a plaintiffs' bar ready to leverage any
change in the law to attempt to open new fronts of often unfounded
claims) associated with health claims, food companies are
understandably wary of making claims about the health benefits or
nutritional content of their products.

This White Paper discusses how industry participants can strive to
reach a "healthy balance" when labeling their products, so as to
provide consumers the information they seek and to promote the
food's qualities and benefits, while mitigating potential
litigation and regulatory risks

Consumers are increasingly interested in food that is both tasty
and healthy. This demand for healthy food is driving manufacturers
and other industry participants to innovate and share their brand
developments, including the nutritional information consumers seek
to make healthy choices. However, given the regulatory landscape
(and a plaintiffs' bar ready to leverage any change in the law to
attempt to open new fronts of often unfounded claims) associated
with health claims, food companies are understandably wary of
making claims about the health benefits or nutritional content of
their products. As detailed below, industry participants should
strive to reach a "healthy balance" when labeling their products,
so as to provide consumers the information they seek and promote
the food's qualities and benefits, while mitigating potential
litigation and regulatory risks.

BACKGROUND
Consumer product manufacturers are no strangers to consumer class
actions. These lawsuits target a wide range of products, claiming
(often without basis) violations of state consumer fraud and
false-advertising statutes, common-law fraud, and breaches of
express and implied warranties for allegedly false, misleading, or
deceptive label or packaging claims. The food and beverage industry
has endured a surge of these cases, particularly in the last
decade. As an example, the food industry has been the target of
numerous class-action lawsuits related to "all-natural" claims.

Most recently, plaintiffs have focused on supposed express or
implied health claims on the labels and packaging of food products.
In these cases, consumers claim that they were misled to believe
the food product was "healthy" or "healthier," only to discover
after their purchase that the food had no added health benefits or,
in some cases, was actually detrimental to consumer health. These
claims include theories that including certain ingredients, such as
sugar or certain fats, or the function of an ingredient, such as
citric acid as a preservative, detrimentally affect a person's
health.

At the same time as consumers have increased their attention on
alleged health claims, so too have regulatory agencies. The Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA") has increased its focus on
continuing to ensure that product labeling provides accurate and
non misleading nutrition information to consumers. This initiative
is part of FDA's Nutrition Innovation Strategy, which serves to
"empower consumers with information and facilitate industry
innovation toward healthier foods that consumers want." Companies
that fail to comply with FDA labeling regulations may face, in
addition to potential class action suits, FDA regulatory
enforcement. When FDA issues a warning letter or engages in other
enforcement activity, whether or not that action is warranted,
consumers and the consumer class action plaintiffs' bar pay
attention, filing add on litigation claims, claiming they were
misled by allegedly noncompliant labels.

Congress also is paying attention to food labeling and nutrient
content claims. On August 3, 2021, Congress introduced the Food
Labeling Modernization Act of 2021, which would amend the Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act and change requirements regarding the
nutrient information found on food labels. Among the proposed
changes, the legislation would require the front-of-pack labels to
include health-oriented symbols related to the nutrients contained
in the food. The legislation would also require manufacturers and
importers of foods to submit to FDA all labeling information,
including the image of the principal display panel,
nutrient-content claims, and health-related claims, a major shift
in food labeling policy. Failure to submit such information, or
update or supplement it, could result in civil penalties.

Notwithstanding an eager plaintiffs' bar and an increasingly active
FDA, food manufacturers can continue to serve their consumers by
sharing their product innovations. The key is to maintain a healthy
balance between sharing information and understanding and
mitigating potential legal and regulatory risks.

FDA POLICY AND RULES REGARDING "HEALTHY" AND NUTRIENT CONTENT
CLAIMS
FDA announced its Nutrition Innovation Strategy ("NIS") on March
29, 2018, as part of its efforts to "reduce preventable death and
disease related to poor nutrition."5 Through the NIS, FDA aims to
advance its public health mission by empowering consumers "to make
better and more informed decisions about their diets and health,"
as well as foster innovation and the development of healthier food
options.6 The NIS is focused on six key elements: (1) modernize
health claims; (2) modernize standards of identity; (3) modernize
ingredient information to make it more consumer friendly; (4)
implement the nutrition facts label and menu labeling; (5) reduce
sodium in food supply; and (6) improve nutrition education.7

Footnotes
1 See, e.g., Campbell v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., No.
1:20-CV-01291 (S.D.N.Y.) (alleging honey graham crackers label was
misleading because the word "honey" implied the crackers were
sweetened only with natural honey, rather than other sweeteners);
Mason v. Reed's, Inc., No. 18-cv-10826 (S.D.N.Y.); Brazil v. Dole
Food Co., Inc., No. 12-CV-01831 (N.D. Cal.) (alleging Dole misled
customers by labeling its fruit products as "All Natural Fruit"
when they contain citric acid).

2 See, e.g., Francione v. The Kraft Heinz Company, 1:21-cv-10928
(D. Mass.) (alleging that defendant-mac and cheese manufacturer
misled consumers by marketing a product as healthy, with no
artificial flavors or preservatives, but failed to inform consumers
that the packaging contained traces of the chemical
ortho-phthalate); Franklin v. General Mills, 2:21-cv-01781
(E.D.N.Y.) (same).

3 FDA Nutrition Innovation Strategy, FDA.

4 H.R. 4917.

5 FDA, supra note 3.

6 Id.

7 Id.[GN]

[*] Parents of Dyslexic Kids in NZ Should Consider Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Styles, writing for Stuff, reports that it seems there are no
other alternatives available. New Zealand is not a litigious nation
like the United States, where parents have resorted to court
proceedings to get a better deal for their dyslexic children.

Parents have had successful outcomes in both California and Nevada
when they have sued the school system for a better deal for their
children and won.

The case is equally compelling here in New Zealand. Successive
governments have systematically and callously ignored the needs of
between 10 and 15 per cent of children with dyslexia or other
neurodiverse conditions.

In the New Zealand context, there are at least 700,000 children in
the compulsory schooling system. That equates to some 100,000
children with dyslexia or other neurodiverse conditions. The
majority of these pupils are not getting their needs met by the
school system.

The parents of dyslexic children who can afford it will pay for a
diagnosis themselves, as well as private tuition that can cost in
excess of $100 a week.

Other parents make the decision to send their children to private
schools, with mixed success. Some take the decision to home-school
their children because they have been failed by the education
system.

Obviously, only wealthy parents can afford the costs involved to
identify and support dyslexia or other neurodiverse conditions in
their children. Other children are left to struggle in the school
system that does not meet their needs.

The most common outcome is under-achievement at school, and many
drop out of school early. The high rates of dyslexia in prison
inmates and in young people who are disconnected from the schooling
system is evidence of system failure.

Participation in a democracy like New Zealand is a contract.
Citizens pay taxes, and in return, they can expect health and
education services. Children with dyslexia continue to receive a
substandard education service from the schooling system. The
government is not meeting its side of the contract.

The ironic element to all of this is that most people with dyslexia
have compensatory skills and talents that we are not identifying
and nurturing, because they are judged completely on their
challenges with literacy.

The unfair deal does not stop with education. The effects of the
poor education deal that most children with dyslexia receive stays
with them for the rest of their lives. A child with dyslexia grows
up to be an adult with dyslexia.

Internationally, dyslexia has been linked to unemployment and
under-employment; depression and anxiety; other health issues; and
conflicts with the justice system and Corrections.

The story of Hone
Hone (not his real name) is a well-respected and competent
tradesman in the electrical sector. He is highly valued by his
employer, but is not registered.

He has dyslexia and has not been able to pass his registration
exam. Without that, Hone's lifetime income from his work will be
many thousands of dollars less than it would be with registration.

Hone's dyslexia was not picked up during his schooling, and he left
school as soon as he was able to. His lack of success in education
has had a lifetime impact on more than his education. He has low
self-esteem and confidence - even though he is good at his craft.

Things are no better for his son, who is currently at secondary
school. Dyslexia is a genetic condition, and it has passed down
from Hone. Sadly, the school system is still not able to identify
and support his son's dyslexia either.

The school system continues to fail such children. Perhaps a
class-action lawsuit brought by the parents of children with
dyslexia would sharpen the minds of politicians and policymakers.

This is a shortcoming in our education sector that impacts on us
all. Continuing to ignore the needs of children with dyslexia is a
state failure to meet their human right of a quality education.
[GN]

[*] U.S. ATM Cash Withdrawal Class Action Settlements Reached $67-M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You are a Settlement Class Member if, between October 1, 2007 and
November 12, 2021, you paid a surcharge to withdraw cash from a
bank ATM in the United States. Settlement payments will be
digitally sent to you via email. Please ensure you provide a
current, valid email address and mobile phone number with your
claim submission.
Deadline to submit a claim form - May 11, 2022.

Other Class Action Settlements still available.
McCormick Seasonings Class Action Settlement (up to $15 no proof
required)
- Claim Deadline - 90 Days After Final Approval.
Neuriva Supplements Class Action Settlement (up to $20 no proof
required)
- Claim Form Deadline - 01/03/2022 (Estimated)
Huda Beauty Eye Shadow Class Action Settlement (up to $30 no proof
required)
- Deadline to submit a claim form - January 12, 2022.
Benecol Spread Class Action Settlement (up to $20 no proof
required)
- Deadline to submit a claim form - January 12, 2022.
Saks Class Action Settlement (up to $30 no proof required)
- Deadline to submit a claim form - January 31, 2022.
Breakfast Biscuit Class Action Settlement (up to $34.10 no proof
required)
- Deadline to submit a claim form - February 09, 2022.
Godiva Chocolate Class Action Settlement (up to $15 no proof
required)
- Deadline to submit a claim form - February 23, 2022.
Broiler Chicken Class Action Settlement (totaling $181 million no
proof required)
- Claim period ends December 31, 2022.
TikTok and/or Musical.ly Class Action Settlement
- Claim Deadline - March 01, 2022.
Equifax Data Breach Settlement (up to $125 no proof required)
- Class Members can file claims for future losses and time until
Jan. 22, 2024. [GN]


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2022. 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 ***