/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220120.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, January 20, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 9

                            Headlines

A TO Z NOVELTY: Rodriguez-Santiago Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
ACER THERAPEUTICS: $2.78MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Skiadas Suit
ACRO SERVICE: Can Compel Arbitration in Oskouie Labor Class Suit
AGILIS ENGINEERING: Faces Waid-Jones Suit Over "No Poach Agreement"
AIR METHODS: Seeks Feb. 4 Extension for Class Cert. Bid Response

ALBUQUERQUE MAIL: Regalado Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid OT
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: LFOP, et al., File Class Certification Bid
ALKAFAWEEN FOOD STORE: Mistarihi Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
ALLEGHENY GENERAL: Kroeck Slams Pay Reduction From Data Breach
AMERICAN LANDMARK: Diez TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida

APPLE INC: Faces Vivar Class Action Over Powerbeats Pro Headphones
ARK RESTAURANTS CORP: Settlement of Labor Row Pending in N.Y. Sup.
ARRIVAL SA: Faces Sanchez Suit Over 8% Drop in Share Price
ASCENSION HEALTH: Halczenko Appeals TRO, Injunction Ruling
AT&T MOBILITY: Appeals $2.2M Judgment in Ray's Age Bias Suit

BROKER SOLUTIONS: Scheduling Order Amended in Vargas Class Suit
C AND J BROTHERS: Duran Denied Overtime, Wage Statements
CADDIS FUNDING LLC: Talamas Slams Illegal Collection Efforts
CAFFE! CAFFE!: Shea Seeks Overtime Pay for Dishwashers
CALIFORNIA: Court Dismisses Nonnette v. Newsom Without Prejudice

CAREMEL INC: Court Grants American Family's Summary Judgment Bid
CASA SYSTEMS: Hook Appeals Dismissal of Securities Class Suit
CHRISTINE HOTCHKIN: Scheduling Order Entered in MacDonald Suit
CINTAS CORP: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Partly Granted
CINTAS CORP: Bid to Strike Class Claims in Bearup Partly Granted

CLEAN STEP: Valle Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages & Retaliation
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE: Scheduling Order Entered in Blair Suit
CONCIERGE SENIOR: Fails to Provide Proper OT Wages, Santiago Says
D C AUTO: Vargas Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Fifth Circuit Vacates Injunction in Daves Suit

DEJA VU PIZZA: Hoffman Claims Shortchanged on Delivery Fees
DESKTOP METAL: Hathaway Slams Stock Price Drop From Product Flaws
EASYSWIPE MERCHANT: Livingstone Sues Over Unsolicited Calls
EMERYVILLE DENTAL: California Court Dismisses Noriega Class Suit
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Reed Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay

EXTRA SPACE: Florida Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Makkinje Suit
FINE & RARE: Tipped Employees Get Collective Status in "Guevara"
FIRSTCASH HOLDINGS: County Workers' Pension Fund Hits Share Drop
FORD MOTOR: Otto Thornburg Seeks to Certify Class Action
FROST BANK: Woods Sues Over Unfair Collection of Overdraft Fees

GE UNITED: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
GEICO GENERAL: Summary Judgment Briefing Sched Extension Sought
GENERAL MOTORS: Loses Bid to Exclude Stockton Report in Siqueiros
GEO GROUP: Appeals Ruling on Attorney Fees in Nwauzor Suit
GREY HAWK FLOORING: Portillo Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay

GUABA DELI: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Judgment in Ramos FLSA Suit
H B & H LLC: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in Fares Suit
HOTELS.COM LP: City of Rome, Ga., Appeals Ruling in Sales Tax Suit
HSBC BANK USA: Rubino Sues Over Systematic Failure
HUMANO LLC: Hines Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

ILLINOIS FARMERS: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Taqueria Suit
INTEGRATED SECURITY: Suarez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
JUUL LABS: Alexandria Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Youth Ads
JUUL LABS: Boise School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: Chelsea School Sues Over E-Cigarette Epidemic in Mich.

JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Morrisville-Eaton Alleges
JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Buy E-Cigarette, Lafayette Central Says
JUUL LABS: Faces Adirondack Suit Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
JUUL LABS: Faces Mohawk Area Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Frankfort-Schuyler Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis

JUUL LABS: Kelleys Island Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
JUUL LABS: Madison Central Sues Over E-Cigarette Use Among Youth
JUUL LABS: School District of Beloit Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign
JUUL LABS: Syracuse City Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: Triggers E-Cigarette Youth Crisis, ROCORI Suit Claims

JUUL LABS: Verona Area Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Youth Ads
KRAFT HEINZ FOODS: Hoffman Slams Artificial Flavoring in Beverage
KROGER CO: Walker Consumer Suit Removed to N.D. California
LARB BKK: Vela Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
LEISURETIME WAREHOUSE: Beranek Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations

LEXISNEXIS RISK: Alvarado Files FCRA Suit in S.D. California
LIFELONG MEDICAL: Margolies Suit Removed to N.D. California
LIVE VENTURES: SEC Suit Shelved Pending Motions to Dismiss
LULU'S MYRTLE: Burdick Labor Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
MADISON AVENUE REALTIES: Chang Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime

MAGELLAN HEALTH: Haegg Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
MAGIC CLEANING: Quinones Seeks OT Pay for Cleaners Under FLSA, NYLL
MARATHON PETROLEUM: Herron Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
MATTHEW WALKER: Underpays Medical Assistants, Counts Suit Alleges
MIGDAL 1 LLC: Mack Sues Over Deceptive Acts and Fraud

MJ DESIGNER: Gando Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensations
MUY PIZZA-TEJAS: Ross Seeks Wages for Drivers Under FLSA, NMMWA
NATIONAL SENIOR BENEFIT: Ward Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Sawyer Suit Removed to D. Rhode Island
NETHERLANDS INSURANCE: Summary Judgment in Addison Suit Reversed

NEW SABINA: Fails to Properly Pay Production Workers, Cowman Says
NEXT LEVEL: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL: Hale Sues over Patient Data Theft
NORTH BROWARD: Faces Abigail Walecki Class Suit Over Data Breach
NORTHEAST CENTER: Davis Sues Over Residential Counselors' Unpaid OT

NSM MERCHANT: Staley Seeks Wages for Delivery Drivers Under FLSA
NXEDGE MH: Perez Suit Removed to N.D. California
OSATA ENTERPRISES: Otto Sues Over Unsolicited Sales Calls
PETZL AMERICA: Faulhaber Alleges Injuries Over Faulty Shunt
PHENIXFIN CORP: Del. Ch. yet to Approve Settlement of Counsel Fees

PHENIXFIN CORP: Glatt et. al. RICO Suit Pending in E.D. Va.
PHENIXFIN CORP: Hengle/Williams' RICO Suit Pending in E.D. Va.
PHENIXFIN CORP: Settlement of Loan Dispute Pending in E.D. Va.
RAYTHEON TECH: Faces Wilson Suit Over Hiring Restriction Conspiracy
RESIDENTIAL REALTY: Williams Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA

ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Zullo Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to N.D. Cal.
ROLLINS INC: Fleming Sues Over ERISA Violation
RYDER INTEGRATED: Rivera Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
SAHARA PAINTING: Edgardo Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
SANDERSON FARMS: Pending in MDL Court Over Anti-Poaching Raps

SCORES HOLDING CO: De Oliveira Labor Suit Pending in S.D. N.Y.
SCORES HOLDING: Munoz Labor Suit Discontinued
SENEX LAW: Court Denies Bid for Interlocutory Appeal in Lord Suit
SENTINEL INSURANCE: Fancy's Bid to File Consolidated Suit Granted
SHAH & SHAH: Faces Blake Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Illinois

SHERATON LLC: Hotel Staff Suit Claims Minimum Wage Pay
SIMM ASSOCIATES: Kornfeld Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
SMITH & WESSON BRANDS: Stallworth Sues Over Defective Shotguns
SOMEONE CARES: White Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
STRADA SERVICES: Underpays Electrical Installers, Thomer Says

SURECARE AT HOME: McGuire Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Poston Suit Removed to C.D. California
T-MOBILE USA: Nyazee Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
TAMPA HYDE: Faces Sawicki Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
TEXIAN GROUP: Hardin Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime

TOSHIBA CORP: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Stoyas Suit
TRUMPET BEHAVIORAL: Johnson's Claim for UCL Violation Dismissed
ULTA SALON: Martinez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
UNITED AIRLINES: Ward Appeals Summary Judgment in Labor Suit
UNITED PARCEL: Wynn Files FCRA Suit in N.D. California

UNITED STATES: Appeals Final Judgment in Ramirez Suit
VALVE CORP: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in G.G. Suit
VIRGINIA: Pauley Appeals Dismissal of Wrongful Death Suit
WEBSTER SERVICING: Gonzales Suit Claims Pay for Pre-shift Hours
WELLS FARGO: Faces Stubbs ERISA Suit Over Improper COBRA Notice

WELLS FARGO: Urista CCCRAA Suit Moved From S.D. to N.D. California

                            *********

A TO Z NOVELTY: Rodriguez-Santiago Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adrianne Rodriguez-Santiago and other similarly situated
individuals v. A To Z Novelty LLC, a/k/a Crown Smoke Shop, and
Youssef Joudaane, individually, Case No. 6:22-cv-00082 (M.D. Fla.,
Jan. 13, 2022) is an action to recover money damages for unpaid
overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Rodriguez-Santiago is a resident of Osceola County,
Florida, within the jurisdiction of this Court. The Plaintiff is a
covered employee for purposes of the Act.

A TO Z Novelty is a Florida Profit Corporation, having a business
in Orange County, Florida, where Plaintiff worked for Defendant.

Individual Defendant Youssef Joudaane is the owner/partner/and
manager of Defendant Corporation A TO Z Novelty.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ACER THERAPEUTICS: $2.78MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Skiadas Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICHOLAS SKIADAS, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. ACER THERAPEUTICS INC.,
CHRIS SCHELLING, and HARRY PALMIN, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-06137-GHW (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Gregory H. Woods of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the
Lead Counsel's petition for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses.

The Court has granted final approval of the Settlement of the class
action.

The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., the appointed by the Court as the Lead
Counsel for purposes of the Settlement, have petitioned the Court
for an award of attorneys' fees in compensation for services
provided to Lead Plaintiff Nicholas Skiadas and the Settlement
Class along with reimbursement of expenses incurred in connection
with prosecuting the action, and Award to the Lead Plaintiff, to be
paid out of the Settlement Fund established pursuant to the
Settlement;

Judge Woods has reviewed the fee application and the supporting
materials filed therewith, has heard the presentation made by the
Lead Counsel during the final approval hearing on Jan. 7, 2022, and
due consideration has been had thereon.

Now, he awarded the Lead Counsel one-third of the Settlement Fund
or $2,783,333.33 as attorneys' fees in the action, together with a
proportionate share of the interest earned on the fund, at the same
rate as earned by the balance of the fund, from the date of the
establishment of the fund to the date of payment.

The Lead Counsel will be awarded expenses in the amount of
$160,016.52 with interest, as described.

The Lead Plaintiff will be awarded $10,000 as reimbursement for his
lost time and expenses in connection with their prosecution of the
Action.

Except as otherwise provided herein, the attorneys' fees,
reimbursement of expenses, and Award to the Lead Plaintiff will be
paid in the manner and procedure provided for in the Stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 7, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/597nubjw from Leagle.com.


ACRO SERVICE: Can Compel Arbitration in Oskouie Labor Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, POOYA OSKOUIE, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACRO SERVICE CORP.; and DOES 1-20,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-01736-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.),
Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California granted Defendant Acro Service's
motion to compel arbitration in Plaintiff Oskouie's civil action
for alleged labor and employment violations.

I. Background

The case concerns the Plaintiff's allegations that throughout his
employment with the Defendant, the Defendant denied him protections
and benefits under the California Labor Code. Specifically, the
Plaintiff claims Defendant is liable for: (1) meal and rest period
violations, (2) minimum wage violations, (3) overtime violations,
(4) unlawful deductions from earned wages, (5) wage statement
violations, (6) failure to reimburse for business expenses, (7)
failure to pay wages upon separation, and (8) Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 violations.

At the time of his hire, the Plaintiff signed an arbitration
agreement which stated he understood and agreed to resolve "covered
claims" through arbitration. Further, he agreed to waive his right
to any trial in any federal or state court "in favor of arbitration
for covered claims." Importantly, the Agreement excluded "any claim
that cannot be required to be arbitrated as a matter of law."

The Plaintiff filed his class action complaint against the
Defendant in San Diego Superior Court on Aug. 3, 2021. The
Defendant removed the matter to federal court on Oct. 6, 2021. It
now moves the Court to compel individual arbitration.

II. Discussion

The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") governs the enforcement of
arbitration agreements involving interstate commerce. Given the
liberal federal policy favoring arbitration, the FAA "mandates that
district courts will direct the parties to proceed to arbitration
on issues as to which an arbitration agreement has been signed."
Thus, in a motion to compel arbitration, the district court's role
is limited to determining "(1) whether a valid agreement to
arbitrate exists and, if it does, (2) whether the agreement
encompasses the dispute at issue," citing Kilgore v. KeyBank Nat'l
Ass'n, 673 F.3d 947, 955 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Chiron Corp. v.
Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000)).
If these factors are met, the court must enforce the arbitration
agreement in accordance with its precise terms.

A. Whether a Valid Agreement to Arbitrate Exists

First, the Court must resolve whether Kilgore's "validity" prong is
satisfied. The Defendant urges the Court to compel arbitration of
the Plaintiff's claims under the FAA and relevant case law because
Paragraph H is valid, and Paragraph H's validity leads to a valid
overall agreement to arbitrate. In opposition, the Plaintiff
disputes Paragraph H's enforceability because it allegedly waives
claims brought under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
("PAGA"), Cal. Labor Code Section 2698 et seq. He contends that due
to Paragraph H's unenforceability, the Court should retain
jurisdiction for the instant action under Paragraph P.

Judge Battaglia finds that Paragraph P appears to refer to a single
waiver that aligns perfectly with Paragraph H's title, "Waiver of
Class and Collective Claims." Thus, for purposes of the instant
motion, he interprets Paragraph P to refer to Paragraph H in its
entirety and not the waiver of class claims or collective claims
generally. Both parties agreed the term "representative waivers"
covered representative actions under PAGA. However, there is a
dispute as to the scope of the word "representative."

Judge Battaglia holds that the statement within Paragraph H that
the parties waive "any" right to participate in "representative"
proceedings could be interpreted to include the waiver of PAGA
actions. Under this interpretation, the Plaintiff would then have a
legal foothold for keeping the instant dispute in court. However,
even a cursory reading of the preceding independent clause in
Paragraph H shuts the door on this pathway. Under the instant
agreement, the parties waive their rights to bring "claims subject
to this agreement." The Agreement states "any claim that cannot be
required to be arbitrated as a matter of law is also not a Covered
Claim under this Agreement." As a result, Judge Battaglia finds
Paragraph H excludes PAGA claims and thus the Agreement is
enforceable.

B. Whether the Agreement Encompasses the Dispute at Issue

The Court's final task is to determine whether the Plaintiff's
labor and employment violation claims fall within the scope of the
Arbitration Agreement. To determine whether an arbitration
agreement encompasses a particular dispute, courts must "look first
to whether the parties agreed to arbitrate a dispute, not to
general policy goals, to determine the scope of the agreement."

In the case, the Agreement provides the "Covered Claims" include
"all common law and statutory claims relating to Plaintiff's
employment including, but not limited to, any claim for unpaid
wages." The Class Action Complaint asserts nine causes of action
for meal and rest period violations, minimum wage violations,
overtime violations, unlawful deductions from earned wages, wage
statement violations, failure to reimburse for business expenses,
failure to pay wages upon separation, and Business and Professions
Code Section 17200 violations.

Judge Battaglia finds that because each of the Plaintiff's claims
are statutory claims relating to his employment, including claims
for unpaid wages, all causes of action fall squarely within the
scope of the Arbitration Agreement. He agrees with the Defendant
that the present dispute is for the arbitrator to decide. The
Plaintiff fails to overcome the presumption that this dispute falls
squarely within the scope of the parties' arbitration agreement.

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Judge Battaglia granted the Defendant's
motion to compel arbitration. Furthermore, pursuant to the FAA, he
stayed the judicial proceedings pending the outcome of any
arbitration. The parties are ordered to file a joint status report
with the Court, detailing the progress of the arbitration in 180
days from the date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 7, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bdcv7tzk from Leagle.com.


AGILIS ENGINEERING: Faces Waid-Jones Suit Over "No Poach Agreement"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTIN WAID-JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated 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, Case No.
3:22-cv-00058 (D. Conn., Jan. 12, 2022) is class action on behalf
of a class of similarly situated individuals for damages and
injunctive relief for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

According to the complaint, employees of Supplier Defendants raised
concerns that their conspiracy was illegal--indeed, that it
violated the antitrust laws. Yet the No Poach Agreement remained in
place for at least eight years. The Defendants' agreements
unreasonably restrained trade and are per se unlawful under federal
law.

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 (the
"Engineers"), says the suit.

The intent and effect of the alleged 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.

On December 7, 2021, federal authorities arrested Mahesh Patel, an
executive at Pratt, for his role as the leader and primary enforcer
of the No Poach Agreement. From 2003 until 2020, Patel led the
division at Pratt responsible for retaining the Supplier Defendants
to provide outsourced Engineers to work on particular projects.

On December 9, 2021, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") unsealed an
Affidavit in Support of Criminal Complaint and Arrest Warrant for
Patel, making the details of the conspiracy public for the first
time. On December 15, 2021, a federal grand jury in Bridgeport, CT
indicted Patel and five top executives of the Supplier Defendants
for their roles in the No Poach Agreement.

The No Poach Agreement was a verbal, handshake agreement. The
Defendants carefully avoided reducing the agreement to writing and
deliberately concealed its existence from their employees. For that
reason, Plaintiff and Class Members had no means of learning about
the No Poach Agreement until the DOJ Affidavit made it public on
December 9, 2021.

Despite these efforts to avoid memorializing the conspiracy, a
handful of emails have emerged that reveal Defendants' efforts to
enforce the No Poach Agreement, monitor compliance and punish
defections. On the rare occasion that Supplier Defendants attempted
to break from the agreement by making job offers to their rivals'
employees, Patel and his co-conspirators demanded that the
deviating party rescind such offers, the suit added.

Agilis optimizes gas turbine engine design and development.[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

               - and -

          Peggy J. Wedgworth, Esq.
          Elizabeth McKenna, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
           PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          405 East 50th Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          Facsimile: (212) 868-1229
          E-mail: pwedgworth@milberg.com
                  emckenna@milberg.com

AIR METHODS: Seeks Feb. 4 Extension for Class Cert. Bid Response
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VAUGHN DYER v. AIR METHODS
CORPORATION and ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No.
9:20-cv-02309-DCN (D.S.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter
an order granting an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's
motion for class certification, up to and including Friday,
February 4, 2022.

On January 3, 2022, the Plaintiff filed his Motion for Class
Certification. The Defendants' response to Plaintiff's Motion is
due Tuesday, January 18, 2022.

The Parties have been working since early December 2021 to schedule
the deposition of Plaintiff Vaughn Dyer, but due to conflicts with
Plaintiffs' counsel's schedule, that has been difficult. Dyer's
deposition is currently scheduled for January 21, 2022, which is
after Defendants' response to the motion for class certification is
due.

The Parties have agreed to extend Defendants' deadline to respond
to Plaintiff's Motion to two weeks after Plaintiff's deposition, up
to and including February 4, 2022. This motion is brought in good
faith. No party will be prejudiced by the requested extension.

Air Methods is an American privately owned helicopter operator. It
operates in 48 states and Haiti, with air medical as its primary
business focus.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 7, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zYSBYp at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          C. William McGee, Esq.
          GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, P.A.
          P.O. Box 10589
          Greenville, SC 29603
          Telephone: (864) 271-9580
          E-mail: bmcgee@gwblawfirm.com

               - and -

          Matthew J. Smith, Esq.
          Jessica J. Smith, Esq.
          HOLLAND & HART LLP
          555 17th Street, Suite 3200
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 295-8000
          E-mail: jjsmith@hollandhart.com
                  mjsmith@hollandhart.com

ALBUQUERQUE MAIL: Regalado Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arturo Regalado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Albuquerque Mail Service, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00012-CG-SMV (D.N.M., January 6, 2022) seeks
damages for the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff time and
one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40
during each seven day workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal Act.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a delivery driver from on or
about January 2017 through February 2020.

Albuquerque Mail Service, Inc. provides trucking services. The
Company provides transportation of freight and cargo.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: LFOP, et al., File Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as L.F.O.P., et al.,
Individually and as Representatives of a Similarly Situated Class,
v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-11556-TSH (D.
Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
case as a class action and that the class be certified as
consisting of:

   "all individuals in Massachusetts who meet these two
   criteria:

   (a) they have status as Special Immigrant Juveniles (SIJ)
       under 8 U.S.C. section 1101(a)(27)(J) (because United
       States Customs and Immigration Service (USCIS) has
       approved their I-360 applications), and

   (b) they have applied for an Employment Authorization
       Document (EAD) under 8 C.F.R. section 274a.12(c)(11) or
       would apply but have not done so because USCIS's
       interpretation of (c)(11) makes applying futile."

The claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of
the claims or defenses of the class in that they all have SIJ
status, the defendants do not consider that status as making them
eligible for EADs, thus denying them the ability to obtain social
security numbers and lawful employment.

The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. The defendants have acted or refused to act
on grounds that apply generally to the proposed class, so that
final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is
appropriate respecting the class as a whole.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Jan. 10,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I7aiHX
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Susan B. Church, Esq.
          DEMISSIE & CHURCH
          929 Massachusetts Ave., Suite 01
          Cambridge, MA 02139
          Telephone: (617) 354-3944
          E-mail: sbc@demissiechurch.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Badger, Esq.
          POLITICAL ASYLUM/IMMIGRATION
          REPRESENTATION (PAIR) PROJECT
          98 N Washington Street, Ste 106
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 545-3373
          E-mail: ebadger@pairproject.org

               - and -

          Iris Gomez, Esq.
          Deirdre Giblin, Esq.
          Mario Paredes, Esq.
          Heather Yountz, Esq.
          MASSACHUSETTS LAW REFORM INSTITUTE (MLRI)
          40 Court St. No. 800
          Boston, MA 02108
          E-mail: igomez@mlri.org

               - and -

          Kenneth R. Berman, Esq.
          Mariel Smith, Esq.
          NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH, LLP
          155 Seaport Blvd.
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 439-2000
          E-mail: kberman@nutter.com

ALKAFAWEEN FOOD STORE: Mistarihi Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Ahmed Mistarihi, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs v. Alkafaween Food Store, Inc., Majed Alkafaween and
Mohammed Alquerneh, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-20155 (S.D. Fla.,
January 12, 2022) seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operates as Midway Food Store and Midway Food Market
where Mistarihi was employed as a cashier and attendant. He claims
to be uncompensated for hours worked in excess of 40 per week.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aron Smukler, Esq.
      R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com
             asmukler@saenzanderson.com


ALLEGHENY GENERAL: Kroeck Slams Pay Reduction From Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Kroeck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. West Penn Allegheny Health System Inc.,
Allegheny Health Network, UKG, Inc. and Kronos Incorporated,
Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00066 (W.D. Pa., January 12, 2022) seeks
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil
penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968
and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.

West Penn Allegheny Health System operates as "Allegheny General
Hospital," a non-profit medical care provider in Pittsburgh PA. UKG
and Kronos provide human relations services for them to bring all
the timekeeping data into a payroll system. Kroeck is employed by
Allegheny General Hospital as a food service associate in the
cafeteria. He claims that that sometime on or before December 19,
2021, and January 2, 2022, the human resource software fell victim
to ransomware which resulted in a reduction in his pay due to the
exclusion of his overtime premiums. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David M. Kobylinski, Esq.
      KOBYLINSKI AND KOBYLINSKI
      515 Court Place, Suite 4
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Tel: (412) 281-6600
      Email: Dave@koby.law

             - and -

      Louis J. Kroeck, IV, Esq.
      LJK LAW PLLC
      1200 Sarah Street
      Pittsburgh, PA 15203
      Tel: (412) 712-7605
      Email: Lou@Ljk-law.com


AMERICAN LANDMARK: Diez TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LARA DIEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMERICAN LANDMARK, LLC, Case No.
2021-026346-CA-01, was removed from the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
January 14, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-20189 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 by sending text messages
to the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers without prior
express written consent.

American Landmark, LLC is a real estate company located in Tampa,
Florida. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Garry W. O'Donnell, Esq.
         GREENSPOON MARDER LLP
         2255 Glades Road, Suite 400-E
         Boca Raton, FL 33431
         Telephone: (561) 994-2212
         Facsimile: (561) 807-7527
         E-mail: garry.odonnell@gmlaw.com

APPLE INC: Faces Vivar Class Action Over Powerbeats Pro Headphones
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Vivar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Apple Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00347 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13,
2022) is a class action complaint regarding a wireless earbud
headphones identified as Powerbeats Pro under Apple's Beats brand
("Product").

The Product claims that each earbud "[has up to] 9 hours of
listening time" and "24 hours with charging case," and "5-minute
Fast Fuel charging gives 1.5 hours of playback when the battery is
low."

Allegedly, a significant percentage of users experience battery
draining and charging issues with the Product which limits its
functionality and usage. This is because one of the earbuds will
not consistently charge or will quickly dissipate its charge,
rendering the Product unfit for use. A likely cause of these issues
is the placement of the earbuds within the case. When the earbuds
are put in the case, the charge contact is easily disconnected by
slight movement, either in transport or from not being kept on a
flat surface, resulting in an earbud becoming dislodged, says the
suit.

A significant percent of users will place the earbuds in the case
and though it may appear they will begin charging, further
adjusting is needed until the charge begins. The ear hooks are
easily tangled within the case, causing the earbuds to not fully
connect to the pins, added the suit.

The Product is promoted as "powered by the Apple H1 headphone
chip," which promises to "revolutionize the way you work out." The
Product claims "powerful, balanced audio" with "Dual Audio
Controls."

Had Plaintiff and proposed class members known the truth, they
would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it.
The Product is sold for a price premium compared to other similar
products, for no less than $150.00, excluding tax or any sales, a
higher price than it would otherwise be sold for, absent the
misleading representations and omissions.

Plaintiff Alejandro Vivar is a citizen of Bronx, Bronx County, New
York.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ARK RESTAURANTS CORP: Settlement of Labor Row Pending in N.Y. Sup.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ark Restaurants Corp. disclosed in its Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended October 2, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 21, 2021, that it
intends to jointly submit a joint application to the New York State
Supreme Court seeking final approval of the settlement for a labor
suit filed in the New York State Supreme Court.

On May 1, 2018, two former tipped service workers, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated personnel, filed a
putative class action lawsuit against Ark Restaurants Corp and
certain subsidiaries as well as certain officers of the company.

Plaintiffs alleged that the company violated certain of the New
York State Labor Laws and related regulations. The class action
lawsuit sought unspecified money damages, together with interest,
liquidated damages and attorney fees.

In December 2020, the parties reached a settlement agreement
resolving all issues alleged in the complaint, which received
preliminary approval by the New York State Supreme Court, for
approximately the amount which was previously accrued.

Ark Restaurants Corp. is a restaurant business based in New York.


ARRIVAL SA: Faces Sanchez Suit Over 8% Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL A. SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARRIVAL SA, DENIS SVERDLOV, TIM
HOLBROW, MICHAEL ABLESON, and AVINASH RUGOOBUR, Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00172 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 12, 2022) is a federal securities
class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of Arrival stock
between November 18, 2020 and November 19, 2021, both dates
inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' alleged
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, on March 24, 2021, Arrival consummated
a business combination with CIIG Merger Corp. Prior to its business
combination with Arrival, CIIG was a special purpose acquisition
company, also known as a "blank check" company, incorporated for
the purpose of entering into a merger, share exchange, asset
acquisition, share purchase, recapitalization, reorganization, or
similar business combination with one or more businesses or
entities. Upon the consummation of the merger, CIIG changed its
name from CIIG to Arrival Vault US Inc.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants allegedly 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) the Company would record a substantially greater net loss and
adjusted EBITDA loss in the third quarter of 2021 compared to the
third quarter of 2020; (ii) the Company would experience far
greater capital and operational expense to operate and deploy its
microfactories and manufacture EV vehicles than it had disclosed;
(iii) the Company would not capitalize on or achieve profitability
or provide meaningful revenue in the time periods disclosed; (iv)
the Company would not achieve its disclosed production and sales
volumes; (v) the Company would not meet the disclosed production
rollout deadlines; (vi) accordingly, the Company materially
overstated its financial and operational position and/or prospects;
and (vii) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Only a week later, on November 17, 2021, Arrival announced a $200
million offering of green convertible senior notes due 2026,
intended to finance the development of electronic vehicles. Arrival
also announced the commencement of an underwritten public offering
of 25 million ordinary shares pursuant to a registration statement
on Form F-1 filed with the SEC in a bid to raise around $330
million in cash.

On this news, the lawsuit notes, Arrival shares dropped $0.82, or
approximately 8%, to close at $9.91 on November 18, 2021 on
unusually high trading volume.

According to the lawsuit, as a result of Defendants' alleged
wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the
market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class
members have suffered significant losses and damages.

Arrival (formerly Arrival Luxembourg S.a r.l.) was founded in 2015
as a private company headquartered in London, England. Arrival is a
manufacturer and distributor of commercial electric vehicles,
including vans, cars, and buses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          James M. LoPiano, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  jlopiano@pomlaw.com

ASCENSION HEALTH: Halczenko Appeals TRO, Injunction Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Paul Halczenko filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled PAUL HALCZENKO Dr., JENNIFER
JIMENEZ, ERIN NICOLE GILLESPIE, VALERIE FRALIC, KRISTIN EVANS on
behalf of Themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. ASCENSION HEALTH, INC., ST. VINCENT HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CARE
CENTER, INC. d/b/a ASCENSION ST. VINCENT HOSPITAL, Defendants, Case
No. 1:21-cv-02816-JPH-DML, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

Ascension St. Vincent Hospital is requiring its employees to be
vaccinated against COVID-19. Employees who do not get vaccinated or
receive an exemption from Ascension are to be put on unpaid leave
and then later terminated. The Plaintiffs -- who work in
Ascension's network -- requested exemptions from the vaccine
mandate based on their religious beliefs.

The Plaintiffs do not claim that Ascension's vaccine mandate is
unlawful. Instead, they contend that Ascension violated federal
anti-discrimination laws when it summarily denied their requests
for religious exemptions from the vaccine mandate. The Plaintiffs
have been told that employees who do not meet Ascension's vaccine
requirement by Nov. 12, 2021, "will be suspended" and that "failure
to meet this requirement" by Jan. 4, 2022 "will be considered
voluntary resignation."

On Nov. 8, 2021, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter a temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting Ascension
from putting the Plaintiffs on unpaid leave and/or terminating
their employment pending the EEOC's review of their claims of
religious discrimination and retaliation; and to set a hearing on
their motion for preliminary injunction. They seek relief from
Ascension's COVID-19 vaccine requirement, arguing that the
Defendants have not accommodated their religious beliefs under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e,
et seq.

The Plaintiffs' complaint asserts that they "filed their charge of
discrimination with the EEOC asking it to investigate their claims
on a class wide basis.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on November 29, 2021,
Judge James Patrick Hanlon of the Southern District of Indiana
denied the Plaintiffs' motion for temporary restraining order and
to set hearing on their motion for preliminary injunction.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Paul Halczenko v. Ascension
Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-1040, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on January 12, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by January 26, 2022; and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before February 22, 2022 for
Paul Halczenko.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant PAUL HALCZENKO, Doctor, on behalf of himself
and all those similarly situated, is represented by:

          William Bock, III, Esq.
          KROGER, GARDIS & REGAS
          111 Monument Circle
          Bank One Building
          Indianapolis, IN 46204-0000
          Telephone: (317) 692-9000
          E-mail: wbock@kgrlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees ASCENSION HEALTH, INC. and ST. VINCENT
HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CARE CENTER, INC., doing business as Ascension
St. Vincent Hospital, are represented by:

          Patricia Anderson Pryor, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          201 E. Fifth Street, PNC Center
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 898-0050
          E-mail: pryorp@jacksonlewis.com

AT&T MOBILITY: Appeals $2.2M Judgment in Ray's Age Bias Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Mobility Services LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled ALISON RAY, Plaintiff v. AT&T
MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2-18-cv-03303,
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

Plaintiff Alison Ray sued  AT&T Mobility Services, LLC for
terminating her employment because of her age, in violation of the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.

On December 28, 2020, the Court denied Defendant's motion for
summary judgment. The Court stated that because Ray has presented
sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that AT&T's
asserted business reasons for terminating her employment were
pretextual, AT&T's motion was denied.

On December 9, 2021, the Court entered a judgment in favor of the
Plaintiff in the amount of $2,253,695.

The Defendant now seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Alison Ray v. AT&T Mobility
Services LLC, Case No. 22-1066, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on January 13, 2022.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES LLC is represented by:

          James Bucci, Esq.
          GENOVA BURNS
          1600 Market Street, Suite 3800
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (856) 968-0686
          E-mail: jbucci@genovaburns.com  

               - and -

          Kenneth Gage, Esq.
          Sara B. Tomezsko, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS
          200 Park Avenue, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 318-6046
          E-mail: kennethgage@paulhastings.com
               
               - and -

          Alex J. Maturi, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS
          191 North Wacker Drive, 30th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 499-6076
          E-mail: alexmaturi@paulhastings.com  

Plaintiff-Appellee ALISON RAY, on behalf of herself individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated, is represented by:

          Laura C. Mattiacci, Esq.
          Daniel S. Orlow, Esq.
          Susan M. Saint-Antoine, Esq.
          CONSOLE MATTIACCI LAW
          1525 Locust Street, 9th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 545-7676
          E-mail: orlow@consolelaw.com
                  santanto@consolelaw.com

BROKER SOLUTIONS: Scheduling Order Amended in Vargas Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LATISHA VARGAS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BROKER SOLUTIONS, INC. d/b/a NEW AMERICAN FUNDING; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:21-cv-00427-JLS-ADS (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order granting
stipulation to amend scheduling order as follows

  -- The Defendant's Opposition to         Feb. 28, 2022
     Plaintiff's Motion for Class
     Certification shall be due on:
     (or, if Plaintiff files her
     Motion for Class Certification
     before her deadline, 45 days
     after that Motion is filed)

  -- The Plaintiff Reply in Support        March 30, 2022
     of her Motion for Class
     Certification shall be due:
     (or, if Defendant files its
     Opposition early, 30 days
     after that Opposition is filed)

Broker Solutions, doing business as New American Funding, provides
mortgage lending services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GAMkVf at no extra charge.[CC]

C AND J BROTHERS: Duran Denied Overtime, Wage Statements
--------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Duran, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. C and J Brothers, Inc., Chang Y. Park and
Jung Yong Park, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00387 (S.D. N.Y.,
January 14, 2022) seeks minimum wages, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York labor laws.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a produce market located
the Bronx, NY 10474 under the name "C and J Brothers" where Duran
as a porter, stock, and inventory worker. Mr. Duran claims to have
worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime
compensation for the hours that he worked and alleges that J&J
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and
failed to pay him appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Catalina Sojo, Esq.
      CSM LEGAL, PC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, New York 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


CADDIS FUNDING LLC: Talamas Slams Illegal Collection Efforts
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeries Talamas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Caddis Funding, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
22-cv-00256 (S.D. N.Y., January 11, 2022), seeks damages and
declaratory relief arising from violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act for communicating directly with a
represented consumer after being notified of the representation,
failing to cease and desist collection efforts after receiving
written notification requesting that they cease further
communication with the consumer and engaging in conduct, the
natural consequence of which was to harass or abuse a consumer in
connection with the collection of a debt.

Sometime prior to February 10, 2021, Talamas allegedly incurred a
financial obligation to Chase Manhattan Bank. Sometime prior to
February 10, 2021, Caddis Funding, either directly or through
intermediate transactions assigned, placed, or transferred the said
obligation to Synergetic Communication, Inc. for the purpose of
collection. At the time Chase placed, or transferred the said
obligation to Caddis, the obligation was in default.

Synergetic sent Talamas a letter dated February 10, 2021,
concerning the alleged Chase obligation. On March 10, 2021, Talamas
sent a letter to Caddis Funding advising it to cease and desist all
collection efforts and communications. Instead of ceasing and
desisting any further contact regarding the Chase obligation,
Caddis placed the Chase obligation with the Law Offices of Steven
Cohen, LLC for the purpose of collecting the Chase obligation from
Talamas. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
      One Grand Central Plaza
      60 East 42nd. Street, 46th Floor
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (646) 459-7971
      Fax: (646) 459-7973
      Email: jkj@legaljones.com


CAFFE! CAFFE!: Shea Seeks Overtime Pay for Dishwashers
------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER SHEA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CAFFE! CAFFE! RESTAURANT, INC.; AVENUE
CAFFE, LLC, GERARD BECK AND LISA MARIE PATERNOSTRO BECK Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00059-BWA-JVM (E.D. La., Jan, 12, 2022) arises
from the Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees proper overtime in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Mr. Shea is a resident of the Parish of Orleans, state of
Louisiana, and worked for Defendants at their locations throughout
the metro New Orleans area. He routinely worked for Defendants in
their Jefferson Parish locations as a dishwasher and/or "back of
the house" worker at a rate of pay of $12.50 per hour. He often
worked for them for more than 40 hours per week, but was not paid
overtime for all hours worked over forty in a workweek, says the
suit.

The Defendants operate cafes under the name Caffe! Caffe! in the
Jefferson Parish area in Louisiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
          Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON+JACKSON
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 599-5953
          Facsimile: (888) 988-6499
          E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net
                  mjackson@jackson-law.net

CALIFORNIA: Court Dismisses Nonnette v. Newsom Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cormac J. Carney of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California dismissed without prejudice the case, NARVIS
NONNETTE, Plaintiff v. GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., Defendants, Case No.
5:20-cv-0218-CJC (MAA) (C.D. Cal.).

I. Background

On June 15, 2020, Plaintiffs Narvis Nonnette, William Roberts, and
Richard Cooper filed a pro se putative class action lawsuit
alleging violations of their civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983. On June 19, 2020, the Court advised the Plaintiffs
that a putative class action lawsuit could not be brought pro se,
that multiple inmate pro se plaintiffs could not bring a single
lawsuit in the Court, and that each Plaintiff is required to pay
the full filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma
pauperis.

The Court ordered each Plaintiff to advise whether he wanted to
proceed with the lawsuit, dismiss his claims, or sever his claims
into a separate prisoner civil rights action. Roberts filed a
request to sever his claims, which the Court granted on Aug. 31,
2020. Cooper never responded to the Court's order, and on Oct. 16,
2020, the District Court dismissed him without prejudice for
failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order.
Thus, only Narvis Nonnette ("Plaintiff") remains as a plaintiff in
the lawsuit.

On Sept. 15, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a Request to Proceed Without
Prepayment of Filing Fees, which the Court granted on Sept. 18,
2020. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) and 28 U.S.C.
Section 1915A, on Oct. 22, 2020, the Court screened and dismissed
the Complaint with leave to amend. On Feb. 3, 2021, the Court
received the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. On Feb. 19, 2021,
the Court received a second document entitled "First Amended
Complaint," which differed from the First Amended Complaint and
therefore was docketed as the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint
("SAC").

On April 13, 2021, the Court issued a "Memorandum Decision and
Order Dismissing Second Amended Complaint With Leave to Amend." It
dismissed the SAC and ordered the Plaintiff to, no later than May
13, 2021, either file a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") or advise
the Court that the Plaintiff does not intend to pursue the lawsuit.
The Court "cautioned the Plaintiff that failure to timely file a
TAC would result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed
for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with court orders
pursuant to Rule 41(b)."

On May 20, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Continue Civil
Rights Action for 60 Days, which the Court granted in part and
denied in part, extending his deadline to file a TAC to June 23,
2021. On July 2, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Continue
Civil Rights Action for 30 Days, which the Court granted, extending
his deadline to file a TAC to Aug. 9, 2021. In granting the
Plaintiff's second extension request, the Court again "cautioned
the Plaintiff that failure to timely file a TAC will result in a
recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to
prosecute and/or failure to comply with court orders pursuant to
Rule 41(b)."

On Aug. 16, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Correct and
Oppose the Court's Memorandum and Order, which the Court construed
as a motion for reconsideration of its order dismissing the SAC. On
Aug. 25, 2021, the Court issued an Order denying the Plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration ("Order"). The Court gave him four
options: (1) file a TAC, the deadline for which the Court sua
sponte extended to Sept. 24, 2021; (2) file a statement, no later
than Sept. 24, 2021, that the Plaintiff wished to proceed with the
SAC; (3) file a motion for review with the District Judge no later
than 14 days from the date of service of the Order (plus three days
to account for service by mail); or (4) voluntarily dismiss the
lawsuit. It "advised that failure to respond to this order by Sept.
24, 2021 would result in a recommendation that the lawsuit be
dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or comply with court
orders.

On Oct. 25, 2021, in the absence of a filed TAC or response to the
Order, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause ("OSC"), ordering
the Plaintiff to show cause by Nov. 24, 2021 why it should not
recommend that the case be dismissed for failure to comply with
Court orders. The OSC stated that if the Plaintiff filed a response
to the Order on or before that date, the OSC would be discharged.
It "advised that failure to comply with this order would result in
a recommendation that the lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice
for failure to prosecute and/or comply with court orders."

To date, the Plaintiff has failed to file a TAC or respond to the
Order or OSC. Indeed, he has not communicated with the Court since
Sept. 30, 2021.

II. Analysis

District courts may dismiss cases sua sponte for failure to
prosecute or for failure to comply with a court order under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). A Rule 41(b) dismissal must be
supported by a showing of unreasonable delay. In addition, the
court must weigh the following factors in determining whether a
Rule 41(b) dismissal is warranted: "(1) the public's interest in
expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to
manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the
defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic
alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of
cases on their merits." The Ninth Circuit will "affirm a dismissal
where at least four factors support dismissal, or where at least
three factors strongly support dismissal." Finally, "in order to
warrant a sanction of dismissal, the party's violations of the
court's orders must be due to wilfulness or bad faith."

A. The Public's Interest in Expeditious Resolution and the Court's
Need to Manage Its Docket

The first and second factors (the public's interest in expeditious
resolution of litigation and the Court's need to manage its docket)
weigh in favor of dismissal, Judge Carney holds. He says, the
Plaintiff has failed to file a TAC, has failed to respond to the
Order or OSC, and otherwise has not participated in the lawsuit
since Sept. 30, 2021. He concludes that the Plaintiff's inaction
and lack of communication with the Court constitute willful
unreasonable delay. The Plaintiff's noncompliance also interferes
with the public's interest in the expeditious resolution of this
litigation and hinders the Court's ability to manage its docket.

B. Risk of Prejudice to Defendants

The third factor (risk of prejudice to the defendants) also weighs
in favor of dismissal, Judge Carney finds. "A defendant suffers
prejudice if the plaintiff's actions impair the defendant's ability
to go to trial or threaten to interfere with the rightful decision
of the case." "The law also presumes prejudice from unreasonable
delay." The risk of prejudice to a defendant is related to a
plaintiff's reason for failure to prosecute an action. "Whether
prejudice is sufficient to support an order of dismissal is in part
judged with reference to the strength of the plaintiff's excuse for
the default."

In the case, the Plaintiff has refused to file a TAC or otherwise
respond to the Order or OSC, without explanation. As "a presumption
of prejudice arises from the Plaintiff's unexplained failure to
prosecute," the third factor favors dismissal.

C. Availability of Less Drastic Alternatives

Judge Carney similarly finds the fourth factor (the availability of
less drastic alternatives) also supports dismissal. "The district
court need not exhaust every sanction short of dismissal before
finally dismissing a case, but must explore possible and meaningful
alternatives." The Court considered and implemented less drastic
alternatives prior to dismissal. It explicitly warned the Plaintiff
that failure to file TAC or respond to the Order or OSC would
result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed for failure
to prosecute and/or failure to comply with Court orders pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Court also extended the
Plaintiff's deadline to file a TAC four times, from May 13, 2021 to
June 23, 2021; to Aug. 9, 2021; to Sept. 24, 2021; and finally to
Nov. 24, 2021.

D. Public Policy Favoring Disposition on the Merits

As to the fifth factor, "public policy favors disposition of cases
on the merits." However, "a case that is stalled or unreasonably
delayed by a party's failure to comply with deadlines cannot move
toward resolution on the merits." Thus, "this factor lends little
support to a party whose responsibility it is to move a case
towards disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes
progress in that direction."

The case has been stalled by the Plaintiff's failure to file a TAC
or otherwise respond to the Order or OSC. Still, the public policy
favoring the resolution of disputes on the merits is strong and,
under the circumstances, outweighs the Plaintiff's noncompliance
and inaction.

E. Dismissal Without Prejudice

In summary, the Plaintiff's failure to file a TAC or otherwise
respond to the Order or OSC, and failure to otherwise participate
in the lawsuit since Sept. 30, 2021 constitute willful unreasonable
delay, Judge Carney holds. Four of the Rule 41(b) dismissal factors
weigh in favor of dismissal, whereas only one factor weighs against
dismissal. "While the public policy favoring disposition of cases
on their merits weighs against dismissal, that single factor is not
enough to preclude imposition of this sanction when the other four
factors weigh in its favor."

Judge Carney concludes that dismissal of the action for failure to
prosecute and to comply with Court orders is warranted, but,
consistent with Rule 41(b) and the Court's exercise of its
discretion, the dismissal is without prejudice.

III. Conclusion

The lawsuit is dismissed without prejudice. No further filings will
be accepted under the case number.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 7, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/5n78ujkk from Leagle.com.


CAREMEL INC: Court Grants American Family's Summary Judgment Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, S.I.,
Plaintiff v. CAREMEL, INC., LAWRENCE LINMAN, JUDITH LINMAN, and
JOSEPH ROSS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Defendants, Case No. 20 C 637 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Harry D.
Leinenweber of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment.

I. Background

The case is a declaratory judgment action brought by Plaintiff
American related to a Businessowners Policy of insurance for
businesses owned and operated by Defendants Caramel, Lawrence
Linman, and Judith Linman (collectively, "Caremel"). American seeks
a declaration that it has no duty to defend Caremel in a putative
class action brought by Defendant Joseph Ross in the Circuit Court
of Kankakee County, Illinois (Ross v. Caremel, Inc., No. 2019-L-10
(21st Dist. 2019)).

Caremel operates McDonald's restaurants in Kankakee County,
Peotone, and Beecher, Illinois. In 2018, American issued
Businessowners Policy of insurance number 12XN622503 to Swedeco,
Inc., for the effective period March 1, 2018 to March 1, 2019. The
Court understands Swedeco, Inc. to be an affiliate of Caremel's
McDonald's operations. In 2019, Swedeco renewed its American policy
for the period March 1, 2019 to March 1, 2020. The original policy
and the renewal are collectively referred to as the "Policy."

Mr. Ross was an employee at Caramel's McDonald's restaurant in
Bradley, Illinois. In 2019, Ross filed an action in Illinois state
court alleging Caremel violated the Biometric Information Privacy
Act ("BIPA",) 40 ILCS 14/1, et seq. According to the Complaint in
the Ross Action, Caremel required Ross and the other Caremel
employees to use a biometric time clock system to record their time
worked. The system required Ross and the other employees to scan
their fingerprints whenever they commenced or stopped working. This
identifying information was then disclosed to Carmel's time keeping
vendor, a third party. Caremel did not obtain Ross' consent for the
disclosure to its vendor, which is alleged to be a violation of
BIPA.

Under the terms of the Policy, American "will pay those sums the
insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of
'bodily injury,' 'property damage' or 'personal and advertising
injury' to which this insurance applies.'" Pursuant to this
provision, Caramel sought coverage for its defense of the Ross
Action. In response American denied coverage, invoking several of
the Policy's exclusionary provisions, including: (1) the "Access or
Disclosure Exclusion," which carves out coverage for "access or
disclosure of confidential or personal information and data related
to liability"; (2) the "ERP Exclusion," which relates to employment
related practices and bars coverage for personal and advertising
injury arising out of employment related practices, policies, acts
or omissions; and (3) the "Violation of Statute Exclusion," which
carves out liability resulting from the distribution of material in
violation of statute.

On Jan. 29, 2020, American filed this declaratory judgment action.
On July 20, 2021, American filed the Motion for Summary Judgment.
The issues are now fully briefed and Judge Leinenweber decides the
Motion.

II. Discussion

American's single-count Complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that
the Policy does not include a duty to defend Caremel in the Ross
Action. Under Illinois law the duty to defend depends on the
allegations of the lawsuit to be defended. The underlying complaint
and insurance policy language are construed in favor of the
insured. The Ross Complaint alleges that Caremel disclosed and
disseminated Ross's and the class's fingerprints without obtaining
their consent.

For the purposes of the Motion, the conduct alleged in the Ross
Complaint violated the BIPA. Illinois's BIPA imposes restrictions
on how private entities collect, retain, and dispose of biometric
identifiers such as fingerprints. American relies on three Policy
exclusions to deny coverage for the Ross Action. After considering
each exclusion, Judge Leinenweber concludes that ERP Exclusion
applies to the Ross Action. Consequently, summary judgment is
appropriate in favor of American.

A.

The first exclusion American relies upon is the Access or
Disclosure Exclusion. This provision excludes coverage "for
personal and advertising injury arising out of any access to or
disclosure of any person's confidential or personal information,
including patents, trade secrets, processing methods, customer
lists, financial information, credit card information, health
information or any other type of nonpublic information."

American argues that the plain meaning of this exclusion would
include a person's fingerprints as obvious non-public information.
Moreover, the Illinois Personal Information Act ("IPIA") defines
"personal information" to include "unique biometric information
such as a fingerprint." In response, Caremel invokes the doctrine
of ejusdem generis. Ejusdem generis teaches that "where general
words follow specific words in a statutory enumeration, the general
words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to
those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words."

In assessing the ejusdem generis doctrine in the case, Judge
Leinenweber finds that Caremel has the edge on coverage. Patents,
trade secrets, processing methods, and customer lists are all forms
of intellectual property which cannot be interpreted to include
fingerprints. Financial information likewise cannot be interpreted
to include fingerprints. The closest provision that could arguably
be interpreted to include fingerprints would be "health
information." But to do so would stretch the definition of health
information to include a physical characteristic that has nothing
to do with the state of health of an individual. Moreover, to the
extent that the exclusion is ambiguous, it is to be interpreted in
favor of coverage. For these reasons, the Access or Disclosure
Exclusion does not apply to the Ross Action.

B.

American next argues it can deny coverage for the Ross Action under
the ERP Exclusion. The ERP Exclusion applies to suits alleging
claims "arising out of any employment related practice, policies,
acts omissions, such as coercion, demotion, reassignment
discipline, defamation, harassment, humiliation or discrimination
directed at the person." American contends that the plain reading
of this exclusion applies to the Ross Action because the
requirement that an employee give his fingerprints is an employment
related practice. Caremel responds with two separate arguments.

First, Caramel again invokes the ejusdem generis doctrine to argue
that the harm caused by a BIPA violation is unlike the exemplar
harms listed in the Policy. It further argues that American
advances too broad a reading of the ERP Exclusion and that the
provision applies to practices directed at individual employees and
the fingerprint requirement is directed at all employees.

American clearly has the advantage of the plain reading of this
exclusion, Judge Leinenweber holds. Looking first at Caremel's
second argument, while the company contends that the requirement is
not directed at an individual employee, this is simply not the
case. Caremel's employees, including Ross, suffer risk of
individual injuries as a result of Caremel's failure to adhere to
the statutory procedures of the BIPA. This, according to the
Illinois Supreme Court, is an injury in fact. Ross and the
individuals in his putative class action have therefore been
individually aggrieved by the employment practice.

Judge Leinenweber further concludes that a BIPA violation is of the
same nature as the exemplar employment-related practices listed in
the Policy. Each of "coercion, demotion, evaluation, reassignment,
discipline, defamation, harassment, humiliation" reflect a practice
that can cause an individual harm to an employee. The same is true
for a BIPA violation. That the conduct harmed many employees at the
same time does not change this analysis. Accordingly, American may
deny coverage for Caremel's expenses associated with the Ross
Action under the ERP Exclusion.

C.

The third proffered exclusion is the Violation of Statute
Exclusion. This exclusion is virtually identical to the provision
analyzed in West Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan,
Inc., 2021 WL 2005464 (Ill. May 21, 2021). In Krishna, the Illinois
Supreme Court rejected the insurer's attempt to invoke this
exclusion for BIPA claims.

Judge Leinenweber finds that American fails to meaningfully
differentiate the Policy from the terms at-issue in Krishna.
Accordingly, the Policy's Violation of Statute Exclusion does not
act to exclude coverage for the Ross Action.

D.

Having concluded that the ERP Exclusion applies to the Ross Action,
the Court concludes that there are no issues of material fact
remaining in the suit. For this reason, he will grant summary
judgment in favor of American and issues a declaratory judgment
that the Policy does not include a duty to defend Caremel in the
Ross Action.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons he stated, Judge Leinenweber granted the
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 7, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8jwbvv from
Leagle.com.


CASA SYSTEMS: Hook Appeals Dismissal of Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Hook filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit entitled DONALD HOOK, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CASA SYSTEMS, INC.,
WEIDONG CHIEN, LUCY XIE, JOE TIBBETTS, BILL STYSLINGER, BRUCE R.
EVANS, GARY HALL, JERRY GUO, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, MACQUARIE
CAPITAL (USA) INC., LLC, RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
NORTHLAND SECURITIES, INC., AND SUMMIT PARTNERS, the Defendants,
Case No. 654548/2019, in the New York Supreme Court, Appellate
Division.

Hook filed a putative shareholder class action lawsuit on August 9,
2019. The complaint, as later amended on November 22, 2019,
purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
common stock in and/or traceable to the Company's IPO and generally
alleges that (i) each of the defendants violated Section 11 and/or
Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act because documents related to
the Company's IPO including its registration statement and
prospectus were materially misleading by containing untrue
statements of material fact and/or omitting to state material facts
necessary to make such statements not misleading and (ii) the
individual defendants and Summit Partners acted as controlling
persons within the meaning and in violation of Section 15 of the
Securities Act.

"Plaintiff sought, among other things, compensatory damages, costs
and expenses, including counsel and expert fees, rescission or a
rescissory measure of damages, disgorgement, and equitable and
injunctive relief," the Company said.

On August 30, 2021, New York Supreme Court Judge Margaret Chan
granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss, stating that the federal
forum provision in the Company's charter is valid and enforcement.


The appellate case is captioned as DONALD HOOK vs. CASA SYSTEMS,
INC. et al., Case No. 2021-04802, in the New York Supreme Court,
Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, filed on December
28, 2021.

Plaintiff-Petitioner Donald Hook, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Guillaume Orson Buell, Esq.
          THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP
          1 Lincoln Street
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 720 1333
          Facsimile: (617) 720 2445
          E-mail: gbuell@tenlaw.com

CHRISTINE HOTCHKIN: Scheduling Order Entered in MacDonald Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Darren MacDonald v.
Christine Hotchkin, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00138-MT (D. Ariz.),
the Hon. Judge Michael T. Liburdi entered a scheduling Order as
follows:

-- If responses required by the             Feb. 4, 2022
    Mandatory Initial Discovery
    Pilot Project (MIDP) have not
    been exchanged, they shall be
    exchanged by:

-- The deadline for joining parties,        March 18, 2022
    filing a motion to amend the
    pleadings, and filing supplemental
    pleadings is:

-- The deadline for the completion of       August 12, 2022
    fact discovery, including discovery
    by subpoena, shall be:

-- The deadline for final                   October 14, 2022
    supplementation of MIDP responses
    shall be:

-- The parties shall provide full           September 9, 2022
    and complete expert disclosures,
    as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C)
    of the Federal Rules of Civil
    Procedure, no later than:

-- The deadline for Plaintiff to            August 19, 2022
    file a motion for class
    certification is:

-- The deadline for Defendants to           September 16, 2022
    file an opposition to class
    certification is:

-- The deadline for Plaintiff               September 30, 2022
    to file a reply in support
    of motion for class
    certification is:

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Fqz3xe at no extra charge.[CC]

CINTAS CORP: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Partly Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS BEARUP, JR., et
al., v. CINTAS CORP. NO. 2, Case No. 1:21-cv-00151-MWM (S.D. Ohio),
the Hon. Judge Matthew W. McFarland entered an order denying in
part and granting in part Cintas's motion to strike class
allegations.

   -- The motion is denied to the extent Plaintiffs seek to
      certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class.

   -- The motion is granted to the extent Plaintiffs seek to
      certify a Rule 23(b )(2) class.

   -- The Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for leave to add new
      plaintiffs to the class action complaint.

   -- The Plaintiffs shall file the appropriate filing or
      amended pleadings within 14 days of the entry of this
      Order.

The Plaintiffs are employees of Southwest Airlines. The Plaintiffs
bring this action on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated.

Cintas supplies companies with corporate uniforms.

Southwest and Cintas worked together to create the design of some
new uniforms for Southwest employees.

The new clothing collection included 75 separate pieces, allowing
employees to mix and match their garments. The uniform collection
launched in June 2017. But after the launch of the new uniforms,
Southwest employees allegedly began experiencing adverse health
reactions, including rashes, fatigue, hair loss, and trouble
breathing.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33xbeqe at no extra charge.[CC]

CINTAS CORP: Bid to Strike Class Claims in Bearup Partly Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS BEARUP, JR., et al., Plaintiffs v. CINTAS CORP.
NO. 2, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-151 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Matthew
W. McFarland of the U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio,
Western Division, Cincinnati, issued an Order:

   a. granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion
      to strike class allegations; and

   b. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to add new
      plaintiffs to the class action complaint.

Background

Defendant Cintas supplies companies with corporate uniforms. The
Plaintiffs are employees of Southwest Airlines. Southwest and
Cintas worked together to create the design of some new uniforms
for Southwest employees. The new clothing collection included 75
separate pieces, allowing employees to mix and match their
garments. The uniform collection launched in June 2017. But after
the launch of the new uniforms, Southwest employees allegedly began
experiencing adverse health reactions, including rashes, fatigue,
hair loss, and trouble breathing. The Plaintiffs bring the action
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated.

The matter is before the Court on the Defendant's motion to strike
class allegations and the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to add new
plaintiffs to the class action complaint.

Discussion

I. Motion to Strike

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs federal
class actions. To obtain class certification, a lead plaintiff must
satisfy each of the four requirements in Rule 23(a) and also
satisfy the prerequisites of at least one of the three types of
class actions provided for by Rule 23(b). Failure to satisfy either
set of requirements precludes class certification.

Cintas argues that the Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the requirements
of Rule 23(a) or Rule 23(b) -- specifically Rule 23(b)(3)'s
"demanding" requirement that common questions of law or fact
predominate over individualized questions. It argues that claims
involving personal injury and medical issues are not suitable for
class treatment. Cintas relies heavily on Colley v. Procter &
Gamble Co., No. 1:16-CV-918, 2016 WL 5791658 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 4,
2016), a case involving several deodorant products that allegedly
caused injury to consumers. In Colley, for various reasons, the
Court struck the class allegations.

In the case, Judge McFarland finds it prudent to assess class
certification after discovery and based on full class certification
briefing. He reaches this conclusion after careful consideration of
the complaint's allegations. The allegations in the Plaintiffs'
complaint sufficiently plead facts that support the chance of, with
the support of discovery, satisfying the necessary Rule 23(a) and
(b) requirements. So the factual allegations, as of this early
stage, gain passage to discovery and class certification briefing.

A.

The complaint lays out adequate factual content relating to the
Rule 23(a) elements. On numerosity, according to the complaint,
although the exact number of potential class members is unknown,
the class flight attendants and operations agents working for
Southwest Airlines -- likely consists of thousands of individuals.
Cintas does not challenge numerosity.

The complaint alleges that the class claims present common
questions of law and fact, such as whether the uniforms caused
adverse health reactions and whether Cintas is liable under various
legal theories. The Plaintiffs also complain of adverse health
reactions from wearing the uniforms; the class members were
required to wear uniforms; so the Plaintiffs' claims are typical of
the claims of the class.

Cintas also argues that various state laws apply, defeating
commonality. The Plaintiffs counter that they have been unable to
view Cintas's contract with Southwest regarding the uniforms. In
its reply brief, Cintas attached the contract and recognized that
Texas law applies. But this is of no consequence, Cintas argues,
because that choice-of-law provision raises the issue of whether
Plaintiffs are third-party beneficiaries and whether the
choice-of-law provision is broad enough to encompass their claims.
This is all too much to resolve without discovery and certification
briefing, especially on an argument that comes in a reply brief
without a surreply.

Finally, regarding adequacy, the complaint alleges that the
Plaintiffs have no interests that are antagonistic to those of the
class, Cintas has no defenses unique to the Plaintiffs, and the
Plaintiffs have retained trial counsel competent in class action
litigation. The representative parties, then, will at least
allegedly fairly and adequately protect the class members'
interests. For these reasons, the complaint makes allegations
sufficient to plead the Rule 23(a) requirements. It is not possible
for the court, at this early stage and before discovery, to perform
the rigorous analysis required of it to resolve the
class-certification question in the negative.

B.

In addition to satisfying Rule 23(a), a class must also satisfy one
of the categories in Rule 23(b). When determining whether common
issues predominate, a court is under a duty to consider the
relationship between the common and individual issues. Discovery
helps a court determine the relative weight and importance of the
common and individual issues.

Cintas asserts that, for purposes of Rule 23(b)(3), individual
questions of fact predominate over common ones. Which of the 75
different uniform pieces caused the injuries? How was each class
member injured? And what states' laws apply? To support its
argument, Cintas points to Colley. In Colley, however, the
plaintiffs had brought claims relating to thirteen different
deodorant products, each of which had a distinct fragrance
composition. Thus, there was no "single course of conduct." Colley,
2016 WL 5791658, at *6 (quoting Amchem, 521 U.S. at 624).

In the case, little is yet known of the composition of the
uniforms. Yes, class members had 75 different pieces of clothing to
choose from, and liability in the case may involve asking which of
the 75 different uniform pieces each class member wore. But
discovery may reveal whether all items of clothing contained the
same properties that allegedly caused the adverse health reactions
in the class members. If so, the differences between the various
items of clothing may not be as relevant.

As for the question of different injuries and damages, the Court
will reserve consideration of that issue on a fuller record. The
reason: "It would drive a stake through the heart of the class
action device, in cases in which damages were sought rather than an
injunction or a declaratory judgment, to require that every member
of the class have identical damages." Butler v. Sears, Roebuck &
Co., 727 F.3d 796, 801 (7th Cir. 2013). And, here, before
foreclosing the way forward for Plaintiffs entirely, the Court
finds it prudent to rule on the matter on full class certification
briefing. E.g., Falcon, 457 U.S. at 160; Allen v. Andersen Windows,
Inc., 913 F.Supp.2d 490, 516 (S.D. Ohio 2012); Geary, 2015 WL
1286347, at *17. On the applicable law question, the same
reluctance expressed in the commonality and typicality analysis
above applies here. For all these reasons, the Court is not yet
able to fully consider the relative weight of the individual and
common issues and resolve Rule 23(b)(3) certification.

Cintas is correct, however, that Plaintiffs cannot certify a class
under Rule 23(b)(2). Rule 23(b)(2) does not authorize class
certification when each class member would be entitled to an
individualized award of money damages. Dukes, 564 U.S. at 360-61.
Plaintiffs do not deny that that is what they seek. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs are foreclosed from pursuing class certification under
Rule 23(b)(2).

II. Motion to Add Plaintiffs

The Plaintiffs move to add 58 new plaintiffs. Rule 21 permits a
district court to, "at any time, on just terms, add or drop a
party." Rule 15 permits amendments to pleadings on the court's
leave. Cintas does not oppose the motion. The prospective
plaintiffs are Southwest employees and complain of similar injuries
as the current plaintiffs. For just cause, Judge McFarland will
grant the motion.

Conclusion

For the reasons he explained, Judge McFarland granted in part and
denied in part Cintas' motion to strike class allegations. He
denied the motion to the extent the Plaintiffs seek to certify a
Rule 23(b)(3) class. He granted the motion to the extent the
Plaintiffs seek to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class.

Judge McFarland granted the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to add new
plaintiffs to the class action complaint. The Plaintiffs will file
the appropriate filing or amended pleadings within 14 days of the
entry of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 7, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3e9x78ry from Leagle.com.


CLEAN STEP: Valle Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages & Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michel Valle and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v.
Clean Step Linens USA, INC., Daniel C. Anderson, and Nancy
Anderson, individually, Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-00107 (M.D.
Fla., Jan. 12, 2022) is a collective action seeking to recover from
the Defendants overtime compensation, minimum wages, retaliatory
damages, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees
under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff brought this suit, on behalf of all other current and
former employees similarly situated who worked more than 40 hours
during one or more weeks without being adequately compensated.

Valle was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempted, full-time
employee for 19 weeks -- from approximately July 15, 2021, to
November 23, 2021. The Plaintiff had duties as a warehouse laundry
employee and delivery driver.

Clean Step provides laundry services to commercial accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE: Scheduling Order Entered in Blair Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIK BLAIR, on behalf of
himself and similarly situated employees, v. COMPREHENSIVE
HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00254-WSS
(W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge William S. Stickman IV entered a
scheduling order as follows:

  -- Defendants' expert reports are to be      Feb. 25, 2022
     served by:

  -- Depositions of experts are to be          March 25, 2022
     completed by:

  -- Expert discovery shall close on:          April 1, 2022

  -- Any motion for class certification        Feb. 10, 2022
     with brief in support is due by:

  -- Brief in opposition is due by:            March 10, 2022

  -- Any reply brief is due by:                March 24, 2022

Comprehensive Healthcare is a private company. The company
currently specializes in the Hospital & Health Care area.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Idn73L at no extra charge.[CC]

CONCIERGE SENIOR: Fails to Provide Proper OT Wages, Santiago Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
YOLANDA SANTIAGO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONCIERGE SENIOR LIVING, LLC D/B/A
THE PINEAPPLE HOUSE, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00021-JLB-MRM
(M.D. Fla., Jan. 12, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff under the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal
Act for overtime wage losses as a result of Defendant's failure to
pay wages at the federally required overtime rate for 30 minutes
meal periods in the weeks in which the hourly paid workers worked
more than 40 hours in a week.

The Plaintiff and class members worked as hourly paid assisted
senior care community workers of the Defendant. They assert that
they did not receive bona fide meal break periods. Instead, they
were required and permitted to work off-the-clock for Defendant
during their automatic meal break periods and were not paid for
such time.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from April 21, 2021 to
September 16, 2021.

Concierge Senior Living, LLC, d/b/a The Pineapple House, is an
assisted senior care community located in Collier County, Naples,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq.
          SORONDO ROSENBERG LEGAL PA
          1825 Ponce de Leon Blvd. #329
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (786) 708-7550
          Facsimile: (786) 204-0844
          E-mail: rer@sorondorosenberg.com

               - and -

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

D C AUTO: Vargas Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
EMIRO A. VARGAS, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. D C AUTO WHOLE SALE CORP, JOSE DIAZ, and JODY E. DIAZ,
Individually, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-60097 (S.D. Fla., Jan. 12,
2022) seeks to recover from Defendants regular wages, overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's
fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf
of Plaintiff, and all other current and former employees similarly
situated, who worked in excess of 40 hours.

Mr. Vargas was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempted,
full-time, hourly employee for 22 weeks -- from December 1, 2020,
to May 8, 2021. He was hired as an auto body shop laborer, painter,
and mechanic employee.

D C Auto Whole Sale Corp. is a Florida-based auto body repair and
painting business providing general auto mechanic services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

DALLAS COUNTY, TX: Fifth Circuit Vacates Injunction in Daves Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHANNON DAVES; SHAKENA WALSTON; ERRIYAH BANKS;
DESTINEE TOVAR; PATROBA MICHIEKA; JAMES THOMPSON, On Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated; FAITH IN TEXAS; TEXAS
ORGANIZING PROJECT EDUCATION FUND, Plaintiffs-Appellants
Cross-Appellees v. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS; ERNEST WHITE, 194TH;
HECTOR GARZA, 195TH; RAQUEL JONES, 203RD; TAMMY KEMP, 204TH;
JENNIFER BENNETT, 265TH; AMBER GIVENS-DAVIS, 282ND; LELA MAYS,
283RD; STEPHANIE MITCHELL, 291ST; BRANDON BIRMINGHAM, 292ND; TRACY
HOLMES, 363RD; TINA YOO CLINTON, NUMBER 1; NANCY KENNEDY, NUMBER 2;
GRACIE LEWIS, NUMBER 3; DOMINIQUE COLLINS, NUMBER 4; CARTER
THOMPSON, NUMBER 5; JEANINE HOWARD, NUMBER 6; CHIKA ANYIAM, NUMBER
7 JUDGES OF DALLAS COUNTY, CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURTS,
Defendants-Appellees Cross-Appellants, MARIAN BROWN; TERRIE MCVEA;
LISA BRONCHETTI; STEVEN AUTRY; ANTHONY RANDALL; JANET LUSK; HAL
TURLEY, DALLAS COUNTY MAGISTRATES; DAN PATTERSON, NUMBER 1; JULIA
HAYES, NUMBER 2; DOUG SKEMP, NUMBER 3; NANCY MULDER, NUMBER 4; LISA
GREEN, NUMBER 5; ANGELA KING, NUMBER 6; ELIZABETH CROWDER, NUMBER
7; CARMEN WHITE, NUMBER 8; PEGGY HOFFMAN, NUMBER 9; ROBERTO CANAS,
JR., NUMBER 10; SHEQUITTA KELLY, NUMBER 11 JUDGES OF DALLAS COUNTY,
CRIMINAL COURTS AT LAW, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-11368
(5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated
the district court's preliminary injunction order and remanded for
limited purposes.

Background

The Opinion partially resolves an interlocutory appeal of a
preliminary injunction. Not everything in the Opinion is
unfinished, though.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
certified the underlying lawsuit as a class action challenging the
bail system in Dallas County, Texas. According to the Plaintiffs,
indigent arrestees are subjected to an unconstitutional "system of
wealth-based detention." The claimed constitutional violation is
that secured money bail is imposed without procedural safeguards or
substantive findings that less intrusive conditions of release are
inadequate to meet the state's interests in pretrial detention.

In January 2018, six indigent individuals arrested for misdemeanor
or felony offenses in Dallas County filed a class action under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 against Dallas County; 17 Dallas County
District Court and Criminal District Court Judges ("District
Judges"), who handle felony cases; 11 Dallas County Criminal Court
at Law Judges ("County Judges"), who handle misdemeanors; 6 of the
Dallas County Magistrate Judges; and the Sheriff of Dallas County.
The Plaintiffs allege that indigent arrestees in Dallas County are
jailed without sufficient procedural safeguards and substantive
findings that would justify detention. The claimed necessary
findings are that less intrusive conditions of release are
inadequate to meet the state's interests in pretrial detention.
Based on those allegations, the Plaintiffs claim that the
Defendants violate their Fourteenth Amendment rights to procedural
due process, equal protection, and substantive due process.

Along with the complaint, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification and one for a preliminary injunction. The requested
preliminary injunction would prohibit Dallas County "from enforcing
its wealth-based pretrial detention system" and require it "to
provide the procedural safeguards and substantive findings that the
Constitution requires before preventatively detaining any
presumptively innocent individuals."

Early in the suit, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss due to a
lack of jurisdiction, raising threshold defenses, and rejecting the
case's merits. Among other points, Dallas County, the Sheriff, and
the Magistrate Judges argued that none of the Defendants is a
county policymaker sufficient for municipal liability. The District
Judges argued that the Plaintiffs lack standing. The County Judges
argued for abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971),
an argument incorporated by the District Judges and Magistrate
Judges. No explicit ruling on the motions was made.

Central to the suit is that the District Judges in Dallas County
promulgated a bail schedule for felony arrestees, which took effect
in February 2017. In April 2017, the County Judges promulgated a
bail schedule for misdemeanor arrestees. The district court
explained that "these schedules operate like a menu, associating
various 'prices' for release with different types of crimes and
arrestees." Although the District Judges and County Judges insist
that these schedules are non-binding recommendations, the district
court found that the "Magistrate Judges routinely treat these
schedules as binding when determining bail" and that "the schedules
are the policy of Dallas County." The Dallas County Sheriff
implements Magistrate Judges' detention decisions at the facility
where arrestees are detained.

Soon after this suit was filed, the Fifth Circuit issued opinions
in an appeal from a preliminary injunction in a nearly identical
challenge to the system of setting bail for misdemeanor arrestees
in Harris County (in which Houston is located) -- ODonnell v.
Harris Cnty., 882 F.3d 528 (5th Cir. 2018), withdrawn and
superseded on panel reh'g, 892 F.3d 147 (5th Cir. 2018) (ODonnell
I); ODonnell v. Goodhart, 900 F.3d 220 (5th Cir. 2018) (ODonnell
II). The analysis in those opinions largely controlled, necessarily
so, what the district court concluded in the present suit.

After the first opinion in ODonnell, the district court in the case
had a hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
injunction. A month later, the court issued a memorandum opinion
and entered an injunction in a separate order. The same day, the
court also issued a memorandum opinion and order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, permitting the
Plaintiffs to proceed on behalf of themselves and "all arrestees
who are or will be detained in Dallas County custody because they
are unable to pay a secured financial condition of release."

The district court held that the case was materially
indistinguishable from ODonnell I, thereby accepting the ODonnell I
court's legal conclusions as controlling for the case. The only
threshold issue the court discussed was policymaking authority for
municipal-liability purposes. It did not make any holdings as to
whether the Plaintiffs have standing, whether any Defendants were
entitled to sovereign immunity, or whether to abstain under
Younger.

The district court found that the bail system in Dallas County
results in automatic detention for indigent arrestees that can last
for months "solely because an individual cannot afford the secured
condition of release," i.e., money bail. Consequently, it held that
the Plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on their
procedural-due-process and equal-protection claims. It rejected the
Plaintiffs' claim that substantive due process requires a finding
that no less intrusive condition of release would meet the state's
interests in pretrial detention.

The court then issued an injunction. Understandably, it was nearly
identical to the ODonnell court's injunction. The County Judges and
District Judges, along with Dallas County, were made subject to the
injunction; the injunction stated, though, that no relief against
the judges was granted "in their judicial or legislative
capacities." The injunction required Dallas County to provide "an
adequate process for ensuring there is individual consideration for
each arrestee of whether another amount or condition provides
sufficient sureties." Without being enjoined, the Sheriff was
"authorized to decline to enforce orders requiring payment of
prescheduled bail amounts as a condition of release if the orders
are not accompanied by a record showing that the required
individual assessment was made and an opportunity for formal review
was provided."

The Plaintiffs, Dallas County, and the District Judges, each filed
notices of appeal. There was no appeal by the Magistrate Judges.
The Fifth Circuit panel opinion made some revisions to the
injunction, but, bound by the ODonnell opinions, it affirmed in
most part. Of course, they are now considering the appeal en banc.

After the May 2021 en banc oral argument, legislation was enacted
that created new rules for the imposition of bail. The Fifth
Circuit asked for supplemental letter briefs addressing the
legislation. The Plaintiffs responded that the procedures for
imposing bail on indigent pretrial arrestees remain
constitutionally infirm, while the Defendants argued that the new
law makes it even clearer that the standards and procedures for
imposition of pretrial bail are state-law matters. All the Fifth
Circuit decides at this point is that the new legislation does not
eliminate the need for us to analyze the threshold issues that
follow. It will, though, also remand to the district court the
initial resolution of the effect of this Senate Bill 6.

Discussion

The district court issued the preliminary injunction without making
explicit holdings about justiciability or Younger abstention. Even
though not a jurisdictional issue, a court may "abstain under
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), without deciding whether the
parties present a case or controversy." In addition, the Fifth
Circuit's sequencing of issues is affected by the fact its Opinion
is preliminary to and is intended to guide a limited remand. In
other words, the Fifth Circuit does not resolve all jurisdictional
and abstention issues at this time. It also considers it
appropriate to analyze now whether any of the defendant officials
were acting on behalf of Dallas County on bail matters. If none of
them were, then there is no subject-matter jurisdiction under
Section 1983 against the County, as it is only through the actions
of these defendant officials that the County itself could be liable
to the Plaintiffs.

The Fifth Circuit will proceed in the following order: (1) Were any
Defendants acting on behalf of Dallas County? (2) Do the Plaintiffs
have standing to seek relief against any of the Defendants? (3) Do
Younger abstention principles prohibit federal judicial
intervention in the Dallas County bail system?

In deciding whether Younger is properly before it, the Fifth
Circuit starts with its rejection of any bright-line rule for when
waiver blocks an issue and when waiver has been evaded, citing
First United Fin. Corp. v. Specialty Oil Co., 5 F.3d 944, 948 n.9
(5th Cir. 1993). It determines, first, whether the issue was
presented to the district court in a manner sufficient to give that
court an opportunity to rule on it. The issue must then be
"pressed" on appeal.

In summary, one group of Defendants in the case argued in district
court a distinction from ODonnell's holding about Younger. Other
Defendants' motions buried the abstention argument but did cite
caselaw of secondary importance. The district court's rejection of
any argument under Younger would reasonably have appeared
preordained, making pursuing an early ruling on abstention in
district court seemingly futile.

Further, before the Fifth Circuit now are only those matters
related to an interlocutory appeal from the grant of a preliminary
injunction, when no ruling on abstention has yet been made. It was
necessary to raise the issue in district court even if foreclosed,
but on these facts, the Fifth Circuit does not see that any party
needed to do more to have preserved the issue.

As to briefing for the interlocutory appeal, it was potentially
unclear whether Younger would concern the panel, bound as it was by
ODonnell. Even so, Younger was discussed in the initial briefing.
Finally, though en banc is the quintessentially appropriate time to
challenge a precedential Fifth Circuit opinion's holding about any
relevant issue, our order granting rehearing in this appeal stated
that the briefing schedule is "for the filing of supplemental
briefs." Whatever else that might mean, it supports that arguments
do not need to be restated if they have been sufficiently pressed
in the briefing to the panel. Minimal arguments were in the panel
briefing.

The Fifth Circuit concludes that the Younger issue has not been
waived.

A few observations about abstention need to be made. The Fifth
Circuit's remand is to allow the district court to consider the
applicability of what the Fifth Circuit has identified in the case
as Younger abstention. Potentially relevant is whether subsequent
Supreme Court opinions have expanded the Younger doctrine and are
doctrinally distinct in some respects. Among the subsequent key
decisions is one that applied abstention to future criminal
prosecutions. The Fifth Circuit later held that the concerns for
comity discussed in O'Shea "defeat the claims based on the
imposition of excessive bail." A year after O'Shea v. Littleton,
414 U.S. 488 (1974), the Supreme Court did not abstain in a case
brought by pre-trial detainees to require a judicial determination
of probable cause for their detention. Much more recently, the
Court has made general pronouncements about Younger abstention.
Other authorities will be valuable as well.

After the remand, the en banc court will take a fresh look at
Younger, at which time the Fifth Circuit will have authority to
re-evaluate its own precedent. The issue received little attention
in the case by the district court or by counsel. The Fifth Circuit
has already held, on the unusual facts of its rejection of
abstention in the related Harris County case just as the Dallas
County case was getting underway, that the issue is not waived.
Yet, like the Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit is "a court of
review, not of first view." Though it has considered some
foundational issues that the district court pretermitted, it
concludes that the abstention issue is one which will particularly
benefit from a first view in district court.

The only judges left as potentially proper parties are the
Magistrate Judges. The Fifth Circuit also has not yet made a ruling
about the inclusion of the Sheriff as a defendant. It limited
remand will give the district court the opportunity, through such
proceedings as it directs, to have abstention fully explored, both
factually and legally. The ODonnell court's Younger analysis is not
binding on this remand. When the case returns, none of the Fifth
Circuit's precedent will be binding on it. Thus, in light of the
district court's consideration of the issue after the en banc court
has received the case, it gives the district court authority on
remand to reach the result it considers appropriate even if it is
inconsistent with any of this court's precedent. What it has
actually held in its Opinion to be the law, though, must be applied
as precedent.

Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit concludes that the district court issued the
injunction without first ruling on several motions that presented
significant threshold questions, including abstention, judicial and
legislative immunity, and standing. Pretermitting rulings on the
motions may have resulted from the district court's understanding
that the Fifth Circuit's ODonnell precedents had already rejected
similar arguments.

Some of those preliminary questions need answers now. The Fifth
Circuit has authority to address them even when jurisdiction for
the appeal is derived from a ruling on an injunction motion if the
answers have significant bearing on that ruling.

The Fifth Circuit agrees with a sister circuit that, on the appeal
from a preliminary injunction, issues relating to whether there is
a proper suit at all can be decided, such as the existence of
subject-matter and personal jurisdiction and questions regarding
abstention, citing Iantosca v. Step Plan Servs., Inc., 604 F.3d 24,
31 (1st Cir. 2010). One of its precedents explained that point but
in more general terms: "Ordinarily the scope of appellate review
under Section 1292(a)(1) is confined to the issues necessary to
determine the propriety of the interlocutory order itself," citing
Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585, 603-04 (5th Cir. 2011).

In summary, the Fifth Circuit's appellate role is to review what
the district court has done, but on certain potentially
determinative issues, the district court has yet to rule. It
concludes that it is possible on this record and briefing to make
limited holdings now about whether any defendant was acting on
behalf of Dallas County and about standing. As to abstention,
though, briefing exists but is cursory. The Fifth Circuit will
order a limited remand for the district court to conduct such
proceedings as it finds appropriate and decide whether abstention
is required. Once that decision is made, it will complete oits
review.

For these reasons, the Fifth Circuit vacated the preliminary
injunction. It remanded to the district court for the limited
purpose of conducting such proceedings as it considers appropriate
and making detailed findings and conclusions concerning abstention
under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and related caselaw,
and on the effect of Senate Bill 6 on the issues in the case. Once
the district court has entered findings and conclusions on those
issues, the case will return to the Fifth Circuit. No other issues
in the case are part of the remand. The Fifth Circuit retains
jurisdiction over both the appeal and the cross-appeal during the
remand to district court. Further instructions will be given to the
parties after the district court has concluded its work.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 7, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p9cjvse from Leagle.com.


DEJA VU PIZZA: Hoffman Claims Shortchanged on Delivery Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ashleigh Hoffman, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. Deja vu Pizza LLC, Northern Bay Pizza, LLC,
Harold Rose, Steve Ritchie, Timothy O'Hern and Sara Lewis,
Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00006 (D.N.D., January 14, 2022) seeks
overtime compensation, all required remuneration, non-discretionary
bonuses, final injunctive and/or declaratory relief, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own and operate Papa John's Pizza franchise stores
in North Dakota and Wisconsin where Hoffman worked as a delivery
driver. They allegedly took a tip credit from Hoffman when he was
making deliveries and made him use his own car for deliveries.
Hoffman claims that the delivery fee he gets is not enough to cover
here vehicular expenses. He also claims that he occasionally worked
hours over 40 in a week, and in these weeks he did not receive a
sufficient overtime premium because of the unreimbursed mileage
expenses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leo F.J. Wilking
      WILKING LAW FIR PLLC
      P.O. Box 3085
      Fargo, North Dakota 58108-3085
      Telephone: (701) 356-6823
      Facsimile: (701) 478-7621
      Email: lwilking@wilkinglaw.com

             - and -

      Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
      Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
      Emily A. Hubbard, Esq.
      BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
      8044 Montgomery Rd., Ste. 515
      Cincinnati, OH 45236
      Telephone: (513) 715-8711
      Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
      Email: akimble@billerkimble.com
             abiller@billerkimble.com
             ehubbard@billerkimble.com

DESKTOP METAL: Hathaway Slams Stock Price Drop From Product Flaws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Hathaway, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Desktop Metal, Inc., Ric Fulop,
James Haley and Ali El-Siblani, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-10059
(D. Mass., January 14) seeks to recover damages caused by
violations of federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Desktop Metal offers additive manufacturing technologies focused on
the production of end use parts. On February 16, 2021, the it
acquired EnvisionTEC, Inc., a provider of volume production
photopolymer 3D printing solutions for end use parts. On November
8, 2021, after the market closed, Desktop Metal disclosed that it
was conducting an internal investigation into "manufacturing and
product compliance practices and procedures with respect to a
subset of its photopolymer equipment and materials at its
EnvisionTec US LLC facility." It also stated that the Chief
Executive Officer of EnvisionTec US LLC had resigned.

On this news, the Desktop's stock fell $0.39, or 4%, to close at
$8.81 per share on November 9, 2021. Then, on November 15, 2021,
after the market closed, the company stated that it would notify
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of "compliance issues with
certain shipments of EnvisionTEC's Flexcera dental resins and its
PCA4000 curing box." On this news, its stock fell $1.19, or 15%, to
close at $6.83 per share on November 16, 2021, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Hathaway claims that Desktop Metal failed to disclose to investors
that there were deficiencies in EnvisionTEC's manufacturing and
product compliance practices and procedures.

Hathaway purchased Desktop Metal securities and suffered damages as
a result of alleged federal securities law violations and false
and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, New York 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com
             tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Glen DeValerio, Esq.
      Daryl Andrews, Esq.
      ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP
      P.O. Box 67101
      Chestnut Hill MA 02467
      Tel: (617) 999-6473
      Email: glen@andrewsdevalerio.com
             daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com

EASYSWIPE MERCHANT: Livingstone Sues Over Unsolicited Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT LIVINGSTONE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff v. EASYSWIPE MERCHANT SERVICES d/b/a
EasySwipe.net, Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-000579 (Fla. Cir., 17th
Judicial, Broward Cty., Jan. 12, 2022) seeks damages, injunctive
relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies,
resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in negligently
or willfully contacting Plaintiff on his cellular telephone, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant utilizes bulk SPAM
calling to send unsolicited calls, marketing and advertising of its
services, including at least eight unsolicited calls to Plaintiff.
The Defendant is and was aware that it is placing unsolicited calls
to Plaintiff and other consumers registered on the Do Not Call
Registry list without their prior express written consent, says the
suit.

The Plaintiff asserts that his privacy was wrongfully invaded and
that he was damaged by Defendant's alleged unlawful calls.

EasySwipe Merchant Services is a merchant services provider that
offers payment processing, customer financing, and business funding
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
          Steven N. Saul, Esq.
          EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Telephone: (954) 889-3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
          E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
                  MPascucci@JusticeEarned.com
                  SSaul@JusticeEarned.com
                  SGizzie@JusticeEarned.com

               - and -

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

EMERYVILLE DENTAL: California Court Dismisses Noriega Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BETTY NORIEGA, Plaintiff v. ROSE MAGNO, DDS, an
individual, d/b/a EMERYVILLE DENTAL CARE Defendant, Case No.
21-cv-07528-MMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California issued an
order:

   a. granting the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Class Action
      Complaint, filed Dec. 6, 2021; and

   b. denying as moot its Motion to Strike Class Allegations,
      also filed Dec. 6, 2021.

Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in
opposition to the motions, Judge Chesney deems the matters
appropriate for determination on the parties' respective written
submissions, vacates the hearing scheduled for Dec. 14, 2022.

To the extent the Defendant seeks dismissal of Count I, by which
Plaintiff Noriega asserts a claim under the Truth in Lending Act
("TILA"), Judge Chesney grants the motion to dismiss for the
reasons stated by the Defendant. Specifically, the Plaintiff fails
to allege facts to support her conclusory assertion that the
Defendant is a "creditor."

The Court's jurisdiction over the remaining Counts, specifically,
Counts II through VII, is supplemental in nature. Where, as in the
case, a court has dismissed the sole claim over which it has
original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the remaining claims. In this instance, given the
early stage of the proceedings, Judge Chesney finds it appropriate
to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, and, accordingly,
dismisses Count II through VII without prejudice to filing in state
court.

In light of the dismissal of all claims in the Complaint, Judge
Chesney denies as moot the Defendant's motion to strike the class
allegations.

If the Plaintiff wishes to file a First Amended Complaint, she will
do so no later than Jan. 31, 2022.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 7, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/34u2m6v5 from Leagle.com.


ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Reed Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Reed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Enterprise Products Partners, LP, Integrated Consulting
& Inspection, LLC, and Legacy Field Services, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 22-cv-00116 (S.D. Tex., January 12, 2022) seeks declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, prejudgment interest, and costs,
including reasonable attorneys' fees for failure to pay final
paycheck after termination of employment under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Enterprise's primary business is offering project management for
oil and gas sites, providing land survey services and inspecting
pipeline. It contracts with Integrated Consulting & Inspection
(ICI) and Legacy to provide workers at their job sites. Reed was
employed by Enterprise as an Inspector within the three years
preceding the filing of this lawsuit. He performed work for Legacy,
through Enterprise, from approximately January of 2019 until
January of 2020. He worked for ICI, through Enterprise, from
approximately January of 2020 until August of 2021. He claims to
have regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week without
overtime pay. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      April Rheaume, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      Kirkpatrick Plaza
      10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
      Little Rock, Arkansas 72211
      Telephone: (800) 615-4946
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
             april@sanfordlawfirm.com


EXTRA SPACE: Florida Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Makkinje Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AMBER MAKKINJE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXTRA SPACE STORAGE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-2234-WFJ-SPF (M.D. Fla.), Judge William
F. Jung of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division, denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss
Plaintiff Makkinje's amended class action complaint.

I. Background

The case is one of several class action lawsuits recently filed by
the Plaintiff's attorneys in which a commercial website's use of
session replay software is alleged to violate the Florida Security
Communications Act ("FSCA"), Fla. Stat. Section 934.01, et seq.
Session replay software records website visitors' mouse clicks,
keystrokes, search terms, and other ways in which they interact
with the website—information that companies use to help increase
online sales. Many of these recent cases have been dismissed for
failure to state a claim, with one court providing a deeper
analysis of the shared conclusion that these website browsing
movements do not convey any substance or meaning of a communication
so as to afford them protection under the FSCA. However, the
Plaintiff contends that her case is distinguishable from these
dismissed actions because the Defendant's use of session replay
software during her visit to its website recorded more than just
her non-substantive browsing movements.

The Defendant in the case is a national corporation from which
consumers may rent storage units. Consumers may avail themselves to
the Defendant's products and services through Defendant's
commercial website, which utilizes session replay software provided
by a third-party company, Quantum Metric, Inc. The Plaintiff states
that she visited the Defendant's website approximately 10 times
between June 2020 and August 2020. On one of these occasions, she
alleges that she utilized the website's live chat function to
inquire about the Defendant's available storage units and rates.
She contends that, through the use of session replay software, the
Defendant intercepted her electronic communications in the online
chat feature without her knowledge or consent.

Based on these allegations, the Plaintiff brings the two-count
class action lawsuit. Count I alleges violations of the FSCA by
Defendant through its recording of live chat conversations through
session replay software. Count II seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief for the same pursuant to section 934.10(1)(a) of the FSCA.
The Defendant filed the present motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12, which the Court construes as a motion to dismiss
under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for which relief
can be granted.

II. Analysis

In its present motion, the Defendant makes several arguments for
the dismissal of Count I of the Plaintiff's amended complaint. It
first states that the Plaintiff has not alleged the interception of
"contents" of an "electronic communication" as defined by the FSCA.
It also contends that the Plaintiff has failed to allege a
reasonable expectation of privacy in her live chat communications.
Next, the Defendant claims that the FSCA only applies to intercept
devices, not software. As a final basis for dismissal, it asserts
that the Plaintiff both impliedly and expressly consented to the
recording of her live chat communications. Regarding Count II, the
Defendant asserts that this count is duplicative of Count I and
therefore must be dismissed.

Applying the standard for assessing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss, Judge Jung will deny the Defendant's motion. At this stage
of the proceedings, he finds that the Plaintiff has alleged a
plausible claim for relief under the FSCA. Plaintiff has set forth
facts that, accepted as true and viewed in a light most favorable
to her, sufficiently allege an interception of an electronic
communication in violation of the FSCA. The Plaintiff has
sufficiently demonstrated how her claim's involvement of live chat
communications distinguishes it from the other session replay
software cases recently dismissed by courts in Florida. The
Defendant has not cited, nor has the Court found, any binding
caselaw considering whether the recording of live chat
communications via session replay software is a violation of the
FSCA.

Judge Jung also notes that the Eleventh Circuit has determined that
software can constitute a "device" in the wiretapping context.
Though the Defendant may, in fact, be correct that the FSCA does
not apply to a commercial website's recording of live chat
communications via session replay software, he says, that
determination is more appropriately addressed at the summary
judgment stage.

Regarding Count II, Judge Jung does not find this count to be
duplicative. The FSCA explicitly provides for this remedy.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, Judge Jung denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
The Defendant will answer the Plaintiff's amended complaint within
14 days.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 7, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p89rk2a from Leagle.com.


FINE & RARE: Tipped Employees Get Collective Status in "Guevara"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHANIE RUIZ GUEVARA and
SANDRA HERAS, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, v. FINE & RARE OPERATIONS LLC d/b/a FINE & RARE,
FLATIRON ROOM OPERATIONS LLC d/b/a THE FLATIRON ROOM, GOODNIGHT
GROUP LLC, and THOMAS TARDIE, Case No. 1:20-cv-05330-BCM
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective certification as to
all former and current non-exempt tipped employees who worked at
Fine & Rare restaurant on or after July 11, 2017, and otherwise
denied.

The Court says that no later than two weeks from the date of this
Memorandum and Order:

   1. The Defendants shall produce a spreadsheet, in Excel
      format if possible, containing the names, last known
      mailing addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers,
      dates of employment, current or most recent job title, and
      current or most recent compensation rate, for all current
      and former non-exempt, tipped employees who worked at Fine
      & Rare restaurant on or after July 11, 2017; and

   2. The parties shall, after meeting and conferring, prepare
      and submit to the Court, for its approval, a revised form
      of Notice (including the related opt-in form), and a
      proposed distribution order, incorporating the Court's
      rulings.

The Plaintiffs Guevara and Heras were employed by F&R LLC and
worked at Fine & Rare restaurant, located at 9 East 37th Street in
Manhattan. Guevara was a busser for three months, from November
2019 to February 2020.

Heras alleges that she was a server and food runner from June 2017
to August 2019. Fine & Rare is promoted as part of the Goodnight
Group "family of venues," which also includes a second restaurant,
The Flatiron Room (Flatiron Room), located at 37 West 26th Street
in Manhattan. Alleging that both restaurants are owned and
controlled by Thomas Tardie and are operated as a "single
integrated enterprise," the plaintiffs brought this action on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against F&R LLC,
Flatiron Room Operations LLC d/b/a The Flatiron Room (FIR LLC),
Goodnight Group LLC (collectively the Corporate
Defendants), and Tardie, alleging that defendants violated the
minimum wage, overtime, tip-pooling, meal credit, spread-of-hours,
wage notice, and wage statements provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New York Labor Law (NYLL), and
their implementing regulations, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff Guevara filed this action on July 10, 2020, and
amended her pleading, adding Heras as a second plaintiff, on June
8, 2021. On August 10, 2021, plaintiffs filed their motion for
conditional collective certification.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nvyAUm at no extra charge.[CC]

FIRSTCASH HOLDINGS: County Workers' Pension Fund Hits Share Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
Genesee County Employees' Retirement System, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Firstcash Holdings, Inc., Rick L.
Wessel and R. Douglas Orr, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00033 (N.D.
Tex., January 14, 2022) seeks to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

FirstCash is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Fort Worth,
Texas. It owns and operates pawn stores in the United States and
Latin America. FirstCash common stock trades on the NASDAQ under
the ticker symbol "FCFS." It provides non-recourse pawn loans and
buys merchandise from customers to allow them to meet short-term
cash needs.

The Military Lending Act (MLA) provides protections for active-duty
service members and their dependents in connection with the
extension of consumer credit. Among other protections, the MLA
limits the interest rates that may be charged on consumer loans to
active-duty armed forces members and their covered dependents to no
more than 36%. Further, the MLA prohibits lenders from requiring
covered parties to submit to arbitration, as well as imposing other
limitations.

In response to the expansion of the MLA, which prohibited FirstCash
from issuing loans with interest rates higher than 36%, FirstCash
claimed that it was "unable to offer any of its current credit
products, including pawn loans, to members of the U.S. military or
their dependents." FirstCash also claimed throughout the Class
Period that it employed robust systems, policies, and procedures to
ensure its regulatory compliance and adherence to applicable laws,
rules and regulations governing its business, including the MLA.

The Plaintiff alleges that FirstCash was engaged in widespread and
systemic violations of the MLA and had made thousands of loans to
active-duty service members and their dependents at usurious rates.
On November 12, 2021, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
filed a lawsuit alleging that FirstCash and its subsidiary, Cash
America West, Inc., had violated the MLA by charging higher than
the allowable 36% annual percentage rate on over 3,600 pawn loans
to more than 1,000 active-duty service members and their
dependents. The CFPB also alleged that FirstCash had violated the
2013 CFPB Order prohibiting future MLA violations, which remained
in effect and applied to FirstCash following the September 2016
merger of FirstCash and First Cash America.

As a result of these alleged revelations, the FirstCash stock price
plummeted over $7 per share, or 8%, in a single day to close at
$78.64 per share on November 12, 2021 on abnormally high trading
volume. The stock continued to fall in subsequent days as the
market digested the news, dropping another $10 per share by
November 18, 2021.

Genesee County Employees' Retirement System purchased FirstCash
common stock during the Class Period and suffered damages as a
result. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Vicki Multer Diamond, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Tel: (631) 367-7100
      Fax: (631) 367-1173
      Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

      Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 674-4674
      Fax: (312) 674-4676
      Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

      Thomas Michaud, Esq.
      VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD & TIMMONY P.C
      79 Alfred Street
      Detroit, MI 48201
      Phone: (313) 578-1200
      Fax: (313) 578-1201
      Email address: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com


FORD MOTOR: Otto Thornburg Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OTTO E. THORNBURG, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. FORD MOTOR
COMPANY, Case No. 4:19-cv-01025-HFS (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the proposed class pursuant to Federal Rule of
      Civil Procedure 23(c);

   2. appointing him as Class Representative;

   3. appointing his Counsel as Class Counsel; and

   4. approving notice be disseminated to the Class consistent
      with due process requirements.

The action was commenced by the Plaintiff, a residential property
holder who resides at 6405 River Road, Pleasant Valley, Clay
County, Missouri, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, as a result of Defendant's release of noxious odors in
the form of harsh paint fumes and chemicals, which have repeatedly
invaded, and continue to invade, Plaintiff's and the putative
class's properties causing property damage through nuisance and
negligence.

The Defendant Ford Motor Company operates an automotive facility
located at 8121 US Highway 69, Village of Claycomo, Clay County,
Missouri.

The Plaintiff brings this action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23,
on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, whose
property was invaded by noxious odors which originated from
Defendant's Plant.

The Defendant has allegedly engaged in a uniform and common course
of misconduct towards members of the proposed Class; there is a
common source of air pollution, giving rise to overwhelmingly
common questions of law and fact to all class members. Accordingly,
there exist questions of law or fact common to the Class.

All proposed Class members have suffered injury in fact as a result
of the invasion of their properties by noxious odors emitted by
Defendant. The noxious odors emitted by Defendant interfere with
their ability to use and enjoy their homes and have adversely
impacted property values throughout the proposed Class Area, the
suit says.

Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer
headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, United States.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Terry Neff, Esq.
          NEFF & DAY, P.C.
          117 W. Spring Street
          Neosho, MO 64850
          Telephone: (417) 451-7003
          Facsimile: (417) 451-7048
          E-mail: tneff@neosholawyers.com

               - and -

          Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
          Laura L. Sheets, Esq.
          Matthew Z. Robb, Esq.
          LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C.
          975 E. Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48207-3101
          Telephone: (313) 392-0015
          Facsimile: (313) 392-0025
          E-mail: sliddle@ldclassaction.com
                  lsheets@ldclassaction.com
                  mrobb@ldclassaction.com

FROST BANK: Woods Sues Over Unfair Collection of Overdraft Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Theodore Woods, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FROST BANK, Case No. 2021CI26208 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Bexar
Cty., Dec. 28, 2021), is brought seeking monetary damages,
restitution and declaratory relief from the Defendant arising from
the unfair and unconscionable assessment and collection of
overdraft fees ("OD Fees") on APPSN Transactions.

These practices breach contractual promises made in Frost's
adhesion contracts. In plain, clear, and simple language, the
checking account contract documents discussing OD Fees promise that
Frost will only charge OD Fees on transactions where there are
insufficient funds to cover them. As happened to the Plaintiff,
however, Frost charges OD Fees even when there are sufficient funds
to cover a debit card transaction. Frost's customers have been
injured by Frost's improper practices to the tune of millions of
dollars bilked from their accounts in violation of their agreements
with Frost, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff has a personal checking account with Frost Bank.

Frost is engaged in the business of providing retail banking
services to consumers, including the Plaintiff and members of the
putative Class.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Edwards, Esq.
          Michael Singley, Esq.
          David James, Esq.
          THE EDWARDS LAW GROUP
          The Haehnel Building
          603 W 17th Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Phone: 512-623-7727
          Fax: 512-623-7729
          Email: jeff@edwards-law.com
                 mike@edwards-law.com
                 david@edwards-law.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Ostrow, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
          Phone: 954-525-4100
          Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                 streisfeld@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL GOLD PLLC
          1100 15th Street NW 4th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Phone: (202) 350-4783
          Email: jkaliel@kalielgold.com
                 sgold@kalielgold.com


GE UNITED: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GE United
Technologies, LLC. The case is styled as Terry Fabricant,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GE
United Technologies, LLC doing business as: Grassdoor.com, Case No.
2:22-cv-00283 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 13, 2022).

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

Grassdoor -- https://grassdoor.com/ -- is a cannabis delivery
technology company that has developed a software application to
help State law compliant retailers efficiently manage and deliver
orders for cannabis products to their customers and patients.[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


GEICO GENERAL: Summary Judgment Briefing Sched Extension Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAN MCNICHOLS, v. GEICO
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-01497-KAD (D. Conn.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting them an
extension of the summary judgment briefing schedule and trial
readiness date.

On December 14, 2020, the Parties filed a Form 26(f) Report of the
Parties' Planning Meeting, which this Court ordered on December 15,
2020.

On May 5, 2021 and August 18, 2021, the Parties filed Joint Motions
for Extension of Class Certification and Summary Judgement Briefing
Schedule, which were granted on May 6, 2021 and August 19, 2021,
respectively.

Under the current schedule, the Plaintiff's Reply in Further
Support of their Motion for Class Certification is due on January
21, 2022. The current deadline for filing dispositive motion is
February 14, 2022. Given that there is less than 30-days between
the completion of class certification briefing and the deadline to
file dispositive motions, it is unlikely that a ruling on class
certification will be issued before summary judgment motions are
filed, the Parties contend.

Moreover, under the current schedule, it is likely that summary
judgment will be fully briefed before a ruling on certification is
issued or, at a minimum, if certification is granted, that summary
judgment will be fully briefed before class notice and the
expiration of the class's opt-out period, the Parties add.

Geico operates as an insurance company.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 7, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qvPc0d at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David N. Rosen, Esq.
          DAVID ROSEN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          400 Orange Street
          New Haven, CT 06511
          Telephone: (203) 787-3513
          Facsimile: (203) 787-1605
          E-mail: drosen@davidrosenlaw.com

               - and -

          Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
          Amy L. Judkins, Esq.
          NORMAND PLLC
          3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175
          P. O. Box 1400036
          Orlando, FL 32814
          Telephone: (407) 603-6031
          Facsimile: (888) 974-2175
          E-mail: ed@normandpllc.com
                  amy.judkins@normandpllc.com
                  service@normandpllc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Meghana Shah, Esq.
          Kymberly Kochis, Esq.
          Alexander P. Fuchs, Esq.
          EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
          1114 Avenue of the Americas
          The Grace Building, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 389-5000
          Facsimile: (212) 389-5099
          E-mail: meghanashah@eversheds-sutherland.com
                  kymkochis@eversheds-sutherland.com
                  alexfuchs@eversheds-sutherland.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Loses Bid to Exclude Stockton Report in Siqueiros
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAUL SIQUEIROS, et al., Plaintiffs v. GENERAL MOTORS
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-07244-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward
M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an order:

    (i) granting in part and denying in part the motion to
        exclude the opinions of Dr. Werner J.A. Dahm and Robert
        Kuhn; and

   (ii) denying GM's motion to exclude the opinions of Edward
        Stockton.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant GM knowingly manufactured and
sold a car engine with an inherent defect that caused excessive oil
consumption and engine damage. The alleged defect affected 2011 to
2014 model-year GM vehicles. The Plaintiffs assert claims under
various state consumer-protection and fraud statutes on behalf of
individuals as well as various statewide classes. They filed their
class action complaint on Dec. 19, 2016. They have since amended
their pleadings several times; the operative complaint is the
seventh amended complaint ("7AC").

At this point in the litigation, the claims of nine Plaintiffs
remain in the case, and are set for trial in August 2022. The Court
certified three of those claims for class action trials under Rule
23(b)(3): (1) breach of implied warranty under California's
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; (2) breach of implied warranty
under North Carolina law; and (3) violation of the Idaho Consumer
Protection Act.

The certified classes are limited to current owners and lessees of
model year 2011-2014 Chevrolet Avalanche, Silverado, Suburban,
Tahoe, and GMC Sierra, Yukon, and Yukon XL vehicles equipped with
aluminum block LC9 Gen IV engines that were manufactured after Feb.
10, 2011. The California class is further limited to current owners
who purchased their vehicles in new condition and the Idaho class
is further limited to current owners who purchased their vehicles
from GM dealerships

The remaining individual claims are for (1) violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, (2) breach of the implied
warranty under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, (3)
violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, (4) violation
of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, (5)
violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer
Protection Act, (6) violation of the Massachusetts Regulation of
Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, (7) violation of
the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, (8) violation of the Idaho
Consumer Protection Act, (9) violations of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act (only as to the California, Texas, Massachusetts,
North Carolina, and Pennsylvania plaintiffs), (10) breach of the
Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas implied
warranties of merchantability, and (11) fraudulent omission under
Massachusetts, North Carolina, Idaho, and Tennessee law.

Now pending are three motions to exclude expert opinions and
testimony from the trial pursuant to standards articulated in
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm.,
Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). GM moves to exclude the opinions of the
Plaintiffs' experts Dr. Werner J.A. Dahm and Edward Stockton. The
Plaintiffs move to exclude certain testimony by GM's technical
expert Robert Kuhn.

B. Summary of Relevant Expert Reports

1. Plaintiffs' Expert Dr. Ball

In support of their defect theory, the Plaintiffs initially sought
the expert opinion of Dr. Jeffrey K. Ball. Dr. Ball provided an
initial report on Sept. 16, 2019, in which he opined on the root
cause of the oil consumption in the Gen IV engines of certain model
year 2010-2014 GM vehicles and the cost to repair those vehicles
("Initial Ball Report"). On Nov. 21, 2019, Dr. Ball submitted a
supplemental report in which he opined on the reliability of GM
warranty data for model year 2010-2014 vehicles, and extrapolated
from that data to produce warranty claim rates ("Suppl. Ball
Report"). Dr. Ball is not available to testify at trial because he
passed away while the matter was pending.

2. Plaintiffs' Expert Dr. Dahm

Dr. Werner J.A. Dahm is the ASU Foundation Professor of Mechanical
Engineering and Aerospace Engineering at Arizona State University
and Professor Emeritus of Engineering at the University of
Michigan. He holds a Ph.D. from the Division of Engineering and
Applied Science at the California Institute of Technology, and
previously served as the Chief Scientist of the U.S. Air Force. He
has authored over 200 articles "on topics dealing with fluid
dynamics, combustion, heat transfer, lubrication, engines,
propulsion systems, and related areas, and more broadly with
mechanical and aerospace engineering and their relation to defense
science and engineering." Dr. Dahm is a member of the Society of
Automotive Engineers, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and the
American Physical Society.

GM challenges Dr. Dahm's qualifications as they relate to the
issues in this litigation, arguing that Dr. Dahm "is an aerospace
engineer with no educational background or professional experience
in automotive engine design or automotive engineering." GM objects
to Dr. Dahm's methodology, arguing that he did not perform any
independent research on engine design, piston ring design, or on
oil consumption in automobiles, and did not inspect of conduct
testing of any of the Class Vehicle engines. It further argues that
Dr. Dahm fails to explain what exactly is incorrect about the
piston ring assembly in the Class Vehicles.

Dr. Dahm opines that "piston ring war is the root cause of the oil
consumption defect" and that "the Class Vehicles experience
excessive piston ring wear due to an incorrect 'piston ring system'
design." He explains that the defective piston ring system design
can result in a number of consequences to Class Vehicles, including
"increased oil consumption," "engine misfiring," "decreased engine
power," "increased internal part wear," piston seizing" and "engine
seizing."

The Dahm Report also includes discussions of about the
effectiveness of GM's design changes, the adequacy of GM's internal
studies and warranty claims data as they relate to the oil
consumption defect, the adequacy of oil pressure instruments in
Class Vehicles, and potential safety risks posed by the oil
consumption defect. Dr. Dahm opines that because all Class Vehicles
have the same "piston ring system" design, and because the errors
in the ring system are inherent in the design, all Class Vehicles
experience the same defect, whether or not owners have already
experienced or reported any of the impacts of the defect.

Dr. Dahm states that he has long used this same method and
application of principles throughout his career, including during
his work analyzing a "wide range of Air Force systems.

3. Plaintiffs' Expert Stockton

Edward Stockton is the Vice President and Director of Economics
Services of the Fontana Group, Inc. and has experience determining
damages in vehicular defect cases and class action litigation.
Stockton was asked by the Plaintiffs' counsel to evaluate whether
and to what extent class members have suffered economic damages and
to develop methods for quantifying and allocating those damages.
Stockton's economic framework models the effect of the defect on
the consumer's expected utility, and assesses the existence of
damages based on what would have happened had the alleged defect
been disclosed at the time of purchase or lease. Stockton opines
that value of the overpayment due to the defect can be determined
"by at least the value or cost of remedying the defect."

GM argues that Stockton did not verify or provide any independent
analysis to justify his assumption that the cost of a replacement
piston ring is $2,700.

4. GM's Expert Kuhn

GM's technical expert, Robert Kuhn, is an automotive systems
engineer. Kuhn's report concludes that, based on his review of the
record evidence and data on non-Class Vehicles with different
engine designs, the Plaintiffs cannot support their claim of a
uniform design defect -- in part, because the Class Vehicles have
different components.

At issue in the pending motion are two of Kuhn's opinions. First,
Kuhn opines that, based on his GM warranty data, that the oil
consumption-related warranty repair rate for the Class Vehicles is
approximately three percent. And, second, Kuhn concludes that "this
trend and magnitude" of the repair rate is "not consistent with the
existence of an inherent oil consumption defect within the entire
subject engine population," but rather "normal variations in
performance due to the use and maintenance of those engines." The
Plaintiffs object that Kuhn did not employ a reliable methodology
for reaching either of these two conclusions.

II. Analysis

A. GM's Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Dahm

GM moves to exclude the opinions and testimony of Dr. Dahm from
trial in their entirety. GM advances three arguments in support of
its position: Dr. Dahm's qualifications, Dr. Dahm's methodologies,
and whether Dr. Dahm's opinions invade the Province of the Jury.

Judge Chen will grant in part and deny in part GM's motion to
exclude Dr. Dahm's opinions and testimony from trial. He excludes
Dr. Dahm's opinions that (1) a deficiency in the design of the
piston rings in Class Vehicles is the root cause of the alleged oil
consumption defect, (2) that the piston ring design defect is
present in all Class Vehicles (and his additional opinions as to
common issues in all Class Vehicles), and (3) that Class Vehicles'
alert system causes distractions to drivers that pose safety risks
to drivers. Additionally, Judge Chen excludes Dr. Dahm's testimony
to the extent it summarizes or restates evidence already in the
record without applying a reliable methodology to interpret or
analyze such evidence. The remainder of Dr. Dahm's report and
opinions are consistent with Rule 702.

B. GM's Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Stockton

GM moves to exclude the opinions and testimony of Plaintiffs'
expert Stockton in their entirety.  GM's arguments amount to two
objections: Stockton's reliance on assumptions and Stockton's
methodology.

Judge Chen will deny GM's motion to exclude the opinions and
testimony of the Plaintiff's damages expert Edward Stockton. First,
he holds that GM is entitled to challenge Stockton's assumptions at
trial -- as much as GM's own economic expert, Dr. Befurt assumes in
his report opining that the oil consumption defect is not a safety
defect. The fact that GM disagrees with Stockton's assumptions is
not a ground to exclude Stockton's testimony altogether under
Daubert. Where a party challenges the expert's assumptions, the
challenges may go to impeachment, rather than admissibility.

Second, Judge Chen rejects GM's challenge to the reliability of
Stockton's damages methodology. He holds that Stockton's opinions
are consistent with that model of damages by permissibly assuming
that reasonable consumers who are subjected to the same safety
defect in their vehicle would each be expected to seek a remedy
that restores them to the position of receiving the non-defective
vehicle for which they bargained.

C. Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of
Kuhn

The Plaintiffs seek to exclude two opinions from Kuhn's expert
testimony: (1) that the Class Vehicle Oil Consumption failure rate
is approximately 3%, and (2) that the warranty data provided by GM
is inconsistent with any design defect across the entirety of the
Class Vehicles. They argue that Kuhn did not have the data
necessary to reliably evaluate vehicle component failure rates, and
thus, did not employ a sound methodology for determining a 3%
failure rate, nor to opine about what that rate implies about the
presence of a design defect across the Class Vehicles. They also
argue that Kuhn "employed no methodology whatsoever -- reliable or
otherwise," to support his challenged opinions, including his view
that the 3% repair rate is consistent with "normal performance
variations.

Judge Chen will grant in part and deny in part the Plaintiffs'
motion to exclude certain opinions and testimony of GM's technical
expert Robert Kuhn. Kuhn's opinions regarding what the 3% repair
rate indicates regarding the existence or non-existence of an
inherent defect are excluded. There remainder of his testimony and
opinions are consistent with Rule 702.

Among other things, Judge Chen finds that the Plaintiffs do not
identify anything in particular that was deficient in the specific
data on which Kuhn relied to derive his conclusion of a 3% repair
rate. Kuhn also does not explain if or how he applied defect trend
analysis.

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Judge Chen (i) granted in part and denied
in part the motion to exclude the opinions of Dr. Dahm and Mr.
Kuhn, and (ii) denied GM's motion to exclude the opinions of Mr.
Stockton.

     A. GM's Motion to Exclude Dr. Dahm: Judge Chen excluded Dr.
Dahm's opinions that (1) a deficiency in the design of the piston
rings in Class Vehicles is the root cause of the alleged oil
consumption defect, (2) that the piston ring design defect is
present in all Class Vehicles, and (3) that Class Vehicles' alert
system causes distractions to drivers that pose safety risks to
drivers. Additionally, he excluded Dr. Dahm's testimony to the
extent it summarizes or restates evidence already in the record
without applying a reliable methodology to interpret or analyze
such evidence. Any such testimony improperly invades the province
of the jury.

     B. Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Portions of Mr. Kuhn's
Opinions: Judge Chen excluded Mr. Kuhn's opinion that the 3% piston
replacement rate is not consistent with or indicative of the
existence of an inherent oil consumption defect within the entire
subject engine population and that the rate is consistent with
normal variations in performance due to the use and maintenance of
those engines. The remainder of Mr. Kuhn's report satisfies Rule
702.

Judge Chen's Order disposes of Docket Nos. 363, 365 and 366.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 7, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/msdffz45 from Leagle.com.


GEO GROUP: Appeals Ruling on Attorney Fees in Nwauzor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Geo Group, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit entitled UGOCHUKWU GOODLUCK NWAUZOR, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, and FERNANDO AGUIRRE-URBINA,
individually, Plaintiffs v. THE GEO GROUP, INC., a Florida
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-05769-RJB, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington at Tacoma.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
consolidated cases arise from GEO's failure to pay immigration
detainee workers in its Voluntary Work Program minimum wage at its
Northwest Detention Center, now renamed Northwest ICE Processing
Center. One of the cases is the class action, Nwauzor v. GEO Group,
Inc., U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
case number 17-5769.

On Aug. 6, 2018, the class was certified and the class defined as
"all civil immigration detainees who participated in the Voluntary
Work Program at the Northwest Detention Center at any time between
September 26, 2014, and the date of final judgment in this matter."
Plaintiffs Ugochuk Goodluck Nwauzor and Fernando Aguirre-Urbina
were appointed as class representatives. Their claims were found to
be typical of the claims of the class and Mr. Nwauzor and Mr.
Aguirre-Urbina were found to fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. On May 17, 2021, the Plaintiff's motion to
dismiss Mr. Aguirre as a class representative due to illness was
granted.

On June 1, 2021, trial began. GEO filed a motion to decertify the
class or narrow the class definition that same day. The motion was
noted for consideration for June 25, 2021. After an 11-day trial,
jury deliberations over part of three days, and a declaration of
the jury that they could not agree on a verdict, a mistrial was
declared on June 17, 2021. On June 28, 2021, Judge Robert J. Bryan
entered an order denying the motion for decertification of the
class or narrowing class definition.

On November 4, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion pre and
post-judgment interest.

On November 11, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion for remittitur
and a motion for judgment as a matter of law.

On December 8, 2021, Judge Robert J. Bryan denied Defendant's
renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law; denied the
Defendant's motion for remittitur; and granted Plaintiffs' motion
for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

On December 14, 2021, an Order was entered granting in part and
denying in part Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees.

The Defendant now seeks a review of the order.

The appellate case is captioned as Ugochukwu Nwauzor, et al. v. The
Geo Group, Inc., Case No. 22-35026, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 11, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant The Geo Group, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire was due
on January 18, 2022;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by February 9, 2022;

   -- Transcript is due on March 11, 2022;

   -- Appellant The Geo Group, Inc. opening brief is due on April
20, 2022;

   -- Appellees Fernando Aguirre-Urbina and Ugochukwu Goodluck
Nwauzor answering brief is due on May 20, 2022; and

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

Defendant-Appellant THE GEO GROUP, INC., a Florida corporation, is
represented by:

          Jose Joel Alicea, Esq.
          Charles J. Cooper, Esq.
          Tiernan Kane, Esq.
          Michael Kirk, Esq.
          Joseph Masterman, Esq.    
          COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
          1523 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 220-9600

Plaintiffs-Appellees UGOCHUKWU GOODLUCK NWAUZOR and FERNANDO
AGUIRRE-URBINA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Adam Jared Berger, Esq.
          Lindsay L. Halm, Esq.
          Rebecca J. Roe, Esq.
          Jamal N. Whitehead, Esq.
          SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
          401 Union Street, Suite 3400
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 622-8000
          E-mail: berger@sgb-law.com
                  halm@sgb-law.com
                  whitehead@sgb-law.com   

               - and -

          Robert Andrew Free, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF R. ANDREW FREE
          P.O. Box 90568
          Nashville, TN 37209
          Telephone: (844) 321-3221
          E-mail: andrew@immigrantcivilrights.com

               - and -

          Meena Pallipamu Menter, Esq.
          MENTER IMMIGRATION LAW PLLC
          4444 Woodland Park Avenue North, Suite 203
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 419-7332

               - and -

          Devin T. Theriot-Orr, Esq.
          OPEN SKY LAW, PLLC
          20415 72nd Avenue S, Suite 110
          Kent, WA 98032
          Telephone: (206) 962-5052
          E-mail: devin@sunbird.law

GREY HAWK FLOORING: Portillo Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Antonio Portillo, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Grey Hawk Flooring Inc., Grey Hawk
Contracting Inc. and Lawrence S. Ahlstrand, Jr., Defendants, Case
22-cv-00183 (E.D. N.Y., January 12, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages, overtime wages, and statutory damages under the New
York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Grey Hawk provides commercial flooring services including
installation, maintenance, repair and/or removal of flooring where
Portillo was employed as a laborer from in or September 2017 to in
or about October 4, 2021. He claims to have regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week without being paid overtime and claims
to be denied wage statements. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter A. Romero, Esq.
     Matthew J. Farnworth, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
     490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
     Hauppauge, New York 11788
     Tel. (631) 257-5588
     Email: promero@romerolawny.com

GUABA DELI: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Judgment in Ramos FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Luis Rivera and Deisy Guaba filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Edwin Omar Ramos, Rayniel
Vargas, and Anthony Cruz, on behalf of themselves and all other
persons similarly situated v. Guaba Deli Grocery Corp. d/b/a Guaba
Deli, Jose Castillo, Luis Rivera, and Deisy Guaba, Case No.
1:20-cv-04904, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 6, 2020, the
lawsuit was brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law alleging that the Plaintiffs are entitled to
unpaid wages from the Defendants for overtime work for which they
did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law, and
liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA and NYLL, because the
Defendants' violations lacked a good faith basis.

According to the complaint, the Defendants did not provide a time
clock, sign in sheet, or any other method for employees to track
their time worked. The Plaintiffs did not need to track their time
worked, because they were not paid at an hourly rate. Instead, the
Plaintiffs were all paid on a salary basis throughout their
employment. The Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiffs amounts
at least equal to the New York state minimum wages in effect during
all relevant time periods was willful, and lacked a good faith
basis.

In addition, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs any
overtime "bonus" for hours worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek, in
violation of the FLSA, the New York Labor Law, and the supporting
New York State Department of Labor regulations, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants to perform the roles
of cashier, food preparer, cleaner and stocker.

On March 23, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary
judgment.

The Court entered an Opinion and Order dated November 29, 2021 and
Judgment dated November 30, 2021, granting Plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment. Judgment was entered against Defendants Guaba
Deli Grocery Corp. d/b/a Guaba Deli, Luis Rivera, and Daisy Guaba
(but not Jose Castillo) in the following amounts:

     $96,965.50 for Ramos, plus 9% prejudgment interest on a
balance of $43,482.75 from May 4, 2019 until the date that judgment
is entered, in the amount of $10,089.19 for a total sum of
$107,054.69;

     $56,200 for Vargas, plus 9% prejudgment interest on a balance
of $23,100 from July 17, 2018 until the date that judgment is
entered, in the amount of $7,074.39 for a total sum of $63,274.30;
and

     $60,900 for Cruz, plus 9% prejudgment interest on a balance of
$25,450 from June 15, 2019 until the date that judgment is entered
in the amount of $5,630.45 for a total sum of $66,530.45.

The Defendants now seek a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Ramos v. Guaba Deli Grocery
Corp., Case No. 22-82, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on January 13, 2022.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants Luis Rivera and Deisy Guaba appear pro se.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Edwin Omar Ramos, Rayniel Vargas, and Anthony
Cruz, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly
situated, are represented by:

          David Stein, Esq.
          STEIN & NIEPORENT LLP
          1441 Broadway, Suite 6090
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 308-3444
          E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com

H B & H LLC: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in Fares Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NOER FARES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. H, B, & H, LLC, d/b/a On the
Border Gentlemen's Club, GERALD HAY, and DOES 1-10, Defendants,
Case No. 21-CV-753 (E.D. Wis.), Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin:

    (i) granted the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify
        the class; and

   (ii) denied the Plaintiff's motion to toll the statute of
        limitations.

I. Background

In the putative class and collective action, Fares, an exotic
dancer formerly employed by H, B, & H, doing business as On the
Border Gentlemen's Club ("OTB"), Gerald Hay, and Does 1-10
(collectively the "Defendants"), alleges that the Defendants
maintained several policies in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq. ("FLSA") and 29
C.F.R. Section 531.35.

OTB is an adult-orientated entertainment facility located at 10741
S. 27th Street in Franklin, Wisconsin. Gerald Hay is one of the
managers/owners of OTB.

Ms. Fares alleges that she was employed as an exotic
dancer/entertainer at OTB from approximately June 2018 until May
2021. She alleges that the Defendants engaged in a scheme to deny
minimum wage payments by misclassifying Fares and other
dancer/entertainers as independent contractors when they were in
fact employees. She further alleges that the Defendants illegally
absconded with tips and demanded illegal kickbacks in the form of
"house fees."

II. Discussion

The FLSA permits collective action "against any employer by any one
or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and
other employees similarly situated." The critical inquiry in
determining whether a court should exercise its discretion to
authorize the sending of notice to potential plaintiffs is whether
the representative plaintiff has shown that she is similarly
situated to the potential class plaintiffs.

District courts in the Seventh Circuit have adopted a two-step
approach." The first step is conditional certification. Although
conditional certification is not a "mere formality," a plaintiff
need only make "a modest factual showing sufficient to demonstrate
that they and potential plaintiffs together were victims of a
common policy or plan that violated the law." This standard is
"fairly lenient"; it does not involve adjudicating the merits of
the claims, nor does it entail the kind of rigorous analysis
typical of class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

The second step of the process occurs at the close of discovery,
upon a motion for decertification from the defendant. t that point,
"the court determines whether the plaintiffs are in fact similarly
situated to those who have opted in." If "it becomes clear that the
case is not suitable for collective treatment, the court then
decertifies the collective action."

A. Conditional Class Certification

Again, at this first stage -- conditional class certification --
the inquiry is whether Fares has shown that she is similarly
situated to the potential class plaintiffs. In other words, whether
she and the other potential plaintiffs together were victims of a
common policy or plan that violated the law. The crux of the
Defendants' argument against conditional class certification is
that they are not subject to the FLSA. First, they argue that Fares
makes nothing more than conclusory allegations that the employees
are engaged in "commerce" under the statute. Second, the Defendants
argue that Fares and putative Plaintiff Janei Rice are not
similarly situated because Fares was an independent contractor at
OTB while Rice was on the payroll.

Ms. Fares avers that she was paid no wages for her work and that
defendants dictated how she and all of the other dancers performed
their work. She also submits Rice's declaration, in which she
similarly avers that she was not paid wages for her work and that
the Defendants controlled how she and all of the other dancers
performed their work.

Judge Joseph holds that although conditional class certification is
not a "mere formality," Fares has met her modest factual showing
that she and the putative plaintiffs were victims of a common
policy that violated the FLSA. Fares alleges that she and the
putative class members worked at a single location owned and
operated by the defendants. Both Fares' and Rice's declarations
establish that they performed the same job duties and were
subjected to the same working conditions and compensation. Both
allege that the Defendants engaged in the common practice of
treating all of the dancers at OTB as independent contractors to
deprive them of hourly wages.

Thus, Ms. Fares' motion for conditional class certification will be
granted and the following class will be conditionally certified:
"All of Defendants' current and former exotic dancers/entertainers
who worked at On The Border Gentlemen's Club in Franklin, Wisconsin
at any time starting three years before this Complaint was filed."

B. Equitable Tolling

Section 255(a) of Title 29 provides a statute of limitations of two
years (extended to three years on a finding of willfulness) for
claims under the FLSA. Generally, in a FLSA collective action, the
filing of a lawsuit does not toll the statute of limitations for
all putative class members and the statute runs until a class
member files his or her personal opt-in consent form.

In the case, Fares requests that the statute of limitations
applicable to the FLSA claims be tolled for potential opt-ins from
the date the class is conditionally certified until the time the
notice period ends. She argues that equitable tolling is necessary
in this case because without it, numerous potential collective
class members will lose their claims due to nothing more than the
passage of time.

Judge Joseph holds that Fares has not demonstrated that equitable
tolling is appropriate or necessary at this juncture. As Fares
acknowledges, district courts in this circuit have equitably tolled
the FLSA statute of limitations after entry of a stay order, while
an appeal is pending, or because of lengthy delays in motions for
conditional certification. None of those circumstances are present.
The case has been pending a little over six months. There is ample
time for putative class members to opt in to the class, even under
the shorter two-year statute of limitations. Thus, Judge Joseph
will not grant Fares' request for equitable tolling at this time.

C. Class Notice

The Defendants have several objections to the proposed notice
provided by Fares. First, they object to the notice stating that
OTB contends that the dancers are properly classified as
independent contractors rather than employees. Second, they object
to any language in the notice that it is "court authorized,"
arguing that it may give the appearance of judicial endorsement.
Third, the Defendants argue that whether one acts as a witness or
provides evidence is up to the defendants and the notice cannot
state that the opt-in plaintiffs will not be required to do so.
Finally, they object to allowing transmission of the notice via
email and text message rather than simply by first class mail, as
these methods create more opportunity for alteration or addition to
the notice.

Judge Joseph holds that Fares has made no argument as to why
communication via email and text message is appropriate or
necessary. Similarly, she provides no explanation as to why the
notice should be posted to OTB's website, social media sites, near
the club's entrance, or in the dressing rooms. There is no harm in
posting the notice in the dancers' dressing rooms, provided that
they are not visible to customers.

The Defendants do not object to Fares' request to produce a list of
dancers within 10 days of the Order, nor do they object to setting
a notice period of 90 days. Thus, these requests are granted.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the reasons she stated, Judge Joseph granted Fares' motion to
conditionally certify class.

The following class is conditionally certified: All of Defendants'
current and former exotic dancers/entertainers who worked at On The
Border Gentlemen's Club in Franklin, Wisconsin at any time starting
three years before this Complaint was filed.

Ms. Fares is authorized to send out the notice, consistent with the
changes specified in the decision, consistent with Judge Joseph's
Opinion.

Finally, Judge Joseph declined to equitably toll the statute of
limitations for the putative class members.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 7, 2022 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mw84j5w9 from Leagle.com.


HOTELS.COM LP: City of Rome, Ga., Appeals Ruling in Sales Tax Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs City of Rome, Georgia, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled CITY OF ROME, GEORGIA,
et al., Plaintiffs v. HOTELS.COM, L.P., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 4:05-CV-00249-SCJ, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.

This case concerns the collection and remittance of local hotel
occupancy taxes under Official Code of Georgia Annotated Section
48-13-50 et seq. (the "Enabling Statutes"). The Plaintiffs are
municipalities in Georgia, and Defendants are online travel
companies that "offer a full range of services to help travelers
design and plan vacations, locate hotels and attractions, compare
the offerings of multiple travel suppliers, and make online hotel,
airline, and car rental reservations."

On November 18, 2005, the initial Plaintiffs filed this action,
contending that the OTCs' merchant model -- and the OTCs' payment
of taxes on only the Net Rate instead of the Total Price --
resulted in insufficient tax payments being remitted to the local
taxing jurisdictions.

Atlanta and other municipalities around Georgia and across the
nation sued against OTCs, arguing their pricing schemes shortchange
them of hotel/motel tax revenues.  According to Atlanta Business
Chronicle, the OTCs argue they are not innkeepers, just service
providers, and hotel/motel tax laws do not cover fees and other
expenses included in its "room rate" charge. Their pricing
structures are also privileged information.

In 2009, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city of
Columbus, Ga.  According to Business Chronicle, the state's High
Court ruled 4-3 that Expedia Inc., parent of Expedia.com, must
collect taxes on hotel room rentals based on the price a customer
pays, and remit that amount to the city.

Columbus officials sued Expedia arguing the online travel site
charges customers a higher "room rate" than it pays to hotels, but
hotels remit occupancy taxes based on the wholesale rate of the
room. The OTCs pocket the difference. A lower court ruled in the
city's favor.

The Supreme Court ruling did not say whether Columbus has the
authority to go after back taxes, according to Business Chronicle.

After the Georgia Supreme Court Decisions were issued, Plaintiffs
and Defendants entered into a Class Partial Settlement Agreement in
this case. This Settlement Agreement resulted in the creation of an
"Incremental Tax Fund" to which the OTCs would, on a monthly basis,
remit the "Incremental Tax." Under the Settlement Agreement,
Defendants also agreed to provide Plaintiffs' counsel with
documentation related to payment of the Incremental Tax.

Meanwhile, in light of the Georgia Supreme Court Decisions, the
District Court determined in its order on Defendants' cross-motion
for summary judgment that OTCs were not "innkeepers" under the
language of the Enabling Statutes in effect at that time. The Court
further found that while the OTCs were to remit certain taxes going
forward, the Enabling Statutes did not provide Plaintiffs an avenue
to pursue back taxes.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the District Court's August 19,
2021 Order granting Defendants' Emergency Motion to Modify Consent
Orders, and the District Court's December 3, 2021 Order denying
Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the August 19, 2021
Order, filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and
60 and N.D. Ga. Local Rule 7.2(E).

The appellate case is captioned as CITY OF ROME, GEORGIA, et al. v.
HOTELS.COM, L.P., et al., Case No. 22-10034, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on January 3,
2022.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants City of Rome, Georgia, et al. are represented
by:

          J. Anderson Davis, Esq.
          BRINSON, ASKEW, BERRY, SEIGLER,
           RICHARDSON & DAVIS, LLP
          P.O. Box 5007
          Rome, GA 30162-5007
          Telephone: (706) 291-8853
          Facsimile: (706) 234-3574
          E-mail: adavis@brinson-askew.com

               - and -

          Robert C. Lamar, Esq.
          LAMAR ARCHER & COFRIN, LLP
          260 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2700
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 577-1777
          Facsimile: (404) 419-2978
          E-mail: rclamar@laclaw.net

HSBC BANK USA: Rubino Sues Over Systematic Failure
--------------------------------------------------
John Rubino, Beverly Guity, Emily Freidberg and Jerome Paticoff, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. HSBC BANK
USA, N.A., HSBC MORTGAGE CORPORATION (USA) HSBC BANK USA and PHH
MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Case No. 650001/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York
Cty., Dec. 30, 2021), is brought to redress the systematic failure
by HSBC, HSBC Mortgage, HSBC Bank USA and PHH to timely present
proof that mortgage and other home loans have been satisfied within
the time demanded by New York Real Property Law ("RPL") and New
York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law to the county clerks
of New York State ("RPAPL").

According to the complaint, RPL and RPAPL require that mortgagees
like HSBC, HSBC Mortgage, HSBC Bank USA and PHH present a
satisfaction of mortgage within 30 days of when a mortgagor has
paid the entire principle and interest due on a mortgage or home
loan to the proper county clerk. The statutes each provide that a
mortgagee who fails to do so within 30 days is liable to the
mortgagor. The New York Legislature has determined that failures by
mortgagees to clear and quiet titles within the deadlines required
by RPL and RPAPL cause actual, concrete, and particularized
injuries to aggrieved mortgagors like Plaintiffs and the absent
members of the Class.

HSBC, HSBC Mortgage, HSBC Bank USA, and PHH originated, acquired,
and serviced mortgage loans on Plaintiffs' homes. Even though
Plaintiffs each repaid those mortgage or home loans in full,
Defendants did not present, or cause to be presented, satisfactions
of mortgage with the New York county clerks within the required 30
days, and sometimes substantially in excess of 90 days.

The Defendants' violations of RPL and RPAPL were deceptive
practices resulting in actual injuries to Plaintiffs and Class
members. Since RPL and RPAPL were expressly incorporated into
Plaintiffs' and Class members' mortgage loan agreements, the
Defendants' violations of RPL and RPAPL breached of those
agreements causing injuries to Plaintiffs and Class members. The
Plaintiffs allege claims under the RPL, RPAPL, New York General
Business Law and breach of contract on behalf of themselves and the
absent members of the Class, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr., Esq.
          Scott V. Papp, Esq.
          Samantha Breitner, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Ste. 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone: (914) 997-0500
          Email: pstphillip@lowey.com
                 spapp@lowey.com
                 sbreitner@lowey.com

               - and -

          Joseph S. Tusa, Esq.
          TUSA P.C.
          P.O. Box 566
          55000 Main Road, 2nd Floor
          Southold, NY 11971
          Phone: (631) 407-5100
          Email: joseph.tusapc@gmail.com


HUMANO LLC: Hines Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Humano LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Jermaine Hines, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Humano LLC, a California limited liability
company; Does 1-50; Case No. 34-2022-00313411-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Jan. 3, 2022).

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

Humano -- https://www.humano.net/ -- is a third-party logistics
provider that provide employees a great place to flourish, and
clients results that improve their supply chain operations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
          515 S Figueroa St. Ste. 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316
          Phone: 213-488-6555
          Fax: 213-488-6554
          Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com

               - and -

          William Lucas Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
          501 San Benito St # 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Phone: 831-531-4214
          Fax: 831-634-0333
          Email: bill@polarislawgroup.com


ILLINOIS FARMERS: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Taqueria Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois Farmers Insurance Company, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled 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, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota.

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. The Plaintiffs allege
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.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on January 11, 2022, 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.

The Defendants now seek a review of this Memorandum Opinion and
Order.

The appellate case is captioned as Farmers Group, Inc., et al., v.
Taqueria El Primo LLC, et al., Case No. 22-8002, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on January
11, 2022.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners Farmers Group, Inc., Farmers Insurance
Company, Farmers Insurance Exchange, Illinois Farmers Insurance
Company, Mid-Century Insurance Company and Truck Insurance Exchange
are represented by:

          Marc Andre Al, Esq.
          Emily C. Atmore, Esq.
          Margaret E. Dalton, Esq.
          John T. Katuska, Esq.
          STOEL & RIVES
          33 S. Sixth Street, Suite 4200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612 373-8801
          E-mail: marc.al@stoel.com
                  emily.atmore@stoel.com
                  
               - and -

          Timothy W. Snider, Esq.
          STOEL & RIVES
          760 S.W. Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000
          Portland, OR 97205
          Telephone: (503) 224-3380
          E-mail: timothy.snider@stoel.com   

Plaintiffs-Respondents Taqueria El Primo LLC, Victor Manuel Delgado
Jimenez, Mitchelle Chavez Solis, El Chinelo Produce, Inc., Virginia
Sanchez-Gomez, and Benjamin Tarnowski, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          David Walfred Asp, Esq.
          Jennifer Jacobs, Esq.
          Kristen Marttila, Esq.
          Stephen Matthew Owen, Esq.
          Nathan D. Prosser, Esq.
          Derek C. Waller, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE & GRINDAL
          100 Washington Avenue, S., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: dwasp@locklaw.com
                  jlmjacobs@locklaw.com
                  kgmarttila@locklaw.com
                  nprosser@hjlawfirm.com  

               - and -

          Paul James Phelps, Esq.
          THOMAS J. LYONS & ASSOCIATES
          342 E. County Road D
          Little Canada, MN 55117-0000
          Telephone: (651) 770-9707
          E-mail: pphelps@mnlawyers.com  

               - and -

          Anne T. Regan, Esq.
          HELLMUTH & JOHNSON
          8050 W. 78th Street
          Edina, MN 55439
          Telephone: (952) 941-4005
          E-mail: aregan@hjlawfirm.com

INTEGRATED SECURITY: Suarez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integrated Security
Services, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Leslie Suarez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Integrated Security Services, Inc., Does 1 through 20, Inclusive,
Case No. CGC22597580 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Jan. 12,
2022).

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

Integrated Security Services, Inc. -- https://intesecurity.com/ --
provides security services.[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


JUUL LABS: Alexandria Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Youth Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRIA CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00290-WHO (N.D. Cal., January 14,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Alexandria Central School District is a unified school district
with its offices located at Bolton Avenue in Alexandria Bay, New
York.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Boise School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
---------------------------------------------------------------
BOISE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-00294 (N.D. Cal., January 14, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.

Boise School District is a unified school district with its offices
located at 8169 West Victory Road in Boise, Idaho.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Chelsea School Sues Over E-Cigarette Epidemic in Mich.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHELSEA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00230-WHO (N.D. Cal., January 13,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Chelsea School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 500 Washington Street in Chelsea, Michigan.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Morrisville-Eaton Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
MORRISVILLE-EATON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A
PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00239 (N.D. Cal., January
13, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Morrisville-Eaton Central School District is a unified school
district with its offices located at 5061 Fearon Road in
Morrisville, New York.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Buy E-Cigarette, Lafayette Central Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LAFAYETTE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00256 (N.D. Cal., January 13, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Lafayette Central School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at West 5955 US-20 in Lafayette, New York.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Faces Adirondack Suit Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
------------------------------------------------------------------
ADIRONDACK CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00241 (N.D. Cal., January 13, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Adirondack Central School District is a unified school district
with its offices located at 110 Ford Street in Boonville, New
York.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Faces Mohawk Area Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
---------------------------------------------------------------
MOHAWK AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP,
INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; NU
MARK LLC; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN;
NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI and JOHN DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00233 (N.D. Cal., January
13, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, punitive damages, strict product liability,
unjust enrichment, and violations of Pennsylvania Public Nuisance
Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Mohawk Area School District is a public school district with its
offices located at 385 Mohawk Road, New Castle, Pennsylvania.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Nu Mark LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc.,
with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         T. Roe Frazer II, Esq.
         Thomas Roe Frazer III, Esq.
         FRAZER PLC
         30 Burton Hills Blvd., Ste. 450
         Nashville TN 37215
         Telephone: (615) 647-6464
         E-mail: roe@frazer.law
                 trey@frazer.law

                 - and –

         Bryan G. Baumann, Esq.
         KNOX MCLAUGHLIN GORNALL & SENNETT, P.C.
         120 West 10th Street
         Erie, PA 16501-1461
         Telephone: (814) 459-2800

JUUL LABS: Frankfort-Schuyler Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKFORT-SCHUYLER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A
PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00231 (N.D. Cal., January
13, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Frankfort-Schuyler Central School District is a unified school
district with its offices located at 605 Palmer Street in
Frankfort, New York.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Kelleys Island Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KELLEYS ISLAND LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00249 (N.D. Cal., January 13, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Kelleys Island Local School District is a unified school district
with its offices located at 528 Division Street in Kelleys Island,
Ohio.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Madison Central Sues Over E-Cigarette Use Among Youth
----------------------------------------------------------------
MADISON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00225 (N.D. Cal., January 13, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Madison Central School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 7303 Rt 20 in Madison, New York.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: School District of Beloit Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF BELOIT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00242 (N.D. Cal., January 13, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

School District of Beloit is a unified school district with its
offices located at 1500 Fourth Street in Beloit, Wisconsin.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Syracuse City Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
----------------------------------------------------------------
SYRACUSE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00240 (N.D. Cal., January 13, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Syracuse City School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 725 Harrison Street in Syracuse, New York.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Triggers E-Cigarette Youth Crisis, ROCORI Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 750 - ROCORI, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A
PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00253-WHO (N.D. Cal.,
January 12, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law
and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Independent School District 750 - ROCORI is a unified school
district with its offices located at 534 5th Avenue in North Cold
Spring, Minnesota.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

JUUL LABS: Verona Area Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Youth Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
VERONA AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00246 (N.D. Cal., January 13, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.

Verona Area School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 700 North Main Street in Verona, Wisconsin.

JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.

Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.

Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James Frantz, Esq.
         William B. Shinoff, Esq.
         FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
         402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 233-5945
         Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
         E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

KRAFT HEINZ FOODS: Hoffman Slams Artificial Flavoring in Beverage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hoffman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, Defendant, Case
No. 22-cv-00397 (S.D. N.Y., January 15, 2022) seeks to recover
actual damages, statutory damages, attorney fees and costs for
breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability
the under the New York State's deceptive and unfair trade practices
acts and various states' consumer protection laws.

Kraft Heinz Foods Company manufactures, labels, markets, and sells
peach mango liquid concentrate beverage flavoring under its "MiO"
brand. Kraft Heinz represents that the mango peach taste comes from
natural ingredients, through the statement, "Natural Flavor With
Other Natural Flavor," on colors reflective of peaches and mangos.
However, Hoffman claims that Kraft used artificial "DL-Malic Acid"
because it was lower-priced and/or more accurately resembled
natural peach and natural mango flavor. DL-malic Acid is not a
natural flavor and is used to enhance and simulate the product's
peach and mango taste. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Shub, Esq.
      Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
      SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
      134 Kings Hwy E., 2nd Fl.
      Haddonfield, NJ 08033
      Tel: (856) 772-7200
      Fax: (856) 210-9088
      Email: jshub@shublawyers.com
             klaukaitis@shublawyers.com

KROGER CO: Walker Consumer Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SANDRA WALKER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE KROGER CO. and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. CGC-21-596857, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
January 13, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00261 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its ground
coffee products.

The Kroger Co. is an American retail company, with its principal
place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Jacob M. Harper, Esq.
         Heather F. Canner, Esq.
         Peter K. Bae, Esq.
         DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
         865 South Figueroa Street, 24th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
         Telephone: (213) 633-6800
         Facsimile: (213) 633-6899
         E-mail: jacobharper@dwt.com
                 heathercanner@dwt.com
                 peterbae@dwt.com

LARB BKK: Vela Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
GUILLERMO VELA and other similarly-situated individuals v. LARB BKK
LLC, a/k/a LARB THAI-ISAN, and THANIK SUKSAMRAN, individually
Defendants, Case No. 0:22-cv-60090-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,  Jan. 12, 2022)
is an action to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages and
retaliation under the the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Vela is a resident of Broward County, Florida and is a covered
employee for purposes of the Act.

Larb operates a Thai restaurant. The Individual Defendant Thanik
Suksamran is the owner/partner/and manager of the Defendant
Corporation Larb.

The Plaintiff contends that he and all other current and former
employees similarly situated to him, worked in excess of 40 hours
during one or more weeks on or after February 2021, without being
properly compensated.

The Plaintiff was hired as a non-exempted, full-time, hourly
employee. He had duties as a kitchen helper, dishwasher, and
cleaning employee. At the time of his termination, the Plaintiff
had a wage rate of approximately $13.50 an hour.

While employed by Defendants, the Plaintiff had a regular schedule.
He worked 6 days per week. Usually, Plaintiff had Tuesdays off, but
the remaining days he worked from 11:30 AM to a minimum of 11:30
PM. The Plaintiff completed 66 working hours every week, says the
suit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

LEISURETIME WAREHOUSE: Beranek Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNATHAN BERANEK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEISURETIME WAREHOUSE and
LEISURETIME 30335 PALISADES, LLC dba LEISURETIME WAREHOUSE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00083 (N.D. Ohio, January 14, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Wage 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 was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee from the summer of 2018 until April 2020.

LeisureTime Warehouse is a dealer of hot tubs and swimming pools
based in Ohio.

LeisureTime 30335 Palisades, LLC, doing business as LeisureTime
Warehouse, is a dealer of hot tubs and swimming pools based in
Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         David L. Meyerson, Esq.
         Shaun H. Kedir, Esq.
         SEAMAN & ASSOCIATES
         3690 Orange Place Suite 240
         Beachwood, OH 44122
         Telephone: (216) 696-1080
         E-mail: dmeyerson@seamanatty.com
                 skedir@seamanatty.com

LEXISNEXIS RISK: Alvarado Files FCRA Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LexisNexis Risk Data
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jesus Alvarado, on
behalf of himself and all those similarly situated v. LexisNexis
Risk Data Management, Inc., Experian Information Solutions, Inc.,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00050-BAS-JLB (S.D. Cal., Jan. 13, 2022).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

LexisNexis Risk Solutions -- https://risk.lexisnexis.com/ -- is a
leader in providing essential information to help customers across
industry and government assess, predict and manage risk.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Pamela E. Prescott, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          Email: ak@kazlg.com
                 pamela@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          321 N Mall Drive, Suite R108
          St. George, UT 84790
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          Email: jason@kazlg.com


LIFELONG MEDICAL: Margolies Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Noem Margolies, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Lifelong Medical Care, Case No.
RG21113030 was removed from the Alameda County Superior Court to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
Dec. 29, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-10059-JSC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Constitutional - State Statute.

LifeLong Medical Care -- https://lifelongmedical.org/ -- offers
comprehensive high-quality health, dental, and wellness services to
all ages and all incomes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Mona Amini, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          Email: ak@kazlg.com
                 mona@kazlg.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Nathan A Guest, Esq.
          WOOD SMITH HENNING BERMAN
          10960 Wilshire Boulevard, Ste. 18th Flr.
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Phone: (310) 481-7600
          Email: nguest@wshblaw.com


LIVE VENTURES: SEC Suit Shelved Pending Motions to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------
Live Ventures Incorporated 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 28, 2021, that in
case docketed Sieggreen v. Live Ventures Incorporated et. al. Case
No. 2:21-cv-01517 (D. Nev., August 13, 2021), Judge Andrew P.
Gordon granted a stipulation to stay proceedings, pending the
motions to dismiss pursuant to the automatic stay of proceedings
under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

On October 1, 2021, the Live Ventures filed a motion to dismiss the
SEC Complaint. The SEC filed its response opposing the motions on
November 1, 2021. The defendants filed their reply responses to the
SEC's opposition on November 15, 2021. The motions to dismiss are
now under submission and the court has not yet scheduled a hearing
date.

Live Ventures Incorporated is a holding company with focus on
value-oriented acquisitions of domestic middle-market companies
based in Neveda.


LULU'S MYRTLE: Burdick Labor Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KATIE BURDICK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LULU'S MYRTLE BEACH, LLC D/B/A LUCY
BUFFETT'S LULU'S; and D/B/A LULU'S NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, LUCY
BUFFETT, GEORGE MARTIN, GERALD TIPTON, CHERYL COESENS, VANESSA
OWENS, ROBIN HINTON, DOUGLAS "TODD" GOINGS, and TONYA CLAYTON, Case
No. 2021-CP-26-07846, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of
Horry County to the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina on January 13, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the District of South Carolina assigned Case
No. 4:22-cv-00123-JD to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff
and similarly situated servers and bartenders appropriate minimum
wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in violation of the
South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.

Lulu's Myrtle Beach, LLC, doing business as Lucy Buffett's Lulu's
and Lulu's North Myrtle Beach, is a restaurant owner and operator
located in North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Phillip E. Reeves, Esq.
         Deborah Casey Brown, Esq.
         GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, P.A.
         Post Office Box 10589
         Greenville, SC 29603
         Telephone: (864) 271-9580
         E-mail: preeves@gwblawfirm.com
                 dbrown@gwblawfirm.com

MADISON AVENUE REALTIES: Chang Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Chang Soo Han, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Madison Avenue Realties, LLC and Edward
Eden, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00382, (D. N.J., January 14, 2022)
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and redress for
failure to provide itemized wage statements under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendants are in the business of building management where
Chang worked as a building maintenance worker. Chang claims to have
worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum
wage, spread-of-hours and overtime compensation for the hours that
they worked. He asserts that the Defendants also allegedly failed
to maintain accurate recordkeeping of his hours worked. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan J. Kim, Esq.
      RYAN KIM LAW
      222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd. Suite 490
      Fort Lee, NJ 07024
      Tel: (847) 905-6262
      Email: ryan@RyanKimLaw.com

MAGELLAN HEALTH: Haegg Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Haegg, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Magellan Health, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-00061 (D. Ariz.,
January 12, 2022) seeks all available relief, including overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arizona Wage Act.

Magellan Health is a managed healthcare company that provides
customer service to health plans and healthcare providers. Haegg
worked for Magellan Health as a customer service representative
from September 2018 to September 2019. He claims to have regularly
worked over 40 hours per workweek without overtime pay. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard P. Traulsen, Esq.
      BEGAM MARKS & TRAULSEN, P.A.
      11201 North Tatum Blvd., Suite 110
      Phoenix, Arizona 85028-6037
      Tel: (602) 254-6071
      Email: rtraulsen@BMT-law.com

             - and -

     Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
     Zackary S. Kaylor Esq.
     JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
     444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
     Saint Paul, MN 55101
     Tel: (612) 436-1800
     Fax: (612) 436-1801
     Email: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
            zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com


MAGIC CLEANING: Quinones Seeks OT Pay for Cleaners Under FLSA, NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KARISELI QUINONES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MAGIC CLEANING SOLUTIONS LLC, and BLUE MOON
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, and FRANNYS PEREZ, individually, and ORIAN
DIAZ, individually, Case No. 1:22-cv-00197 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 13,
2022) is a civil action for damages and equitable relief based upon
violations that Defendants committed of Plaintiff's rights
guaranteed to her by: (i) the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act; (ii) the overtime provisions of the New York Labor
Law; and (iii) the NYLL's requirement that employers furnish
employees with wage statements containing specific categories of
accurate information on each payday.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants, two cleaning companies and
their respective owners, which jointly employed Plaintiff as a
cleaner from February 2017 through August 2021 for Defendants'
office cleaning business.

Blue Moon was and is a New York corporation with its principal
place of business located at 1111 Marcus Avenue, New Hyde Park, New
York 11042.

Defendant Perez was and is Magic Cleaning's owner and president. In
this role, Defendant Perez oversaw Magic Cleaning's operations,
paid employees, and had the power to hire and fire and approve all
personnel decisions with respect to all Magic Cleaning's employees.
Defendant Perez oversaw and oversees the day-to-day activities of
the cleaners, including those of Plaintiff, and was involved in the
hiring of Plaintiff and was responsible for paying Plaintiff's
wage.

Magic Cleaning and Blue Moon are two New York professional cleaning
companies that contract with third parties to clean their offices
and buildings. Through their joint operation, Magic Cleaning and
Blue Moon integrate their management and operations utilizing the
same labor force to fulfil their contractual obligations by
providing "venders," which is a term Defendants used for their
cleaners.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
          STEVENSON MARINO LLP
          75 Maiden Lane, Suite 402
          New York, NY  10038
          Telephone: (212) 939-7229

MARATHON PETROLEUM: Herron Files Suit in N.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marathon Petroleum
Company, LP, et al. The case is styled as Camille Williams Herron,
Bradley Doleman, John Lombardi, Ryan Miller, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Marathon Petroleum
Company, LP, Board of Directors of Marathon Petroleum Company,
Marathon Petroleum Company Savings Plan Investment Committee, John
Does 1 through 25, Case No. 3:21-cv-02418-JJH (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 28,
2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Labor: E.R.I.S.A. for Breach of
Fiduciary Duties.

Marathon Petroleum Company LP -- https://www.marathonpetroleum.com/
-- provides oil refining, marketing, and pipeline transportation
services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alan L. Rosca, Esq.
          ROSCA SCARLATO
          23250 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 100
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Phone: (216) 570-0097
          Email: rosca@lawgsp.com


MATTHEW WALKER: Underpays Medical Assistants, Counts Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LIBBELL COUNTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MATTHEW WALKER COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CENTER,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00023 (M.D. Tenn., January 14,
2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and
similarly situated medical assistants overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a medical assistant
from February 2019 through April 2021.

Matthew Walker Comprehensive Health Center, Inc. is a healthcare
provider, with its principal office address at 1035 14th Avenue N,
Nashville, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
         Robert E. Turner, IV, 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
                 rturner@jsyc.com
                 rmorelli@jsyc.com

MIGDAL 1 LLC: Mack Sues Over Deceptive Acts and Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------
Maria Mack, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly
situated v. MIGDAL 1 LLC d/b/a HYUNDAI OF BEDFORD, Case No.
CV21957774 (Ohio Ct. of Common Pleas, Dec. 29, 2021), is brought
against the Defendant for its deceptive acts and fraud in routinely
selling consumers vehicles for more than the terms/price advertised
in violation of Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act.

HOB advertises prices for its vehicles, and then sells the vehicles
to consumers for more than HOB's advertised price. HOB fails to
provide consumers their vehicles on the terms advertised. HOB fails
to provide consumers with the retail installment sale agreements
and/or lease agreements, at the time of the sale/lease, containing
terms material to the transaction. As a result of the foregoing
unlawful conduct, and to cause HOB to reform its deceptive and
unconscionable sales practices, the Plaintiff seeks legal and
equitable relief, including actual (economic and noneconomic)
damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, injunctive and
declaratory relief, attorneys' fees, and costs, says the
complaint.

Ms. Mack was viewing vehicles offered for sale on HOB's website On
October 4, 2021.

Hyundai of Bedford ("HOB") is an Ohio corporation, in the business
of selling motor vehicles to consumers, and is located in Bedford,
Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
          Michael L. Berler, Esq.
          Jacquelyn S. Frederick, Esq.
          FREDERICK & BERLER LLC
          767 East 185th Street
          Cleveland, OH 44119
          Phone: (216) 502-1055
          Facsimile: (216) 566-9400
          Email: ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
                 mikeb@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
                 jacquelynf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com


MJ DESIGNER: Gando Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensations
----------------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Gando, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MJ DESIGNER SERVICES INC., and JOSE FUENTES, as an
individual, Case No. 1:21-cv-07140-MKB-RLM (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 28,
2021), is brought against the Defendants to recover damages for
egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws
arising out of the Plaintiff's employment, under the Federal and
the New York Labor Law.

Although the Plaintiff worked approximately 50 hours to 60 hours or
more per week, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at a wage rate
of time and a half for his hours regularly worked over 40 in a
workweek, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained
in the FLSA and NYLL. Instead, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff
the same hourly rate for all hours worked even those in excess of
40 per workweek. the Defendants willfully failed to post notices of
the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous
place at the location of their employment as required by both the
NYLL and the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a laborer, mover
and helper and performing other miscellaneous duties.

MJ DESIGNER SERVICES INC., is a New York domestic business
corporation, organized under the laws of the State of New York with
a principal executive office located in Maspeth, 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
          Phone: 718-263-9591


MUY PIZZA-TEJAS: Ross Seeks Wages for Drivers Under FLSA, NMMWA
---------------------------------------------------------------
LATRISHA ROSS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MUY PIZZA-TEJAS, LLC, and AYVAZ PIZZA, LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-00029 (D.N.M., Jan. 13, 2022) is a class action complaint
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

The lawsuit seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, costs, and a reasonable attorneys' fee, as a
result of Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay
Plaintiff sufficient wages under the FLSA and the NMMWA within the
applicable statutory limitations period.

Separate Defendant Muy Pizza-Tejas, LLC, is a foreign limited
liability company. Muy Pizza's registered agent for service of
process is CT Corporation System at 206 South Coronado Avenue,
Espanola, New Mexico.

Separate Defendant Ayvaz Pizza is a foreign limited liability
company. Ayvaz Pizza's registered agent for service of process is
Corporation Service Company at 110 East Broadway Street, Hobbs, New
Mexico.

During each of the three years preceding the filing of this
Complaint, each Defendant employed at least two individuals who
were engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods
for interstate commerce, or had employees handling, selling, or
otherwise working on goods or materials that had been moved in or
produced for commerce by any person, such as vehicles, fuel and
goods or materials typically used in the fast-food industry.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff within the three years preceding
the filing of this lawsuit. Specifically, Defendants employed
Plaintiff as an hourly-paid delivery driver from February of 2018
until the present.

The Defendants also employed other hourly-paid Delivery Drivers
within the three years preceding the filing of this lawsuit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

NATIONAL SENIOR BENEFIT: Ward Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Senior
Benefit Advisors, Inc. The case is styled as Rochelle Ward,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Senior Benefit Advisors, Inc., Case No.
3:22-cv-00034-W-BGS (S.D. Cal., Jan. 12, 2022).

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

National Senior Benefit Advisors (NSBA) --
https://www.nsbagroup.com/ -- is a nationwide independent agency
that represents many of the nation's most trusted providers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
          KAUFMAN P.A.
          31 Samana Drive
          Miami, FL 33133
          Phone: (305) 773-6641
          Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Sawyer Suit Removed to D. Rhode Island
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Gail E. Sawyer, Marc L. Sawyer, Veronica
Delprete, Philip Delprete, Elizabeth Hector, Jacqueline Hardrow,
Katherine F. Savastano, John Savastano, Rosa Benros, Ronald Breton,
Cathy Fulford, John Ray III, Craig T. Lynch, Linda A. Lynch,
Russell L. Blais, Emmanuel Jean Charles, Jennifer J. Sullivan, on
behalf of themselves and all others so similarly situated v.
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (NKA Mr Cooper), U.S. Bank National
Association, as Trustee for Banc of America Funding 2009-FT1 Trust,
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2009-FT1; U.S. Bank
National Association as Trustee for Harborview 2005-2 Trust Fund;
U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Successor in Interest
to Bank of America, National Association, as Trustee, Successor by
Merger to LaSalle Bank, National Association, as Trustee for First;
U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for Specialty
Underwriting and Residential Finance Trust Mortgage Loan
Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-BC5; U.S. Bank National
Association as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Bank of America,
National Association, as Trustee, Successor by Merger to LaSalle
Bank National Association, as Trustee for Merril L; U.S. Bank
National Association as Trustee, for NRZ Pass-Through Trust V; U.S.
Bank Natioinal Association as Trustee for Merrill Lynch First
Franklin Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Loan Aset-Backed
Certificates, Series 2007-3; U.S. Bank National Association, as
Trustee, Successor in Interest to Bank of America, National
Association, as Trustee, Successor by Merger to LaSalle Bank
National Association, as Trustee for Merrill; U.S. Bank, National
Association, as Successor Trustee to Bank of America, N.A., as
Successor Trustee to LaSalle Bank, N.A., as Trustee for the
Certificateholders of The MLMI Trust, Mortgage Loan Asset; U.S.
Bank National Association, as Trustee, Successor in Interest to
Bank of America, National Association, as Trustee, Successor by
Merger to LaSalle Bank National Association, as Trustee for
Merrill; U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee Successor in
Interest to Wachovia Bank, N.A., as Trustee for the Structured
Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2; U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee
for the Certificateholders of Banc of America Funding Corporation
2009-FT1 Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series FT1;
Case No. PC2021-07330, was removed from the Providence County
Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode
Island on Jan. 13, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-00020-WES-PAS to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Foreclosure Real Property.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC, doing business as Mr. Cooper --
https://www.mrcooper.com/ -- offers mortgage services. The Company
provides mortgages loan, re-financing, and home equity loans.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Krystle Guillory Tadesse, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          2800 Financial Plaza
          Providence, RI 02903
          Phone: (401) 274-9200
          Fax: (401) 276-6611
          Email: krystle.tadesse@lockelord.com


NETHERLANDS INSURANCE: Summary Judgment in Addison Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADDISON AUTOMATICS, INC. v. THE NETHERLANDS INSURANCE
COMPANY & others, Case No. 20-P-225 (Mass. App.), the Appeals Court
of Massachusetts reversed the summary judgment of the Superior
Court.

I. Introduction

The dispute in the case is whether the Defendants, two
Massachusetts insurance companies, are obligated to pay a
multi-million-dollar settlement between their insured, Precision
Electronic Glass, Inc., and the Plaintiff, Addison, for Precision's
alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA),
47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(C). Notably, Precision's insurance
policies with the insurers contained exclusions for conduct in
violation of the TCPA.

On cross motions for summary judgment, a Superior Court judge
determined, inter alia, that the TCPA exclusions were unenforceable
because the insurers failed to provide Precision with sufficient
notice of the exclusions and that the insurers were otherwise
obligated to indemnify and pay the judgment against Precision.

II. Background

The insurers both operate under the umbrella of Peerless Insurance
Co. and maintain their principal places of business in
Massachusetts. Precision's principal place of business is in New
Jersey. At all relevant times, Netherlands was Precision's primary
insurer, while the Excelsior Insurance Co. provided Precision with
umbrella liability coverage.

In April 2005, the vice president of underwriting at Peerless sent
an agency bulletin to its commercial line agents introducing
mandatory policy endorsements for the exclusion of all acts in
violation of statutes that govern e-mails, fax, phone calls, or
other methods of sending materials or information. The bulletin
provided that the mandatory endorsements "expressly state Peerless'
intent not to cover liability arising out of any action or omission
that violates the TCPA," and directed the exclusion endorsements to
be attached to all new policies, effective May 1, 2005, and all
renewal policies, effective July 1, 2005. Accordingly, on March 12,
2006, when renewal policies were issued to Precision for the
2006-2007 term, the declarations pages for both policies listed the
form number and endorsements for the TCPA exclusions.

Turning to the policies most relevant to the case, on March 2,
2007, 10 days prior to issuing Precision renewal policies for the
2007-2008 term, the insurers provided Precision with two packages
of documents: one for the primary policy and one for the umbrella
policy. Contained in each package were slip notices addressing the
important changes to the policy, the declarations pages, the
endorsements, and the policy itself.

In the package addressing the primary policy issued by Netherlands,
there was a total of 53 pages preceding the declarations pages and
endorsements. The first was a cover page, and the remaining 52
pages were slip notices. The slip notice addressing the TCPA
exclusion was on page 51 of the package. The notice also informed
the policyholder that the form number for the exclusion endorsement
in the primary policy was CG0067-0305.

Then, on the declarations page addressing commercial general
liability coverage, under the heading "Forms and Endorsements," the
form number CG0067-0305 was listed next to the line item "Exclusion
- Violation of Statutes." This form number referred the
policyholder to the endorsement for the TCPA exclusion included
within the policy. At the top of the page within the policy where
the TCPA exclusion was located, a heading stated, in bold and
capital letters, "This Endorsement Changes the Policy. Please Read
It Carefully." The page was further titled, in bold and capital
letters, "Exclusion - Violation of Statutes That Govern E-Mails,
Fax, Phone Calls or Other Methods of Sending Material or
Information." The body of the exclusion expressly excluded from
coverage any "bodily injury," "property damage," or "personal and
advertising injury arising directly or indirectly out of any action
or omission that violates or is alleged to violate" the TCPA.

In the package addressing the umbrella policy issued by Excelsior,
there were only twenty pages preceding the declarations pages and
endorsements: The cover page and nineteen slip notices. The page of
the umbrella policy with the TCPA exclusion contained the same
heading and title as the one on the primary policy, and also
clearly excluded from coverage acts or omissions in violation of
the TCPA.

In January 2008, Precision initiated a faxing campaign, wherein
over 31,000 advertising faxes were sent to various entities on
Precision's behalf. Addison, an Illinois corporation, received one
of the advertising faxes. Addison filed a class action suit against
Precision for sending such fax advertisements and using the
recipients' fax machines, toner, and paper supplies without their
consent in violation of the TCPA. The insurers denied coverage and
refused to defend Precision in the underlying class action.

Subsequently, Precision and Addison entered into a settlement
agreement. The settlement was ultimately approved by a judge of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
who found that the settlement was made in reasonable anticipation
of liability and was prudent, fair, and reasonable. Judgment was
entered against Precision in the settled amount of $15,875,500 for
Precision's violation of the TCPA.

In November 2011, Addison filed the instant action for declaratory
judgment seeking a declaration that, under the policies, the
insurers were required to defend Precision in the underlying suit
and indemnify and pay any judgment entered against Precision. After
the settlement agreement was approved in the class action, both
parties moved for summary judgment.

Following a hearing, a Superior Court judge, applying New Jersey
law, determined that the insurance policies "clearly indicated that
conduct alleged to violate the TCPA was not covered," but concluded
that the TCPA exclusions were unenforceable because the insurers
failed to provide sufficient notice of them to Precision. The judge
determined that the class action was otherwise covered by the
policies and accordingly denied the insurers' motion for summary
judgment. Following that decision, the parties filed several
additional motions for summary judgment.

On March 29, 2019, final judgment entered declaring the insurers
liable for paying up to the applicable policy limits, which a
second judge determined to be $7,373,500, as well as the
contractual post-judgment interest. The judge denied Addison's
request for prejudgment interest. Addison and the insurers
appealed.

III. Discussion

The Appeals Court reviews a ruling on cross motions for summary
judgment de novo "to determine whether, viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the unsuccessful opposing party and drawing
all permissible inferences and resolving any evidentiary conflicts
in that party's favor, the successful opposing party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law." In the case, because Precision is a
New Jersey corporation and the policies were issued there, the
Appeals Court applies New Jersey law.

As to the timeliness of notice, under N.J.A.C. 11:1-20.2(c),
"notice of the amount of the renewal premium and any change in
contract terms will be given to the insured in writing not more
than 120 days nor less than 30 days prior to the due date of the
premium." Addison contends that notice should have been given at
least thirty days prior to the expiration of the policies, as
required by N.J.A.C. 11:1-20.2(b), which addresses the notice
requirements for nonrenewal of an insurance policy. It argues that
because the TCPA exclusions materially changed the terms of the
policies, the renewals should be treated as non-renewals under the
regulation.

The Appeals Court holds that because subsection (c) specifically
governs renewal policies with changes in contract terms, and it
requires notice at least 30 days prior to the premium due date,
rather than 30 days prior to the expiration of the policy, the
insurers provided timely notice to Precision of the TCPA
exclusions.

With respect to the sufficiency of notice, in Bauman v. Royal
Indem. Co., 36 N.J. 12, 26 (1961), the New Jersey Supreme Court
held that, when an insurer issues a renewal policy with terms
altering its insureds' level of coverage, the insurer has a duty to
"call the lessened coverage to the attention of the insureds so
that they might suitably protect themselves." Absent such a
notification, the court stated that an insured is "justly entitled"
to assume that the terms of the policy remain the same. In that
instance, the changes to the policy will not be given effect, and
the insurer will be bound by any greater coverage afforded in the
earlier policy.

The Appeals Court finds that this was the precise action taken by
the insurers in the instant case. Notification of the TCPA
exclusions was sufficient to fairly put Precision on notice. Each
slip notice addressing the TCPA exclusion was labeled as an
important notice and stated in the heading that acts in violation
of statutes that govern e-mails, faxes, and phone calls, inter
alia, would be excluded from coverage. Moreover, Precision, a New
Jersey corporation, does business nationwide, which purchased
commercial insurance policies from the insurers. Put more plainly,
Precision is not the "average policyholder."

IV. Conclusion

In sum, the Appeals Court concludes that, under the circumstances
in the instant case, where the insurers provided Precision, a
corporate entity, with a package addressing each policy and its
changes 10 days prior to issuance of the policies and 74 days prior
to the premium due date and where those packages contained slip
notices addressing the TCPA exclusions, several headings
conspicuously noting the exclusions, and the exclusions were
included on declarations pages, notice was timely and sufficient to
fairly convey to Precision that any act or omission in violation of
the TCPA would not be covered by the renewal policies. Given its
disposition of these issues, the Appeals Court need not reach the
other claims raised by the parties on appeal and cross appeal.

The Appeals Court reversed the judgment, and remanded the matter
for entry of a new declaration consistent with its Memorandum and
Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 7, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yeay3aa3 from Leagle.com.


NEW SABINA: Fails to Properly Pay Production Workers, Cowman Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER COWMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW SABINA INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:22-cv-00141-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, January 14, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly
situated production workers overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt production
employee in Ohio.

New Sabina Industries, Inc. is a manufacturer of instrument
clusters for automobiles and motorcycles, with its principal place
of business in Sabina, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
         Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
         NILGES DRAHER LLC
         1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808
         Cleveland, OH 44114
         Telephone: (216) 230-2955
         Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
         E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com
                 rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

                 - and –

         Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
         Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
         NILGES DRAHER LLC
         7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
         Massillon, OH 44646
         Telephone: (330) 470-4428
         Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
         E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
                 hans@ohlaborlaw.com

NEXT LEVEL: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Next Level Capital
Solutions LLC, et al. The case is styled as Terry Fabricant,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Next
Level Capital Solutions LLC, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:22-cv-00294 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 13, 2022).

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

Next Level Capital Group -- https://nextlevelcapitalgroup.com/ --
is a Texas-based, boutique finance company formed to provide
alternative funding solutions for real estate transactions
primarily in Houston and other top growth markets in Texas.[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


NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL: Hale Sues over Patient Data Theft
---------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HALE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT d/b/a
BROWARD HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-000582 (Fla. Cir., 17th
Judicial, Broward Cty., Jan. 12, 2022) alleges claims for
negligence, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, and
injunctive and declaratory relief, arising from Defendant's
inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiffs and Class Members' private
information.

On January 1, 2022, Broward Health announced a security incident
involving the personally identifiable information and protected
health information of its patients and employees that occurred
between October 15 and October 19, 2021. Broward Health waited
almost three months before notifying patients of the data breach in
January 2022, according to the lawsuit.

According to the complaint, the data breach was a direct result of
Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect
patients and employees' private information. In particular, the
private information was maintained on Broward Health's computer
network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks.

The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered identity theft and
fraud, have had to spend and will continue to spend significant
amounts of time and/or money in an effort to protect themselves
from the adverse ramifications of the data breach, and will forever
be at a heightened risk of identity theft and fraud, the suit
asserts.

Broward Health is a public, non-profit hospital system governed by
the North Broward Hospital District Board of Commissioners in
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Dorothy P. Antullis, Esq.
          Maxwell H. Sawyer, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN &DOWDLLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  dantullis@rgrdlaw.com
                  msawyer@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          135 Chestnut Ridge Road Suite 200
          Montvale, NJ 07645
          Telephone: (845) 356-2570
          Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
          E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com
                  ggraifman@kgglaw.com

               - and -

          Lynda Grant, Esq.
          THE GRANT LAW FIRM, PLLC
          521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10175
          Telephone: (212) 292-4441
          Facsimile: (212) 292-4442
          E-mail: lgrant@grantfirm.com

NORTH BROWARD: Faces Abigail Walecki Class Suit Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABIGAIL WALECKI, on behalf of herself and  all others similarly
situated v. NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT d/b/a BROWARD HEALTH,
Case No. 0:22-cv-60083-XXXX (S.D. Fla. Jan. 12, 2022) arises out of
the recent data breach involving Broward Health, one of the largest
public health systems in the United States.

Broward Health allegedly failed to reasonably secure, monitor, and
maintain the Protected Health Information ("PHI") and Personally
Identifiable Information ("PII") stored on its network. As a
result, Plaintiff and approximately 1.35 million other patients
("Class Members") have had the most sensitive details of their
lives and identities accessed and exfiltrated by malicious
cybercriminals intent on causing harm.

The PII and PHI accessed and exfiltrated in the breach includes
patients' full names, dates of birth, addresses, phone numbers,
financial and bank account information, Social Security numbers,
insurance information, account numbers, medical information
including history, condition, treatment and diagnoses, medical
record numbers, driver's license numbers, and email addresses
(collectively, "Sensitive Information").

By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
Sensitive Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant
assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect
and safeguard that Sensitive Information from unauthorized access
and intrusion. The Defendant's conduct in breaching these duties
amounts to negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and
state statutes, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose
Sensitive Information was compromised as a result of Defendant's
failure to take reasonable steps to protect the Sensitive
Information of Plaintiff and Class Members and warn Plaintiff and
Class Members of Defendant's inadequate information security
practices. The Defendant allegedly disregarded the rights of
Plaintiff and Class Members by knowingly failing to implement and
maintain adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that the PII
and PHI of Plaintiff and Class Members was safeguarded, failing to
take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data,
and failing to follow applicable, required, and appropriate
protocols, policies, and procedures regarding the use of and access
to data for internal and external use.

The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms, and prevent any future
data compromise on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result
of the Data Breach and remains at risk due to Defendant's
inadequate data security.

Defendant Broward Health is a public, non-profit hospital system
governed by the North Broward Hospital District Board of
Commissioners, a seven-member district board appointed by the
Governor and confirmed by the Florida Senate.

Plaintiff Walecki is a natural person domiciled in the State of
Virginia. Her permanent residence is located in the State of
Virginia. She was a patient of Broward Health in 2019 and provided
her Sensitive Information to Defendant in the course of receiving
treatment.

Broward Health operates four hospitals and more than 30 healthcare
facilities in the South Florida region, including Broward Health
Medical Center, Broward Health North, Broward Health Imperial
Point, Broward Health Coral Springs, Salah Foundation Broward
Health Children's Hospital, and Broward Health Weston.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dorothy P. Antullis, Esq.
          Stuart A. Davidson, esq.
          Maxwell H. Sawyer, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  dantullis@rgrdlaw.com
                  msawyer@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
          THE LYON FIRM
          2754 Erie Avenue
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Telephone: (513) 381-2333
          Facsimile: (513) 721-1178
          E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com

               - and -

          Terence R. Coates, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
          E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com

NORTHEAST CENTER: Davis Sues Over Residential Counselors' Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DIAMOND DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHEAST CENTER FOR YOUTH AND FAMILIES,
INC. and KEVIN DAY, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-30009 (D. Mass.,
January 15, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Massachusetts
Wage Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly
situated residential counselors overtime pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Ms. Davis was employed by the Defendants for approximately nine
months as a residential counselor.

Northeast Center for Youth and Families, Inc. is a non-profit
organization that provides services for children and families, with
its principal place of business at 203 East Street, Easthampton,
Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Arnold J. Lizana III, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF ARNOLD J. LIZANA III
         1175 Peachtree Street NE, 10th Floor
         Atlanta, GA 30361
         Telephone: (877) 443-0999
         E-mail: alizana@attorneylizana.com

                 - and –

         Taft L. Foley II, Esq.
         THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
         3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
         Houston, TX 77002
         Telephone: (832) 778-8182
         Facsimile: (832) 778-8353
         E-mail: taft.foley@thefoleylawfirm.com

NSM MERCHANT: Staley Seeks Wages for Delivery Drivers Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA STALEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. NSM MERCHANT, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00030  (W.D.
Tex., Jan. 13, 2022) is a collective action brought by the
Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (the "FLSA").

The Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, costs, and a reasonable attorneys' fee, as a
result of Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay
Plaintiff sufficient wages under the FLSA within the applicable
statutory limitations period.

The Defendant owns and operates multiple Papa John's franchises in
Texas.

The Defendant employed the Plaintiff within the three years
preceding the filing of this lawsuit. Specifically, the Defendant
employed the Plaintiff as an hourly-paid Delivery Driver from June
of 2020 until February of 2021.

The Defendant also employed other hourly-paid Delivery Drivers
within the three years preceding the filing of this lawsuit.

NSM Merchant Inc is in the Pizzeria, Chain business. View
competitors, revenue, employees, website and phone number.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

NXEDGE MH: Perez Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------
Felis A. Perez, on behalf of himself, all other similarly situated,
and the general public v. NXEDGE MH, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
21CV387173 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Santa Clara to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on Dec. 28, 2021, and
assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-10036-WHO.

The Plaintiff alleges that he was employed by NxEdge in the State
of California, County of Santa Clara. The Plaintiff further alleges
that during his employment, between approximately November 25, 2019
and July 9, 2021, NxEdge violated various provisions of the
California Labor Code. Plaintiff seeks to pursue his claims as a
class action on behalf of all individuals that NxEdge has employed,
or otherwise contracted within California as hourly, non-exempt
workers, and members of the general public who are similarly
situated, and demands monetary relief. The Amended Complaint adds a
Private Attorney General Act cause of action to the original class
action complaint.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dora V. Lane, Esq.
          S. Jordan Walsh, Esq.
          HOLLAND & HART LLP
          5441 Kietzke Lane, Suite 200
          Reno, NV 89511-2094
          Phone: 775.327.3000
          Facsimile: 775.786.6179
          Email: dlane@hollandhart.com
                 sjwalsh@hollandhart.com


OSATA ENTERPRISES: Otto Sues Over Unsolicited Sales Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Otto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. OSATA ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a IMP ALA SKA TES, Case
No. CACE-22-000109 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Jan.
1, 2022), is brought under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

The Defendant engages in telephonic sales calls to consumers
without having secured prior express written consent as required by
the FTSA. The Defendant's telephonic sales calls have caused the
Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including violations of their
statutory rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and
invasion of their privacy. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks
an injunction and statutory damages on behalf of himself and the
Class members, and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the unlawful actions of the Defendant, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Broward County,
Florida.

The Defendant is a foreign corporation and a "telephone solicitor,"
maintaining its primary place of business and headquarters in El
Segundo, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard
          Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301, Suite 1400
          Phone: 954.400.4713
          Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


PETZL AMERICA: Faulhaber Alleges Injuries Over Faulty Shunt
-----------------------------------------------------------
Craig Faulhaber, and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Petzl
America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-00102 (D. Colo., January
14, 2022) arises from the defective design, manufacture, and
failure to warn that the "Petzl Shunt," a device intended, marketed
and sold by Petzl as a safety device, could detach from a climbing
rope and cause death or serious bodily injury. Case also claims
damages under the Colorado consumer protection laws.

Craig Faulhaber is an experienced rock climber and has been an
enthusiastic climber since 2008. On September 19, 2021, Faulhaber
was climbing in an area known as Haus Rock, located between
Keystone and Montezuma in Summit County, Colorado when he hit the
ground, suffered serious bodily injuries when his Petzl Shunt
failed. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott D. McLeod, Esq.
      Samuel R. Thomas, Esq.
      MCLEOD BRUNGER PLLC
      10374 Park Meadows Drive, St. 260
      Lone Tree, CO 80124
      Email: smcleod@mcleodbrunger.com
             sthomas@mcleodbrunger.com

PHENIXFIN CORP: Del. Ch. yet to Approve Settlement of Counsel Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
PhenixFIN Corp. 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 the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware has yet to review or approve, and
will pass judgment on the proposed payment of $25,000, in full
satisfaction of their claim for attorneys' fees, expenses and costs
in connection with alleged violation of company by-laws.

On or about January 28, 2021, a purported class action lawsuit,
captioned Kahn v. PhenixFIN Corporation, et al., was filed against
the company and its directors in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware. Kahn alleges that a provision in the company's bylaws,
which provides that directors may be removed from office for cause
by the affirmative vote of 75% of capital stock entitled to vote,
is inconsistent with provisions of the Delaware General Corporate
Law, which plaintiff alleges would permit removal for cause by a
simple majority of capital stock entitled to vote. Kahn seeks a
declaration that the bylaw provision is invalid and to enjoin the
defendants from enforcing it, as well as a reasonable allowance of
attorneys' fee. On February 10, 2021, the Board of the Company
approved an amendment to the company's bylaws, which, among other
things, allows for the removal of directors for cause by
affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the capital stock
entitled to vote at an election of directors.

On May 5, 2021, plaintiffs filed a notice and proposed order
voluntarily dismissing the Action as moot and providing that
jurisdiction would be retained solely to resolve an anticipated
application for attorneys' fees and expenses, which proposed order
was granted by the Court of Chancery on May 5, 2021. The parties to
the Action subsequently agreed to a payment by PhenixFIN to
plaintiffs' counsel of $25,000, in full satisfaction of their claim
for attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs in connection with the
Action. The Court of Chancery has not been asked to review or
approve, and will pass no judgment on, this payment. The Court of
Chancery granted the proposed order on July 28, 2021.

PhenixFIN Corporation is an internally-managed non-diversified
closed-end management investment company incorporated in Delaware.


PHENIXFIN CORP: Glatt et. al. RICO Suit Pending in E.D. Va.
-----------------------------------------------------------
PhenixFIN Corp. 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 that a class action
complaint alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act and various other claims is still pending
in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of
Virginia, Newport Division. On October 12, 2018, plaintiffs in said
class action filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of all claims.

Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and the company were also named as
defendants, along with various other parties, in a putative class
action lawsuit captioned John Glatt, Sonji Grandy, Heather Ball,
Dashawn Hunter, and Michael Corona v. Mark Curry, American Web
Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red Stone, Inc., Medley Opportunity Fund II
LP, and Medley Capital Corporation, filed August 9, 2018 under Case
No. 4:18-cv-101.

PhenixFIN Corporation is an internally-managed non-diversified
closed-end management investment company incorporated in Delaware.


PHENIXFIN CORP: Hengle/Williams' RICO Suit Pending in E.D. Va.
--------------------------------------------------------------
PhenixFIN Corp. 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 class action
complaint alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act and various other claims is still pending
in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of
Virginia, Richmond Division.

Case docketed George Hengle and Lula Williams v. Mark Curry,
American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Red Stone, Inc., Medley
Opportunity Fund II LP, and Medley Capital Corporation Case No.
3:18-cv-100 (E.D. Va., February 13, 2018) seeks redress for alleged
payday lending activities of American Web Loan.

Medley Opportunity Fund II LP and the Company were also named as
defendants, along with various other parties, in said class action.
In October 29, 2018, plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of all claims.

PhenixFIN Corporation is an internally-managed non-diversified
closed-end management investment company incorporated in Delaware.


PHENIXFIN CORP: Settlement of Loan Dispute Pending in E.D. Va.
--------------------------------------------------------------
PhenixFIN Corp. 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 in case docketed
Royce Solomon, Jodi Belleci, Michael Littlejohn, and Giulianna
Lomaglio v. American Web Loan, Inc., AWL, Inc., Mark Curry,
MacFarlane Group, Inc., Sol Partners, Medley Opportunity Fund, II,
LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management,
Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, Seth Taube, DHI Computing
Service, Inc., Middlemarch Partners, and John Does 1-100, filed on
December 15, 2017, amended on March 9, 2018, and amended a second
time on February 15, 2019 (Case No. 4:17-cv-145, E.D. Va.) that a
revised settlement agreement was made on August 26, 2021 and awaits
final implementation.

Medley LLC, the Company, Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley
Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube
were named as defendants, along with other various parties, The
plaintiffs in the class action complaint filed their putative class
actions alleging claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, and various other claims arising out of the
alleged payday lending activities of American Web Loan.

On April 16, 2020, the parties reached a settlement that requires
Plaintiffs to seek certification of a nationwide settlement class
of all persons in the United States to whom American Web Loan lent
money from February 10, 2010 through a future date on which the
Court may enter a Preliminary Approval Order as to the settlement
agreement. Its other prominent requirements include:

American Web Loan, and only American Web Loan, is to pay
$65,000,000 where Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley
Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC,
Brook Taube, or Seth Taube are not paying any monetary
consideration pursuant to the settlement agreement.

American Web Loan, and only American Web Loan, is to cancel (as a
disputed debt) and release all claims that relate to or arise out
of the loans in its collection portfolio, which is valued at
$76,000,000 and comprised of loans to more than 39,000 borrowers
where Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital
Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook
Taube, or Seth Taube do not have any interest in any of the loans
that are being cancelled.

American Web Loan and Curry are to provide certain Non-Monetary
Benefits where Medley Opportunity Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley
Capital Corporation, Medley Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC,
Brook Taube, or Seth Taube are not conferring any non-monetary
benefits pursuant to the settlement agreement.

Said settlement also requires to free Medley Opportunity Fund II
LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley Management,
Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube from any and
all claims, causes of action, suits, obligations, debts, demands,
agreements, promises, liabilities, damages, losses, controversies,
costs, expenses and attorneys' fees of any nature whatsoever,
whether arising under federal law, state law, common law or equity,
tribal law, foreign law, territorial law, contract, rule,
regulation, any regulatory promulgation (including, but not limited
to, any opinion or declaratory ruling), or any other law whether
suspected or unsuspected, asserted or unasserted, foreseen or
unforeseen, actual or contingent, liquidated or unliquidated,
punitive or compensatory, as of the date of the Final Fairness
Approval Order and Judgment, that relate to or arise out of loans
made by and/or in the name of AWL (including loans issued in the
name of American Web Loan, Inc. or Clear Creek Lending) as of the
date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order (with the exception
of claims to enforce the Settlement or the Judgment). It also aims
to provide for a mutual general release between Medley Opportunity
Fund II LP, Medley LLC, Medley Capital Corporation, Medley
Management, Inc., Medley Group, LLC, Brook Taube, and Seth Taube on
the one hand, and American Web Loan and Curry and that they would
not be entitled to indemnification or bring any claim against any
released parties, including American Web Loan and Curry, that
relate to or arise out of loans made by and/or in the name of AWL
(including loans issued in the name of American Web Loan, Inc. or
Clear Creek Lending) as of the date of entry of said preliminary
approval order, with the exception of claims to enforce the
settlement or the judgment.

On March 31, 2021, the parties to said class action and its
objectors filed a revised settlement agreement per ECF No. 483-1
with minor revision to the original. On April 7, 2021, the court
entered an order granting preliminary approval of the revised
settlement. On July 9, 2021, the final approval of the revised
settlement agreement was granted and entered the final judgment.

PhenixFIN Corporation is an internally-managed non-diversified
closed-end management investment company incorporated in Delaware.


RAYTHEON TECH: Faces Wilson Suit Over Hiring Restriction Conspiracy
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS WILSON and ALEX SCALES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
PRATT & WHITNEY DIVISION; QUEST GLOBAL SERVICES-NA, INC.; BELCAN
LLC; CYIENT, INC.; PARAMETRIC SOLUTIONS, INC.; AGILIS ENGINEERING,
INC.; MAHESH PATEL; ROBERT HARVEY; HARPREET WASAN; STEVEN
HOUGHTALING; TOM EDWARDS; GARY PRUS; and FRANK O'NEILL, Case No.
3:22-cv-00062-AWT (D. Conn., Jan. 13, 2022) is an antitrust action
complaint concerning the rights of employees to free and fair labor
markets, and seeking redress for the harm Defendants inflicted on
their employees.

"[W]orkers, like consumers, are entitled to the benefits of a
competitive market." But for more than a decade, Defendants --
among the largest U.S.-based aerospace engineering firms that
design, manufacture, and service aerospace products for civil and
military applications -- secretly agreed to restrict their
competition for the recruitment and hiring of aerospace engineers
and other skilled workers among and between their firms. The
Defendants allegedly entered into this secret agreement so they
could pay these highly-skilled employees, many of whom reside in
the State of Connecticut, less than they would have to pay in a
competitive market.

Aerospace engineering firms like Defendants conduct much of their
work through a system of "outsource engineering." In this system,
Pratt & Whitney contracts with supplier firms -- such as the
Supplier Defendants -- to complete projects using the supplier
firm’s own employees and resources. The supplier firm pays the
salary and benefits for workers assigned to the project, and the
supplier firm is then paid by the engineering contractor once work
is completed.

The Defendants, however, found a way to avoid having to compete
with each other to pay their employees what they are worth.
Beginning in 2011, the Defendants explicitly agreed not to hire or
recruit each other's engineers and other skilled workers. The
purpose and result of this unlawful agreement was so Defendants
could artificially depress their own labor costs while depriving
workers of the compensation they would earn in a competitive
marketplace not infected by unlawful collusion, added the suit.

The conspiracy was exposed on December 9, 2021, when the U.S.
Department of Justice ("DOJ") unsealed a criminal antitrust action
against Mahesh Patel, the former Director of Global Engineering
Sourcing at Pratt & Whitney.

Plaintiff Nicholas Wilson is a citizen and resident of the State of
Colorado. Mr. Wilson was employed as an Engineer for Cyient from
September 2018 until May 2020, working specifically on Pratt &
Whitney projects. During his employment with Cyient, Mr. Wilson was
located in East Hartford, Connecticut. Mr. Wilson was injured in
his business or property by reason of the violation alleged
herein.

Plaintiff Alex Scales is a citizen and resident of the State of
Colorado. Mr. Scales was employed as a Mass Properties Engineer by
Cyient from June 2016 until May 2020, working exclusively worked on
projects for Pratt & Whitney. During his employment with Cyient,
Mr. Scales was located in East Hartford, Connecticut. Mr. Scales
was injured in his business or property by reason of the violation
alleged herein.

Pratt & Whitney is a subsidiary of Raytheon Technologies
Corporation and is incorporated in Delaware with its principal
place of business in East Hartford, Connecticut. Pratt & Whitney is
an aerospace engine design, manufacture, and service companies in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua R. Goodbaum, Esq.
          Joseph D. Garrison, Esq.
          Stephen J. Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Joshua R. Goodbaum, Esq.
          Amanda M. DeMatteis, Esq.
          GARRISON, LEVIN-EPSTEIN,
          FITZGERALD & PIRROTTI, P.C.
          405 Orange Street
          New Haven, Connecticut, 06511
          Telephone: (203) 777-4425
          Facsimile: (203) 776-3965
          E-mail: jgarrison@garrisonlaw.com
                  sfitzgerald@garrisonlaw.com
                  jgoodbaum@garrisonlaw.com
                  adematteis@garrisonlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Brockett, Esq.
          Steig D. Olson, Esq.
          Manisha M. Sheth, Esq.
          Thomas Lepri, Esq.
          Casey Adams, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
          SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, New York 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
          E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com
                  steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
                  manishasheth@quinnemanuel.com
                  thomaslepri@quinnemanuel.com
                  caseyadams@quinnemanuel.com

RESIDENTIAL REALTY: Williams Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOEY A. WILLIAMS and other similarly situated individuals v.
RESIDENTIAL REALTY SERVICES CORP., a/k/a OLEN LIVING, Case No.
9:22-cv-80064-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 12, 2022) seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly
situated to him, worked over 40 hours during one or more weeks on
or after August 2021, without being compensated overtime wages
pursuant to the FLSA, the Plaintiff contends.

Defendant Olen Living manages Quantum Lakes Villas is a luxury
residential rental community located at 2700 Quantum Lakes DR.,
Boyton Beach Florida, where the Plaintiff worked. The Plaintiff
worked as a non-exempted, full-time, hourly employee, from August
5, 2021, to October 18, 2021, or 10 weeks.

The Plaintiff had duties as maintenance and janitorial employee,
and he worked at the residential buildings of Quantum Lakes Villas.
During his employment with Defendant, Plaintiff worked overtime
hours that were not paid to him at any rate, not even at the
minimum wage rate, as required by law, the lawsuit adds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Zullo Suit Moved From E.D.N.Y. to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ADAM ZULLO, DAVID PEREZ, THOMAS BARRETTI, and
THOMAS RICHARDSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Case No.
2:21-cv-06253, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on January 13, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00224-JCS to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligence, negligence
per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract,
misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the
New York General Business Law by failing to secure the personal
identifying information of its customers.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. is a financial services company,
headquartered in Menlo Park, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:          
         
         Philip M. Hines, Esq.
         HELD & HINES, LLP
         2004 Ralph Avenue
         Brooklyn, NY 11234
         Telephone: (718) 531-9700
         E-mail: phines@heldhines.com

ROLLINS INC: Fleming Sues Over ERISA Violation
----------------------------------------------
Marcia G. Fleming, Casey Freeman, David Guyon, Anthony Loscalzo,
Patrick Roseberry, and Julio Samaniego, individually, on behalf of
the Rollins, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan and on behalf of all
similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the Plan v.
ROLLINS, INC.; THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE ROLLINS, INC.
401(k) SAVINGS PLAN; ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.; ALLIANT
RETIREMENT SERVICES, LLC; LPL FINANCIAL LLC; PAUL E. NORTHEN, JOHN
WILSON, JERRY GAHLHOFF, JAMES BENTON and A. KEITH PAYNE in their
capacities as members of the Administrative Committee; and John and
Jane Does 1-10, Case No. 1:21-cv-05343-ELR (N.D. Ga., Dec. 30,
2021), seeks damages as a result of the Defendants' alienation of
the trust of the Rollins Plan's participants/beneficiaries, and
dissipation of the Rollins Plan assets in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The Defendant Rollins offers the Rollins Plan to its employees, the
Rollins Plan participants/beneficiaries, as a way to save for
retirement. The Rollins Plan participants/beneficiaries fund their
individual Plan accounts through a portion of their wages. The
Plan's documents, and the Defendants' fiduciary duty to the Plan's
participants and beneficiaries which required them to act "solely
in the interest of the plan's participants" and "for the exclusive
purpose of providing benefits to participants."

Rollins and the Administrative Committee, as responsible Plan
fiduciaries (functioning and responsible for controlling and
managing the operation and administration of the Rollins Plan),
breached and alienated the trust of the Plan's
participants/beneficiaries and dissipated the Plan's assets in
violation of the Plan's documents. Rollins and the Administrative
Committee's actions violated ERISA's "sole and exclusive" rule,
which requires fiduciaries to act "solely in the interest of" and
"for the exclusive purposes" of a plan's participants and
beneficiaries.

Rollins and the Administrative Committee breached their ERISA
fiduciary duties by: (i) allowing excessive recordkeeping fees;
(ii) selecting high cost and poor-performing investments compared
to available alternatives; (iii) failing to monitor the Plan's
investments generally. Rollins and the Administrative Committee
also repeatedly violated ERISA. Rollins and the Administrative
Committee's actions and conduct as fiduciaries of the Plan were not
a result of a reasoned and principled process, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are participants/beneficiaries in the Rollins Plan.

Rollins is a leading, global company that provides residential and
commercial pest control services through more than 900 subsidiaries
and franchises worldwide and generates more than $1.8 billion in
annual revenue.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          Paul J. Sharman, Esq.
          THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM LLC
          11175 Cicero Drive, Suite 100
          Alpharetta, GA 30022
          Phone: (678) 242-5297
          Fax: (678) 802-2129
          Email: paul@sharman-law.com

               - and -

          Jon D. Pels, Esq.
          Katerina M. Newell, Esq.
          THE PELS LAW FIRM
          4845 Rugby Avenue, Third Floor
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Phone: (301) 986-5570
          Fax: (301) 986-5571
          Email: jpels@pelslaw.com
                 knewell@pallaw.com


RYDER INTEGRATED: Rivera Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Oscar Rivera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 22-cv-00267 (C.D. Cal., January 12, 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, 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.

Ryder Integrated offers logistics, warehousing, shipping,
distribution, freight forwarding, brokerage, storage, cargo, supply
chain management services, and transportation services. Ryder
Integrated is a subsidiary of Ryder System where Rivera was
employed as a laborer in Chino, California, from approximately
March 2020 through July 2021. His primary duties include, but are
not limited to, affixing labels to boxes, and sweeping the
warehouse. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
      Ori Edelstein, Esq.
      Philippe M. Gaudard, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
      2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
      Emeryville, California 94608
      Tel: (415) 421-7100
      Fax: (415) 421-7105
      Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
             oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
             pgaudard@schneiderwallace.com

SAHARA PAINTING: Edgardo Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
Jose Edgardo Rodriguez Avila, Carlos Flores Reyes, and Carlos Onan
Rodriguez Avila, Jose Francisco Ravon, individually and on behalf
of similarly situated individuals v. SAHARA PAINTING INC. and JOSE
M. IGLESIAS, Case No. 2021-020510-CA-01 was removed from the
Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Court, in and for Miami-Dade
County, Florida to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on Dec. 30, 2021, and assigned Case
No. 1:21-cv-24490-CMA.

The Plaintiffs alleges a federal overtime wage violation pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 460-5000
          Email: gmaatman@seyfarth.com


SANDERSON FARMS: Pending in MDL Court Over Anti-Poaching Raps
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms Inc. disclosed in its Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 21, 2021, that a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint was filed in the MDL Court with
regards to the employee anti-poaching complaints it was facing.
Fact discovery in the MDL is ongoing and is currently scheduled to
end in August 2022.

On January 27, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and their subsidiaries
were named as defendants, along with four other poultry producers
and certain of their affiliated companies, in a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Oklahoma. On March 27, 2017, Sanderson Farms,
Inc. and our subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with four
other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies,
in a second putative class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

The Court ordered the suits consolidated into one proceeding, and
on July 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the
defendants unlawfully conspired by sharing data on compensation
paid to broiler farmers, with the purpose and effect of suppressing
the farmers’ compensation below competitive levels. The
consolidated amended complaint also alleges that the defendants
unlawfully conspired to not solicit or hire the broiler farmers who
were providing services to other defendants.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks treble damages, costs and
attorneys' fees. On September 8, 2017, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint, on October 23, 2017, the
plaintiffs filed their response, and on November 22, 2017, the
defendants filed a reply. On January 19, 2018, the Court granted
the Sanderson Farms defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction.

On July 13, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit in
the Eastern District of North Carolina, and briefing was completed
on September 4, 2018. On January 15, 2019, the Court granted in
part the defendants' motion to dismiss and stayed the action in the
Eastern District of North Carolina pending resolution of the action
in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. On January 6, 2020, the Court
in the Eastern District of Oklahoma denied defendants’ motion to
dismiss. On May 27, 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the action
in the Eastern District of North Carolina under the first-to-file
rule. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on June 17, 2020, and the
Company filed its reply on July 1, 2020.

On September 11, 2020, additional named grower plaintiffs filed an
identical putative class action in the District Court of Colorado
against Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its Foods, Production, and
Processing Divisions, as well as the other poultry producer
defendants in the Oklahoma action. On October 14, 2020, Defendants
moved to dismiss the case under the first-to-file doctrine because
it is substantively identical to the earlier-filed cases pending in
Oklahoma and North Carolina. Briefing on that motion was completed
on December 16, 2020.

On September 18, 2020, another named grower plaintiff filed another
duplicate class action in the District Court of Kansas against the
same defendants as the Colorado action. On October 13, 2020,
Defendants moved to dismiss the case under the first-to-file
doctrine because it is substantively identical to the earlier-filed
cases pending in Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Colorado. Briefing
on that motion was completed on December 15, 2020.

On October 8, 2020, new named grower plaintiffs filed another
duplicate class action in the Northern District of California
against the same defendants as the Colorado and Kansas actions. On
October 23, 2020, the District Court of Kansas stayed proceedings
in that action (other than those related to the first-to-file
motion) pending resolution of the first-to-file motion and the
multi-district litigation consolidation motions. On November 12,
2020, the District Court of Colorado stayed proceeding in that
action (other than those related to the first-to-file motion)
pending resolution of the first-to-file motion and the MDL
consolidation motion discussed below.

On October 6, 2020, Plaintiffs in the Oklahoma action moved to
consolidate all of these duplicative cases into a MDL before the
judge presiding over the Oklahoma case. Briefing on that motion was
completed on November 6, 2020, and oral argument on the motion
occurred on December 3, 2020. On December 15, 2020, the panel
ordered that all actions be consolidated in the Eastern District of
Oklahoma for pretrial proceedings.

On February 19, 2021, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint in the MDL Court.

Sanderson Farms Inc. is in to poultry slaughtering and processing
based in Mississippi.


SCORES HOLDING CO: De Oliveira Labor Suit Pending in S.D. N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scores Holding Company, Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 4, 2022,
that an ongoing labor suit docketed Luisa Santos de Oliveira v.
Scores Holding Company Inc., Club Azure LLC, Robert Gans, Mark S.
Yackow, Howard Rosenbluth, Case 1:18-cv-06769-GBD (July 27, 2018)
is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

Scheduling order for said class action lawsuit was entered and all
discovery was due on May 27, 2021.
On October 8, 2018, the company was served with a summons and
complaint for said complain. De Oliveira claims that the Defendants
violated the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), violated the New York Minimum Wage Act and
the overtime provisions of the New York State Labor Law (NYLL),
violated the Spread of Hours Wage Order of the New York
Commissioner of Labor, violated the Notice and Recordkeeping
requirements and the wage statement provisions of the NYLL,
recovery of equipment costs in violation of the FLSA and NYLL and
unlawful deductions from tips in violation of the NYLL.

The company has submitted an answer to De Oliveira's claims and the
case is currently in the discovery phase. The company, along with
the co-defendants, intends to vigorously defend itself against the
claims asserted against it in this lawsuit. The likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome is remote because the company's records show,
inter alia, that De Oliveira never worked more than 25 hours per
week.

The case was assigned to a Magistrate Judge. There was a conference
on March 2, 2021 and all discovery was due by May 27, 2021.

Scores Holding Company, Inc. provides amusement and recreation
services based in New York.


SCORES HOLDING: Munoz Labor Suit Discontinued
---------------------------------------------
Scores Holding Company, Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2019, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 4, 2022,
that class action complaint filed by Dislenia Munoz has been
amended and then discontinued without prejudice as of June 22,
2018.
On July 25, 2017, Dislenia Munoz, who formerly performed as an
adult entertainer at Scores New York, owned in its entirety by I.M.
Operating LLC, commenced a putative class action lawsuit against
the company, IMO, Robert Gans and Mark Yackow in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, County of New York.

Dislenia Munoz alleged that she and other similarly situated
entertainers at Scores New York were misclassified as independent
contractors, that they should have been classified as employees,
and as a result, the Defendants violated, among other things,
applicable state wage and hour laws. The Lawsuit sought unspecified
compensatory damages, liquidated damages, as well as attorneys'
fees and costs.

On June 22, 2018, Munoz amended her complaint in the lawsuit to
excise her class allegations and discontinued it without
prejudice.

Plaintiff has brought her claims in said lawsuit in another forum
against the Defendants, other than the company, which is no longer
a subject of her claims.

Scores Holding Company, Inc. provides amusement and recreation
services based in New York.


SENEX LAW: Court Denies Bid for Interlocutory Appeal in Lord Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JENNIFER LORD, et al., Plaintiffs v. SENEX LAW, P.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 7:20-cv-00541 (W.D. Va.), Chief District Judge
Michael F. Urbanski of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, Roanoke Division, issued a Memorandum
Opinion:

   a. denying Senex's motion for interlocutory appeal; and

   b. denying as moot Senex's motion to stay proceedings pending
      appeal.

I. Background

A. Senex Law, P.C.

Senex is a law firm that serves multifamily housing owners and
property managers and helps send tenants Notices related to debt
collection and eviction proceedings. Multifamily rental properties
hire Senex to collect on residents' past due rent payments.

The Plaintiffs describe Senex's business model as follows. First, a
landlord sends Senex a list of accounts for which a debt is
allegedly past due. Next, Senex prepares a noncompliance dunning
letter (the "Notices") on landlord letterhead before printing and
sending the Notice directly to the tenant. Senex saves each
tenant's information in its proprietary debt collection software so
that it can quickly generate detainer pleadings. The initial Notice
Senex sends "is thus the first step in Senex's seamless, integrated
debt collection machine."

The Plaintiffs maintain that Senex attempts to collect tenants'
past-due rent by sending the tenants the Notices and other
correspondence. While each Notice that the Plaintiffs received was
issued on landlord letterhead and was "purportedly signed by" a
landlord's staff member, each signature was in reality "affixed at
Senex's office using Senex equipment." The Plaintiffs allege that
Senex mailed each Notice "in an envelope bearing date-stamped
postage from NEOPOST account, zip code 23663, the same account used
for notices mailed by Senex, as opposed to the zip codes where the
various Landlords are located."

Per the complaint, the Notices indicate that the landlord has
retained Senex, who "already drafted this notice and provided legal
advice due to the Plaintiff's noncompliance." The Notices also
"still purport to come from the Landlord, despite the fact that
they were prepared and sent by Senex." Moreover, in each Notice at
issue, "under the guise of Landlord, the Plaintiffs were charged
'attorneys' fees,' typically thirty dollars."

The Plaintiffs contend that Senex's overall business model directly
damages them by charging fees for each Notice, even though the
Notices purport to come from the landlords, and not from attorneys.
Senex's business model also results in "additional fees from
multiple and repetitive court filings costly to both the Plaintiffs
and the courts." Finally, Plaintiffs assert that Senex
inappropriately "misleads and intimidates debtors by invoking the
specter of meaningful attorney involvement."

B. Individual and Class Action Claims

The Complaint raises both class action allegations against Senex
and individual claims on behalf of Plaintiffs Jennifer Lord, Ebony
Reddicks, and Toniraye Moss. The Plaintiffs maintain apartment
leases in Roanoke and Hopewell, Virginia. Plaintiffs Lord and
Reddick each allege receiving "by mail and by posting on their
front doors a Notice of Noncompliance for alleged nonpayment of
rent and fees" on multiple occasions. Although "each mailed Notice
listed a return address for Frontier Apartments and was purported
signed by an employee of Frontier Apartments," Lord and Reddicks
allege that the "Notice actually came from Senex." Indeed, "the
signature on each mailed Notice was digitally added in the Senex
office using Senex equipment."

Senex also filed four unlawful detainer summonses against Lord and
three unlawful detainer summonses against Reddicks. Each summons
claimed (1) an immediate right to possession of their apartments
due to unpaid rent, and (2) a charge of $100 in attorney fees for
preparing and filing the unlawful detainer, even though the Notice
indicated that only $70 in attorney fees would be charged. Lord and
Reddicks both assert that "aside from the act of signing the
Unlawful Detainer as counsel for its landlord clients, there is no
meaningful attorney involvement in the filing of the Unlawful
Detainers," meaning the $100 fee thus "greatly overstated the
nature of attorney involvement." Lord and Reddicks finally allege
that immediately after Senex entered the attorney fees charges on
their accounts, "the attorney fees became rent owed by Lord and
Reddicks, even though the fill-in-the form unlawful detainer had
not yet been filed with court."

C. Procedural History

The Plaintiffs brought suit on Sept. 9, 2020. On Oct. 28, 2020,
Senex moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), alleging,
among other things, that the Plaintiffs' claims fail as a matter of
law because is not a debt collector and, therefore, is not subject
to the FDCPA. The Plaintiffs opposed.

On May 11, 2021, the case was transferred to the Court, and on Aug.
16, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part Senex's
motion to dismiss. In relevant part, the Court rejected Senex's
argument that Senex, as a matter of law, was not a debt collector
and was not subject to the FDCPA.

Senex now brings a motion to permit an interlocutory appeal and
stay, asserting that the Court erred in its Aug. 16, 2021
Memorandum Opinion as to answering a fundamental, threshold
question of law: "Whether the application of the Virginia Uniform
Electronic Transactions Acts (UETA) precludes Senex from liability
for the claims asserted against it." The Plaintiffs oppose.

The Court heard argument on Oct. 7, 2021, and the matters are ripe
for resolution.

II. Analysis

1. Controlling Question of Law

At base, Senex contends that the controlling question of law is
whether the "application of the UETA precludes it from liability?"
It asserts that this question is purely legal because "a
'fact-bound,' multi-factor test announced in Crawford v. Senex Law,
P.C., No. 3:16-cv-73, 2017 WL 5162821 (W.D. Va. Nov. 7, 2017)], is
not necessary when UETA is dispositive of the threshold question of
who owns the Notice for all legal purposes, including under the
FDCPA."

The Plaintiffs oppose, stating that the Court has previously ruled
that this inquiry is a question of fact.

Judge Urbanski agrees. He finds no reason to deviate from its prior
ruling, and Senex has not shown that the applicability of the UETA
as to Senex's status as a debt collector is a purely legal question
rather than a fact-intensive one. The Court's earlier ruling in the
case does not make a determination one way or the other as to
Senex's status as a debt collector. Rather, the Court simply
determined that pursuant to the Crawford factors, the Plaintiffs
pleaded sufficient facts to show that Senex may be a debt collector
at the motion to dismiss stage. It is inherent to the Court's
decision that a final determination as to Senex's status as a debt
collector and the applicability, or lack thereof, of the UETA will
be made at a later phase of litigation after discovery has ensued
and the record has been more developed. Because such a fact-ladened
question is the antithesis of a controlling question of law, Senex
has failed to prove this element of an interlocutory appeal.

2. Substantial Ground for Difference of Opinion

Senex argues that the complex interplay of the FDCPA and UETA
present novel questions of law that the Fourth Circuit should
answer. It asserts several arguments to support this assertion, but
each is unavailing.

First, Senex contends that Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc.,
817 F.3d 131, 134 (4th Cir. 2016), aff'd, 137 S.Ct. 1718 (2017),
stands for the principle that "an entity collecting a debt for its
own account is not a debt collector under the FDCPA." Although the
Henson court does hold that "a debt collector collects debt on
behalf of a creditor; a creditor, on the other hand, is a person to
whom the debt is owed, and when a creditor collects its debt for
its own account, it is not generally acting as a debt collector,"
Senex understands this ruling too broadly. To be sure, the Henson
court merely articulates the general rule that an entity collecting
its own debt is usually not considered a debt collector. However,
courts have held that law firms collecting their own debt may be
subject to the FDCPA.

Next, Senex argues that the Court is misguided to focus on the text
of the Notices as opposed to the author of the Notices. Judge
Urbanski finds that Senex points to no case law to support its
assertion. In fact, Senex concedes this fact; rather, Senex argues
that "a 'novel issue may be certified for interlocutory appeal
without first awaiting development of contradictory precedent.'"
However, Senex fails to meet the exacting standard required to show
this is a novel question of law in order to support an
interlocutory appeal.

Lastly, Senex states that the Plaintiffs' arguments as to the
legitimacy and legal effect of the landlords' e-signatures do not
require factual development. It contends that, on appeal, the
Fourth Circuit may simply look to the four corners of the Notices
and apply the UETA. Again, Senex's argument presupposes that the
UETA applicability is a purely legal question, but it has not
proven as much, Judge Urbanski points out. He says, the Plaintiffs'
claims involve fraud, and absent Senex's showing that the threshold
question of the UETA's applicability is a purely legal question,
the Notices' authenticity and legal effect should be developed
through discovery. As such, Senex fails to meet the second
element.

3. Material Advancement of the Litigation

To determine whether an interlocutory appeal materially advances
litigation, district courts consider "whether an immediate 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." Moreover, "the mere fact that a
case's resolution at this time may save pre-trial and trial effort
and expense is not determinative," because "that of course can be
said of any interlocutory appeal."

Judge Urbanski holds that in the case, none of the factors support
material advancement. First, resolution of an interlocutory appeal
would not be completely dispositive of the litigation. If the
Fourth Circuit were to reverse this court's ruling and find that
the UETA applies, then that determination would lead to dismissal
of the case. However, if the Fourth Circuit were to affirm, then
the case would be in the same position as it is now, and the case
would proceed to trial. Second, mere uncertainty as to whether the
UETA applies to Senex and whether the firm is a debt collector does
not necessitate a complex issue that makes the case more difficult
to settle or more likely to be tried. Indeed, with discovery, the
answers to said inquiries would become much more apparent. Third,
litigating the interlocutory appeal would be similar in cost to
proceeding with discovery. Considering all the circumstances, Judge
Urbanski finds that Senex has not met its burden of showing that
granting interlocutory appeal would materially advance litigation.

III. Conclusion

Judge Urbanski is mindful of the Fourth Circuit's admonition in
Fannin v. CSX Transp., Inc., 873 F.2d 1438, 1989 WL 42583, at *2
(4th Cir. 1989) that interlocutory review is an extraordinary
remedy that is not to be granted lightly. Furthermore, he is
heedful that it must "protect the integrity of the congressional
policy against piecemeal appeals." As such, having weighed all the
factors, he concludes that interlocutory appeal is an inappropriate
remedy in the case, and he denied Senex's motion. Because Judge
Urbanski denied interlocutory appeal, Senex's motion to stay
proceedings pending appeal is denied as moot.

An appropriate order will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 7, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2yu6nj5m from Leagle.com.


SENTINEL INSURANCE: Fancy's Bid to File Consolidated Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, FANCY THAT! BISTRO & CATERING, LLC, Plaintiff v.
SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED AND THE HARTFORD, FINANCIAL
SERVICES GROUP INC. d/b/a THE HARTFORD, Defendants. BLACK MAGIC,
LLC d/b/a BLACK MAGIC CAFE, Plaintiff v. THE HARTFORD FINANCIAL
SERVICES GROUP, INC. and TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants, Case Nos. 3:20-2382-BHH, 2:20-1743-BHH (D.S.C.), Judge
Bruce Howe Hendricks of the U.S. District Court for the South
Carolina, Columbia Division, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to File
Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

The matter came before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion. The
Court denied a previous motion to consolidate these two actions
without prejudice on grounds that "the advantages, in terms of
judicial economy, that could be gained by consolidation would not
be adequately realized without the filing of a Consolidated Class
Action Complaint." It explained that "if the Plaintiffs Without
Prejudice are prepared to file a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint, they will be permitted to renew their request for
consolidation."

The Plaintiffs have now moved for an order permitting the filing of
a Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

Having considered the Plaintiffs' Motion and Memorandum in support
thereof, and noting that the Defendants do not oppose permitting
Plaintiffs to file their proposed Consolidated Class Action
Complaint, Judge Hendricks granted the Plaintiffs' Motion.

No later than seven business days after the Order is entered, the
Plaintiffs will file the proposed Consolidated Class Action
Complaint as an amended complaint in both actions. Upon the filing
of the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, the actions will be
consolidated under Rule 42(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for purposes of further proceedings.

Black Magic, LLC v. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., et
al., No. 2:20-1743-BHH, will be designated the lead action
following consolidation, and all future filings in either case will
be made in that action.

The Defendants may file a consolidated response to the Consolidated
Class Action Complaint no later than 30 days after the matters are
consolidated.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 7, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bddndr2y from Leagle.com.


SHAH & SHAH: Faces Blake Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
THERESE BLAKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHAH & SHAH, LLC and SYED KHALID M. SHAH,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00066 (S.D. Ill., January 14, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection 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 was employed as a delivery driver and then as a store
manager by the Defendants in Belleville, Illinois from
approximately June 2020 until January 2021.

Shah & Shah, LLC, doing business as Pizza World, is a restaurant
owner and operator, with corporate headquarters located in Swansea,
Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
         James B. Zouras, Esq.
         Anna M. Ceragioli, Esq.
         STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
         100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (312) 233-1550
         Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
         E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                 jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                 aceragioli@stephanzouras.com

                 - and –

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

SHERATON LLC: Hotel Staff Suit Claims Minimum Wage Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Doris Green and Christina Casero, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The Sheraton, LLC and NFNY
Hotel Management LLC, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00046 (W.D. N.Y.,
January 14, 2022) seek to recover all penalties and other damages
for failure to provide accurate, itemized wage statements under New
York state law including questionable practices of gratuity systems
and payroll policies that have deprived Plaintiffs of their
lawfully earned wages.

Sheraton provides licensing and/or franchise agreements to
management companies such as NFNY Hotel Management LLC to operate
under the "Sheraton" brand. NFNY Hotel Management LLC operates a
number of hotels, restaurants, and resorts throughout New York,
including the Sheraton Niagara Falls. Green was employed by
Defendants at the Sheraton Niagara Falls as a bartender and
occasional server, front desk worker, and occasionally as an
in-room service worker from approximately May 2019 to August 2020.
Casero was employed as a food and beverage server by Defendants at
the Sheraton Niagara Falls from approximately May 2016 to August
2020.

The Defendants allegedly failed to accurately or timely provide
Plaintiffs with their true rates of pay and the proper tip credits
to be taken against the minimum wage. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Harvey P. Sanders, Esq.
      SANDERS & SANDERS
      401 Maryvale Drive
      Cheektowaga, NY 14225
      Tel: (716) 839-1489
      Email: harvey.sanders@wnyemploymentlaw.com

             - and -

      Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
      Ori Edelstein, Esq.
      Kristabel Sandoval, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
      2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
      Emeryville, California 94608
      Tel: (415) 421-7100
      Fax: (415) 421-7105
      Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
             oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
             ksandoval@schneiderwallace.com

SIMM ASSOCIATES: Kornfeld Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Simm Associates of
Delaware. The case is styled as Charles Kornfeld, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Simm
Associates of Delaware also known as: Simm Associates, Inc., Case
No. 2:22-cv-00209 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2022).

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

SIMM Associates -- https://www.simmassociates.com/ -- is a family
owned and operated financial services business assisting clients as
accounts receivable management specialists.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Phone: (516) 668-6945
          Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


SMITH & WESSON BRANDS: Stallworth Sues Over Defective Shotguns
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quintel Stallworth, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2022LA000038 (Ill. Cir., January 12, 2022)
seeks to recover actual damages, statutory damages, attorney fees
and costs for breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of
merchantability the under various states' consumer protection
laws.

Smith & Wesson is one of the largest manufacturers, designers,
distributors, and sellers of firearms in the world, including the
M&P 12. The latter featured a shortened "bullpup" design with
pump-action loading and two independent magazine tubes chambered
for twelve gauge shotgun shells.

Stallworth alleges that M&P 12 shotguns contain a design defect
causing their barrels to crack. Smith and Wesson eventually issued
a voluntary recall of all of its M&P 12 shotguns on October 18,
2021. Stallworth claims that Smith and Wesson merely offered to
repair users' M&P 12 shotguns, with no option to receive a refund.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
      Chandne Jawanda, Esq.
      Steven R. Beckham, Esq.
      MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
      55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl.
      Chicago, Illinois 60601
      Tel: (312) 893-7002
      Fax: (312) 275-7895
      Email: eturin@mcgpc.com
             cjawanda@mcgpc.com
             sbeckham@mcgpc.com


SOMEONE CARES: White Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
HAKEEM WHITE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
SOMEONE CARES INC. OF ATLANTA, RONNIE E. BASS, and WINSTON LIBURD,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00141-ELR (N.D. Ga., Jan. 12, 2022) alleges that
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by forcing their
employees to work overtime without properly paying all compensation
due, thus depriving them of rightful compensation for their work
that Defendants are legally obligated to pay.

Plaintiff White worked for the Defendants as a Program
Manager/Outreach Coordinator in Atlanta, Georgia. The Defendants
allegedly denied Plaintiff the compensation he is due under the
FLSA. The Defendants damaged Plaintiff by this illegal policy or
practice.

The Plaintiff performed outreach services for Defendants, assisting
community members in the greater Atlanta, Georgia area. He
performed various services for Defendants’ clients, including but
not limited engaging, educating, and providing health services for
individuals in need of sexual health primary care, HIV testing, STD
screening and treatment, intensive mental health, and substance
abuse counseling/treatment. He regularly worked over 40 hours per
week without receiving all the compensation he was due under the
FLSA, the lawsuit says.

Someone Cares engages, educates and empowers individuals living
with HIV/AIDS and other health disparities to achieve better health
outcomes. Defendant Ronnie Bass is the Chief Executive Officer of
Someone Cares. Defendant Winston Liburd is the Chief Financial
Officer of the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Mills, Esq.
          MICHAEL A. MILLS, P.C.
          1349 W. Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 1995
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 815-9220
          Facsimile: (678) 317-0956
          E-mail: mike@millslegal.net

               - and -

          Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
          Hayden N. Wyatt, Esq.
          Katie R. Caminati, Esq.
          BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC
          Four Oaks Place
          1360 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2300
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 425-7100
          Facsimile: (713) 425-7101
          E-mail: rcowan@bchlaw.com
                  hwyatt@bchlaw.com
                  kcaminati@bchlaw.com

STRADA SERVICES: Underpays Electrical Installers, Thomer Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
KIRK THOMER, individually and On behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STRADA SERVICES INC. and STRADA SERVICES LLC
d/b/a STRADA ELECTRIC and SECURITY, and JOSEPH STRADA, Defendants,
Case No. 6:22-cv-00075 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 12, 2022) is brought by the
Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act against the
Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing
to pay overtime compensation and a premium for all hours worked
over 40 each week, and failing to maintain and preserve accurate
and true records of all hours worked.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from approximately June 14,
2021, as an apprentice or trainee, and then in approximately
mid-July 2021, Plaintiff was promoted to a piece rate paid
electrical installer and worked as such until October 22, 2021.

The Corporate Defendants provide electrical contracting
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
          FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
          6916 W. Linebaugh Ave, #101
          Tampa, FL 33625
          Telephone: (813) 639-9366
          Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
          E-mail: Mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com

SURECARE AT HOME: McGuire Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------
Ginger McGuire, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The G&L Family of Caregivers, LLC, Nancy
Larkin and Stewart Bruce Gratland, Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-00107
(S.D. Tex., January 12, 2022) seeks to recover back wages,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

The Defendants operate as "Surecare At Home," a home health care
and nurse care management company where McGuire worked as a
caregiver, providing in-home senior care. She claims to have
regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week without being
paid at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular
rate. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      Curt Hesse, Esq.
      Aimara Flores, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      Lyric Centre
      440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
      Houston, Texas 77002-1063
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
      Email: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
             curt@mooreandassociates.net
             aimara@mooreandassociates.net

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Poston Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Shelby Poston, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Syracuse University, Case No.
10084/2021, was removed from the New York State Supreme Court -
Onondaga County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York on Dec. 30, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-01386-TJM-TWD to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Syracuse University -- https://www.syracuse.edu/ -- is a private
research university in Syracuse, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue-5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Phone: (412) 322-9243
          Email: Gary@lcllp.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Phone: (516) 873-9550
          Email: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
                 mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com

               - and -

          John C. Cherundolo, Esq.
          CHERUNDOLO LAW FIRM, PLLC
          AXA Tower One 15th Floor
          100 Madison Street
          Syracuse, NY 13202
          Phone: (315) 449-9500
          Fax: (315) 449-9804
          Email: jcherundolo@cherundololawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David DeBruin, Esq.
          JENNER, BLOCK LAW FIRM-DC Office
          1099 New York Avenue, Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20001
          Phone: (202) 639-6000
          Email: ddebruin@jenner.com


T-MOBILE USA: Nyazee Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Naimatullah Nyazee, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. T-Mobile USA Inc., Case No.
4:21-cv-01517, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri on Jan. 13, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-00020-BCW to the
proceeding.

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

T-Mobile US, Inc. -- https://www.t-mobile.com/ -- is an American
wireless network operator partly owned by German telecommunications
company Deutsche Telekom, which has a 43.2% share.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
          WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK
          11500 Olive Boulevard, Suite 133
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Phone: (314) 997-9150
          Fax: (314) 997-9170
          Email: attorneymp@hotmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Timothy J Ahrenhoersterbaeumer, Esq.
          SPENCER FANE LLP-StLouis
          1 North Brentwood Boulevard, Suite 1000
          St. Louis, MO 63105-3925
          Phone: (314) 863-7733
          Fax: (314) 862-4656
          Email: tahrenhoersterbaeumer@spencerfane.com


TAMPA HYDE: Faces Sawicki Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
MADISSON SAWICKI, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TAMPA HYDE PARK CAFE' PROPERTIES, LLC, PETER
HANNOUCHE, Individually, CHRISTOPHER SCOTT Individually, and THOMAS
ORTIZ, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-00102 (M.D. Fla.,
Jan. 12, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants appropriate
minimum wages, back pay, unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs incurred in the prosecution of the claim under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Florida Statute Chapter 448.08.

Plaintiff began her employment on September 3, 2021. On October 26,
2021, Plaintiff was constructively discharged after objecting to
the unlawful pay deductions.

Tampa Hyde Park Cafe' Properties, LLC is a Florida profit
corporation licensed and authorized to conduct business in the
State of Florida and doing business within Hillsborough
County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          Christopher D. Gray, Esq.
          FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC
          16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
          Lutz, FL 33558
          Telephone: (727) 220-4000
          Facsimile: (727) 483-7942
          E-mail: wolfgang@fgbolaw.com
                  chris@fgbolaw.com

TEXIAN GROUP: Hardin Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Hardin, on of behalf herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. The Texian Group, Inc. Defendant, Case No.
22-cv-00111 (S.D. Tex., January 12, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime and other damages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Texian is a premier multi-discipline pipeline field services firm
specializing in pipeline inspection and safety inspection where it
services include construction, pipeline, tank, and specialized
inspection. Hardin worked as a coating inspector and utility
inspector from approximately May 2016 through August 2020. He
claims to be paid a day rate with no overtime compensation and was
misclassified as an independent contractor. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Rochelle D. Prins, Esq.
      JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 352-1100
      Fax: (713) 352-3300
      Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
             adunlap@mybackwages.com
             rprins@mybackwages.com

             - and -

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


TOSHIBA CORP: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Stoyas Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, 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, Plaintiffs v. TOSHIBA CORPORATION, a Japanese
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-04194 DDP-JC (C.D. Cal.),
Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.

I. Background

Named Plaintiffs Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund ("AIPTF")
and New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund
("NETTPF") are pension funds formed for the benefit of auto
industry and trucking workers. Defendant Toshiba is a "worldwide
enterprise that engages in the research development, manufacture,
construction, and sale of a wide variety of electronic and energy
products and services," headquartered in Tokyo, Japan.

On June 4, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a putative securities class
action against the Defendant, alleging violations of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and the Financial
Instruments & Exchange Act of Japan ("JFIEA") in connection with
allegations of accounting fraud and misrepresentations.

The Plaintiffs allege that on March 23, 2015, AIPTF purchased
36,000 shares of unsponsored Toshiba American Depositary Receipts
("AD Rs") "through transactions on the OTC Market2 in the United
States thereby acquiring an ownership interest in 216,000 shares of
common stock issued and authorized for sale by Toshiba." They
further assert that between April 1, 2015 and Oct. 27, 2015,
NETTIPF purchased 343,000 shares of Toshiba's common stock.
According to the Plaintiffs, both AIPTF and NETTIPF "utilized the
services of professional investment managers to direct the purchase
and sale of Toshiba securities on their behalf."

In their motion for class certification, the Plaintiffs indicate
that AIPTF accessed the OTC market through AIPTF's investment
manager, ClearBridge Advisors LLC. On March 20, 2015, Clearbridge
placed a buy order for unsponsored ADRs in New York, through its
broker, Barclays Capital LE, also located in New York. Barclays
thereafter "purchased the ADRs for AITPF on the OTC Market using
the OTC Link trading platform." On March 26, 2015, AIPTF paid for
the ADRs by transferring $922,057.20 to Barclays from its custodian
bank in New York.

The Plaintiffs now bring a motion to certify a class of securities
purchasers under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), defined
as: "All persons who purchased securities listed under the ticker
symbols TOSYY or TOSBF between May 8, 2012 and Nov. 12, 2015 using
the facilities of the OTC Market (American Securities Purchasers);
and All citizens and residents of the United States who purchased
shares of Toshiba 6502 common stock between May 8, 2012 and Nov.
12, 2015 (6502 Purchasers)."

AIPTF and NETTPF bring JFIEA claims on behalf of all proposed class
members. AIPTF also brings claims under the Exchange Act on behalf
of the American Securities Purchasers.

II. Discussion

A. The Exchange Act Claims

The Defendant argues that AIPTF has not satisfied the typicality
requirement under Rule 23(a). To satisfy the typicality
requirement, "the claims or defenses of the representative parties"
must be "typical of the claims or defenses of the class." The
Defendant argues that Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the typicality
requirement with respect to the American Securities Purchasers'
Exchange Act claims, because, unlike the members of the proposed
class, AIPTF did not acquire "Toshiba securities" in the United
States.

The Plaintiffs argue that AIPTF incurred irrevocable liability in
the United States, and thus acquired the ADRs in a domestic
transaction, "when Barclays executed its ADR order."  Specifically,
they contend that AIPTF could no longer cancel the transaction when
Clearbridge agreed to the terms of the buy order -- namely, the
foreign conversion rate, commission equivalent, and price of the
ADRs.

Judge Pregerson concludes that AIPTF purchased the ADRs in a
foreign transaction. Because the Plaintiffs cannot establish that
AIPTF purchased the ADRs in a domestic transaction, the Plaintiffs
also cannot satisfy the typicality requirement. Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification as to their Exchange Act
claims will be denied.

B. The JFIEA Claims

The Defendant further argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to
satisfy Rule 23(a)'s typicality and adequacy requirements with
respect to their JFIEA claims. First, it argues that neither AIPTF
nor NETTIPF has statutory standing under Article 21-2 of the JFEIA,
thus extinguishing any legal interest they would have to pursue
JFIEA claims on behalf of the 6502 Purchasers. It is the
Plaintiffs' position that the question of whether they are listed
as named shareholders of Toshiba common stock in Toshiba's
book-entry transfer institution is irrelevant, because investors
"continue to exercise their legal rights as investors and
shareholders."

Next, and in addition to its arguments about the Plaintiffs'
standing, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' interests
conflict with those of the 6502 Purchasers because they have not
set forth all methods for calculating damages under the JFIEA. The
Plaintiffs dispute whether this methodology is pertinent to the
JFIEA claims asserted in the case.

Judge Pregerson holds that these potentially dispositive questions
of law are more appropriate to a motion for summary judgment rather
than a class certification motion. Hence, the Plaintiffs' Motion
will therefore be denied, without prejudice, with respect to the
JFIEA claims.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons he stated, Judge Pregerson denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification regarding the Exchange Act claims.
He further denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
regarding the JFIEA claims, without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 7, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3hvj8w5m from Leagle.com.


TRUMPET BEHAVIORAL: Johnson's Claim for UCL Violation Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JASMINE JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs v. TRUMPET
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-03221-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the eighth cause of action without
prejudice to the Plaintiffs' ability to seek leave to re-plead it
later.

Background

The Plaintiffs in the putative wage-and-hour class action seek,
among other remedies, equitable restitution under California's
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"). In their Second Amended Complaint
("SAC"), Plaintiffs Jasmine Johnson, Jade Khodar-Fisher, and
Brittnie Boruff -- who worked for the Defendants as physical
therapists -- allege that the Defendants committed a series of
labor law violations, including requiring them to perform pre- and
post-shift work without pay, rounding down the hours they worked,
failing to provide meal and rest breaks, failing to reimburse them
for business expenses, and other actions.

Judge Orrick previously granted two motions to dismiss with leave
to amend. In the first order, he explained that the original
complaint was "conclusory and pleads only recitations or
paraphrasing of the statutory requirements devoid of meaningful
factual allegations." In the second order, he denied the motion to
dismiss one of the two challenged claims. But Judge Orrick
dismissed the Plaintiffs' eighth cause of action, which alleged a
violation of the UCL. He explained that the Plaintiffs were
required to, but did not, plead that they lacked adequate remedies
at law and that they had not shown they possessed standing to
pursue injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs filed the SAC on Sept. 27,
2021, and the Defendants now move to dismiss only the UCL claim.

Discussion

The Defendants argue that, because the Plaintiffs' UCL claim seeks
only equitable remedies, the Plaintiffs must plead that they lack
adequate remedies at law under Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020). According to them, the Plaintiffs
must not only plead that they lack remedies, they must plead facts
demonstrating that to be true.

The Plaintiffs respond that making this determination would be
premature at this early stage. They claim that it is sufficient to
plead, as they do, that they seek equitable remedies to the extent
their remedies at law are ultimately inadequate. And the Defendants
reply that this type of conditional pleading is insufficient.

The Defendants make two arguments for dismissal: (1) that the
Plaintiffs must plead facts illustrating why they lack adequate
remedies at law and (2) that the Plaintiffs cannot meet Sonner's
rule with this form of conditional pleading. The Plaintiffs respond
that "the main difference between the present case and Sonner is
that while Sonner was decided on the pleadings, it was also decided
at the eve of trial when discovery had already completed."

Judge Orrick says it is true; as he has have previously observed,
"the facts of Sonner -- where the plaintiff on the eve of trial
sought to secure a bench trial under the UCL by foregoing CLRA
damages claims that had to be tried to a jury -- are inapposite
considering the allegations and the posture of" a complaint this
early in the case. And because Sonner was decided at a later
posture, he agrees with the Plaintiffs that, if a plaintiff pleads
that she lacks an adequate legal remedy, Sonner will rarely (if
ever) require more this early in the case. But, despite these
differences in posture between Sonner and a case like this, he and
other judges have explained that one aspect of Sonner's reasoning
is purely about pleading requirements and does not turn on its more
developed posture. That is the only requirement he applies in the
Order.

Relatedly, the Plaintiffs argue that it is too early to determine
whether their legal remedies will ultimately be adequate, so it
makes sense to defer this determination. That argument has
significant force, says Judge Orrick, but the Plaintiffs' objection
is to Sonner itself, which he is bound by.

If, later in the case, the Plaintiffs conclude that they do lack
adequate remedies at law, they should move for leave to amend to
re-plead the UCL claim. For the reasons explained, Judge Orrick
holds that it would not be surprising for a more developed record
to reveal the inadequacy of legal remedies that is less apparent
today. He would be inclined to grant leave to amend if the
Plaintiffs can make this allegation, but because this is the third
attempt at amendment the Plaintiffs must seek leave the next time.

Conclusion

Judge Orrick concludes that the amended complaint still does not
plead that the Plaintiffs lack adequate remedies at law, again
requiring dismissal. But that dismissal is without prejudice to the
Plaintiffs' ability to seek leave to amend if they later learn that
they do lack adequate remedies at law. Therefore, he granted the
motion to dismiss the eighth cause of action without prejudice to
the Plaintiffs' ability to seek leave to re-plead it later.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 7, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3h2b5vu6 from Leagle.com.


ULTA SALON: Martinez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled EUNICE MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE,
INC. and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV45327, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on January 13, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-00292 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay all wages and minimum wages, failure
to provide COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave, failure to
provide suitable seating, failure to reimburse business expenses,
and unfair business practices.

Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. is an operator of beauty
stores across the U.S., headquartered in Bolingbrook, Illinois.
[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Jon D. Meer, Esq.
         Leo Q. Li, Esq.
         Sofya Perelshteyn, Esq.
         Justin J. Jackson, Esq.
         SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
         2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
         Telephone: (310) 277-7200
         Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
         E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com
                 lli@seyfarth.com
                 sperelshteyn@seyfarth.com
                 jujackson@seyfarth.com

UNITED AIRLINES: Ward Appeals Summary Judgment in Labor Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs CHARLES E. WARD, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled CHARLES E. WARD, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-03423-LB, in the U.S. District Court for Northern California,
San Francisco.

The case was removed from the California Superior Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on June 14,
2019.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are a retired pilot and
two flight attendants who -- on behalf of themselves and putative
classes -- sued their employer, claiming that United violates
California law by how it pays flight crew on "reserve" status.
Reserve status means that the pilots and flight attendants are on
call for flight assignments (in contrast to other flight crew who
bid for and fly on assigned schedules).

Employment and payment for all pilots and flight attendants are
governed by negotiated provisions in collective bargaining
agreements.  The CBAs compensate flight crew on reserve status
based on the higher of (1) the time spent on flight related
activity or (2) a minimum guarantee.

The Plaintiffs contend that this is illegal borrowing from flight
time to compensate for on-call reserve time, in violation of the
"no-borrowing" rule in Oman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. 9 Cal. 5th
762, 781 (2020). They thus sued for recovery of allegedly unpaid
wages based on (1) unjust enrichment (on a theory of quantum
meruit/quasi-contract) for uncompensated hours (calculated by
multiplying the hourly rate by the unpaid hours on on-call reserve
status) (claim one), (2) unpaid minimum wages (for all hours on
reserve status) under the California Labor Code (claim two), (3)
unpaid contractual wages under the Labor Code (claim three), and
(4) restitution of unpaid wages for unfair business practices
(predicated on the Labor Code violations) under California's Unfair
Competition Law (claim five). The complaint has a derivative claim
for waiting-time penalties under the Labor Code (claim four) and
claims for penalties under California's Private Attorneys General
Act (PAGA) predicated on the minimum-wage, unpaid-contractual-wage,
and waiting-time claims (claims six, seven, and eight).

On December 20, 2021, Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order denying
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granting Defendant's
motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Charles Ward, et al. v. United
Airlines, Inc., Case No. 22-15043, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 12, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Paul Bradley, Felicia Vidrio and Charles E. Ward
Mediation Questionnaire was due January 19, 2022;

   -- Appellants Paul Bradley, Felicia Vidrio and Charles E. Ward
opening brief is due on March 14, 2022;

   -- Appellee United Airlines, Inc. answering brief is due on
April 14, 2022; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants CHARLES E. WARD, FELICIA VIDRIO, and PAUL
BRADLEY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Stuart Bruce Esner, Esq.
          ESNER, CHANG & BOYER
          234 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 975
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 535-9860

Defendant-Appellee UNITED AIRLINES, INC. is represented by:

          Adam P. KohSweeney, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 984-8700
          E-mail: akohsweeney@omm.com  

               - and -

          Robert Alan Siegel, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
          400 S Hope Street, 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6005
          E-mail: rsiegel@omm.com

UNITED PARCEL: Wynn Files FCRA Suit in N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Parcel
Service, Inc. The case is styled as Brittany Wynn, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. United Parcel Service,
Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-10029-CRB (N.D. Cal., Dec. 28, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

United Parcel Service -- https://www.ups.com/ -- is an American
multinational shipping & receiving and supply chain management
company founded in 1907.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Nolan E. Dilts, Esq.
          William Matthew Pao, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9665 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 430
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2446
          Phone: 310-888-7771
          Fax: 310-888-0109
          Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                 nolan@setarehlaw.com
                 william@setarehlaw.com


UNITED STATES: Appeals Final Judgment in Ramirez Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., filed an appeal
from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled WILMER GARCIA
RAMIREZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00508-RC, in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

The case concerns violations of the Administrative Procedure Act
("APA") by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in
connection with ICE's processing of 18-year-olds who came to the
United States as unaccompanied alien children ("UACs"). The
Plaintiffs -- immigrant teenagers who entered the United States as
UACs -- bring the class action against ICE, the Acting Director of
ICE, the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), and the Secretary
of Homeland Security.

When minors lacking immigration status arrive in the United States
without parents or other guardians, they are designated UACs and
are placed in the custody of the Department of Health and Human
Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement. If they are still in
custody on their 18th birthday, the now-adult immigrants "age out"
of HHS and ORR custody and are transferred to ICE custody.
Immigrants who undergo this transfer from HHS to ORR are referred
to by the parties as "age-outs," and a subset of these age-outs
make up the plaintiff class in the case.

APA Section 1232(c)(2)(B) requires that when ICE receives custody
of an age-out it "consider placement in the least restrictive
setting available after taking into account the alien's danger to
self, danger to the community, and risk of flight." The Court has
found Defendants liable for failing to follow the requirements of
the statute and found in the Plaintiffs' favor with regard to both
counts of their Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiffs originally filed the lawsuit on March 5, 2018. They
amended their complaint later that same month. The Court went on to
grant the Plaintiffs' subsequent motion for class certification,
allowing them to proceed on behalf of a class defined as: "All
former unaccompanied alien children who are detained or will be
detained by ICE after being transferred by ORR because they have
turned 18 years of age and as to whom ICE did not consider
placement in the least restrictive setting available, including
alternatives to detention programs, as required by 8 U.S.C. Section
1232(c)(2)(B)."

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on October 4, 2021, Judge
Rudolph Contreras of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia:

    (i) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion
        for Entry of Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction; and

   (ii) denied as moot the Defendants' Motion to Issue Interim
        Guidance.

The Defendants now seek a review of Judge Contreras' order. They
also request to re-examine the November 10, 2021 Order, amending
final judgment as to motion for permanent injunction.

The appellate case is captioned as Wilmer Garcia Ramirez, et al. v.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., Case No. 22-5002, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, filed on January 11, 2022.

Defendants-Appellants Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Tae
Johnson, Director of ICE; United States Department of Homeland
Security; and Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland
Security, are represented by:

          DOJ Appellate Counsel
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 514-2000

Plaintiffs-Appellees Wilmer Garcia Ramirez, Sulma Hernandez Alfaro,
and Ana P., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
are represented by:

          Gianna Borroto, Esq.
          AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL
          1331 G Street, NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20005

               - and -

          Stephen R. Patton, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 North LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862-2000
          E-mail: stephen.patton@kirkland.com

VALVE CORP: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in G.G. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, G.G., et al., Plaintiffs v. VALVE CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. C16-1941JLR (W.D. Wash.), Judge James L. Robart
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle, granted Valve's motion for summary judgment.

I. Background

In their sole remaining claim in the action, the Plaintiffs allege
that Valve supported illegal gambling in its popular video games
such as Counter Strike: Global Offensive ("CS:GO") by embedding
within them a "lootbox" feature that, they assert, "simulated an
online slot machine and effectively constituted a gambling feature
in what otherwise appeared to be normal video games." The lootbox
feature enables players to spend money on virtual keys to open
virtual weapons cases containing virtual guns and knives, referred
to as "skins," which have a variety of different looks and textures
and are of different levels of rarity. Players can then trade or
sell the skins using Valve's online Steam Marketplace.

The Plaintiffs allowed their minor children to use their bank
accounts, credit cards, and PayPal accounts to play CS:GO and,
unknown to them, the children used those accounts to purchase keys
to open weapons cases. They assert that Valve's failure to disclose
information about its lootbox feature violated the Washington
Consumer Protection Act ("CPA"), ch. 19.86 RCW.

The Plaintiffs originally filed their complaint in King County
Superior Court on Nov. 29, 2016. Each of the Plaintiffs alleged
that their minor children purchased CS:GO from Valve, purchased
skins, "gambled the skins and lost money," and knew that they could
"cash out the skins for real money prior to losing them while
gambling." Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs alleged
state-law claims on behalf of themselves and their minor children
based on skins gambling for violation of the CPA; recovery of money
lost at gambling under RCW 4.24.070; violation of the Washington
Gambling Act of 1973, RCW 9.46, et seq. ("Gambling Act"); unjust
enrichment; negligence; and declaratory relief.

On Dec. 20, 2016, Valve removed the action to the Court, and on
Feb. 13, 2017, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour denied the
Plaintiffs' motion to remand. On April 3, 2017, Judge Coughenour
granted Valve's motion to compel arbitration of the claims brought
by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and their minor children and
stayed the case pending arbitration. The Court upheld the
enforceability of the arbitration clause within the Steam
Subscriber Agreement that the Plaintiffs' children agreed to when
they registered their Steam accounts and found that the claims of
both the Plaintiffs and their children were within the scope of
that arbitration clause.

The claims of the Plaintiffs and their children proceeded to
arbitration with the American Arbitration Association ("AAA"). In
both arbitrations, the arbitrators ruled in favor of Valve on all
of the claims brought by the Plaintiffs and their children.

After the AAA closed the arbitrations, Valve moved Judge Coughenour
to lift the stay and dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice.
The Court granted Valve's request to lift the stay, denied the
Plaintiffs' renewed challenge to the arbitrability of their claims,
and denied the Plaintiffs' request to set aside the arbitrators'
awards. It granted Valve's request to dismiss all of Plaintiffs'
claims with prejudice.

The Plaintiffs appealed the Court's order and judgment. On April 3,
2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and
vacated in part the Court's order and judgment. It remanded the
claims the Plaintiffs brought in their individual capacities, "to
the extent they are viable." It affirmed, however, the Court's
judgment dismissing the claims that Plaintiffs brought on behalf of
their children.

After remand, the Plaintiffs amended their complaint and added
allegations relating to Valve's lootbox feature. The amended
complaint alleged claims based on both "skins gambling" and
"lootbox gambling" for violation of the CPA, violation of the
Gambling Act, unjust enrichment, negligence, and injunctive relief,
on behalf of the parents of the minor children whose claims were
dismissed by the Court in its March 26, 2019 order and a proposed
class of all similarly situated persons.

The Plaintiffs proposed the following class definition: All persons
in the United States who are parents/guardians of a minor child who
provided funds to their minor child(ren) for the purchase of Skins
and/or Keys for the games [CS:GO], Dota 2 and Team Fortress 2.

On Oct. 1, 2020, Valve moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended
complaint in its entirety. The Court granted Valve's motion in
part. Specifically, it (1) denied Valve's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' CPA claims based on alleged support for lootbox
gambling because those claims were not raised in the parties'
arbitrations; (2) dismissed without prejudice and with leave to
amend the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment and negligence claims based
on alleged support of lootbox gambling; and (3) dismissed with
prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims for violation of the Gambling Act
and all claims based on alleged support of skins gambling.

Although the Court granted leave to amend, the Plaintiffs chose not
to amend their complaint. Thus, the only claim remaining is the
Plaintiffs' CPA claim based on Valve's alleged support for lootbox
gambling.

The Plaintiffs moved for class certification on Sept. 28, 2021. On
Oct. 21, 2021, Valve filed the instant motion for summary
judgment.

II. Analysis

The moving party bears the initial burden of showing there is no
genuine dispute of material fact and that it is entitled to prevail
as a matter of law. If the moving party does not bear the ultimate
burden of persuasion at trial, it can show the absence of such a
dispute in two ways: (1) by producing evidence negating an
essential element of the nonmoving party's case, or (2) by showing
that the nonmoving party lacks evidence of an essential element of
its claim or defense. If the moving party meets its burden of
production, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to
identify specific facts from which a factfinder could reasonably
find in the nonmoving party's favor.

B. Claims Based on Dota 2 and Team Fortress 2

Valve argues that the Plaintiffs' claims, if any, relating to
alleged lootbox gambling in its games Dota 2 and Team Fortress 2
must be dismissed because the undisputed evidence shows that
neither Ms. Galway nor Ms. Shoss gave their children money for use
in those games. Indeed, nowhere in their amended complaint do the
Plaintiffs allege that their children played either of those games;
rather, they allege simply that "Skins refers not just to CS:GO
Skins but the equivalent virtual items that are things of value in
other Valve games such as Dota 2 and Team Fortress 2."

In response, the Plaintiffs offer no evidence that either of them
gave money to their children to play Dota 2 or Team Fortress 2.
Instead, they counter that whether they have standing to pursue CPA
claims based on Dota 2 and Team Fortress 2 on behalf of the
proposed class "is properly raised in the context of a motion for
class certification, not a motion for summary judgment."

Judge Robart agrees with Valve that it is entitled to summary
judgment on the Plaintiffs' CPA claims based on Dota 2 and Team
Fortress 2. He finds that none of the Plaintiffs' cited cases stand
for the proposition that a court may not consider whether the named
plaintiffs in a proposed class action have met their burden to
defeat a motion for summary judgment on claims they purport to
assert on behalf of themselves and a proposed class. Because there
is no evidence in the record that the Plaintiffs gave money to
their children to play Dota 2 and Team Fortress 2, he says, the
Plaintiffs cannot, as a matter of law, establish that they suffered
injuries to their business or property caused by Valve's conduct
with respect to those two games.

Judge Robart will grant Valve's motion for summary judgment on the
Plaintiffs' claims based on Dota 2 and Team Fortress 2 and dismiss
them with prejudice.

C. Claim Based on CS:GO

To prevail on a CPA claim, a plaintiff must show (1) an unfair or
deceptive act or practice, (2) occurring in trade or commerce, (3)
impacting the public interest, (4) injury to the plaintiff's
business or property, and (5) causation.

Valve argues that Plaintiffs cannot meet this burden because the
Plaintiffs cannot show (1) that they were injured because the funds
used for case opening belonged to the minor children rather than to
Plaintiffs; (2) assuming Plaintiffs were injured, that any act or
omission by Valve caused that injury because Plaintiffs never used
Steam, viewed Valve's website, or played CS:GO; and (3) that Valve
committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice because lootbox
opening is not "gambling" as a matter of law.

Judge Robart will grant Valve's motion because the Plaintiffs have
not met their burden to show a genuine issue of material fact
regarding the causation element of their CPA claim. He explains
that to prevail under the CPA, the Plaintiffs must show that
Valve's allegedly unfair or deceptive acts or practices proximately
caused their alleged injury. Because the Plaintiffs base their
causation theory on their reliance on Valve's misrepresentations or
omissions, Judge Robart must determine whether they have met their
burden to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding
whether they relied on Valve's misrepresentations or omissions to
their detriment.

Judge Robart first addresses the Plaintiffs' claims based on
alleged misrepresentations before turning to their claims based on
alleged omissions. He agrees with Valve that no reasonable
factfinder could find that the line items on the Plaintiffs' bank
and credit card statements were misrepresentations or omitted a
material fact because the statements accurately reflect that the
payments were made to Valve's Steam platform. Accordingly, he will
grant Valve's motion for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' CPA
claims to the extent they rely on an affirmative misrepresentation
theory.

Valve also contends that the Plaintiffs cannot prove causation
based on omissions. The Plaintiffs assert that their amended
complaint "clearly focuses on actionable omissions by Valve, i.e.,
what Valve was not representing to parents of minor children
regarding the harms and dangers of opening a loot box, rather than
what Valve was affirmatively representing to parents about its
harms and dangers -- which was nothing."

Judge Robart finds that it is undisputed that the Plaintiffs never
visited a Valve or Steam website, never used Steam, never played
CS:GO, and never saw or read any representations from Valve about
CS:GO, keys, or weapon cases. Thus, even if Valve had disclosed on
its websites, on the Steam platform, and in CS:GO "the true odds of
a loot box containing a given item and the value of various items
contained within a loot box"; "the harms and risks presented by
loot boxes"; and that Valve had embedded an alleged gambling
feature in the game (Resp. at 10), there can be no dispute that
Plaintiffs would not have seen those disclosures.

Although the Plaintiffs assert that they would not have "given
their children money to purchase keys to open Valve's loot boxes
had they known it amounted to gambling," Judge Robart finds that
they do not explain how they would have learned this information
where they never visited or used any of the websites or platforms
where Valve might have made such disclosures. He agrees with Valve
that no reasonable factfinder could find that the Plaintiffs'
decisions would have been affected by information to which they
were never exposed. Therefore, Judge Robart will grant Valve's
motion for summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' CPA claims based on
alleged omissions of material fact.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Robart granted Valve's motion for
summary judgment and dismissed the Plaintiffs' remaining claims
with prejudice. He denied as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's Jan. 7, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yf5rcckt from Leagle.com.


VIRGINIA: Pauley Appeals Dismissal of Wrongful Death Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Pauley appeals from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit
entitled Cheryl A. Pauley, on behalf of deceased biological son
Tavon Pauley, and others next-of-kin, interested, and similarly
situated, and friend of this court, et al. v. Brian Noran, Virginia
Secretary of Public Safety, subordinates, subsidiaries, et al.;
Harold W. Clarke, VDOC's Director, Subordinates, Subsidiaries, et
al.; Dr. Steve Herrick, VDOC Offender Health Services Director,
Subordinates, and medical units levels 1 to 6 subsidiaries, et al.;
Case No. 1:21-cv-00046-JPJ-PMS, in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia at Abingdon.

The Plaintiff appears to assert a claim for the wrongful death of
her son, Tavon Pauley, who died on May 5, 2019, while an inmate in
a state prison located in Virginia. She contends her son did not
receive proper medical care by prison authorities, resulting in his
death.

On November 22, 2021, Senior Judge James P. Jones entered an order
granting Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and
dismissing the case without prejudice.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Cheryl Pauley v. Brian Noran,
Case No. 22-1036, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit, filed on January 11, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Opening Brief is due on February 4, 2022; and

   -- Response brief, if any, 14 days after informal opening brief
served.

Plaintiff-Appellant CHERYL A. PAULEY, on behalf of deceased
biological son Tavon Pauley, and others next-of-kin, interested,
and similarly situated, and friend of this court, et al., appears
pro se.[BN]


WEBSTER SERVICING: Gonzales Suit Claims Pay for Pre-shift Hours
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jenniffer Gonzalez, on behalf of herself and the putative class,
Plaintiff v. Webster Servicing, LLC,, Defendant, Case No.
22-cv-00034 (E.D. Wis., December 12, 2022) seeks actual damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other relief for
willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws including alleged
contractual obligations and other appropriate rules, regulations,
statutes and ordinances.

Webster Servicing is a subsidiary of Webster Bank, N.A., a
federally chartered, national bank headquartered in Connecticut. It
operates customer service call center locations in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. It also provides customer service for HSA Bank, a
division of Webster Bank, N.A where Gonzales worked as an hourly
call center Customer Service Representative. She claims to be
uncompensated for pre-shift work such as booting the computer,
logging in to the various computer programs, servers, and
applications, and logging in to the phone systems in order to take
their first call at their scheduled shift start time prior to being
paid. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David C. Zoeller, Esq.
      Aaron J. Bibb, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
      Post Office Box 2155
      Madison, Wisconsin 53701-2155
      Telephone: (608) 257-0040
      Facsimile: (608) 256-0236
      Email: cmadden@hq-law.com
             abibb@hq-law.com

             - and -

      Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
      Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
      Saint Paul, MN 55101
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Fax: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
              zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com

WELLS FARGO: Faces Stubbs ERISA Suit Over Improper COBRA Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
MAYLAND RENE STUBBS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 8:22-cv-00104 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 12, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's failure to provide Plaintiff and the putative class
members a notice under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) that complies with the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The Defendant, the plan sponsor and plan administrator of the Wells
Fargo & Company Health Plan, has repeatedly violated ERISA by
allegedly failing to provide participants and beneficiaries in the
Plan with adequate notice, as prescribed by COBRA, of their right
to continue their health insurance coverage following an occurrence
of a "qualifying event" as defined by the statute.

The lawsuit asserts that the Defendant's notice includes threats of
criminal penalties and Internal Revenue Service fines.  According
to the lawsuit, the Defendant fails to provide a single clarifying
example and/or illustration demonstrating how or why plan
participants risk criminal penalties and/or IRS fines for
submitting even incomplete information.

As a result of these alleged violations, which threaten Class
Members' ability to maintain their health coverage, Plaintiff seeks
statutory penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses, and other appropriate relief as set forth herein and
provided by law.

Wells Fargo & Company is an American multinational financial
services company with corporate headquarters in San Francisco,
California, operational headquarters in Manhattan, and managerial
offices throughout the United States and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com

WELLS FARGO: Urista CCCRAA Suit Moved From S.D. to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSE URISTA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY and WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A., Case No. 3:20-cv-01689, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on January
13, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:22-cv-00227-KAW to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, the California
Rosenthal Act, and the California's Unfair Competition Law.

Wells Fargo & Company is a financial services company,
headquartered in San Francisco, California.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a banking firm, headquartered in South
Dakota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:          
         
         Ahren A. Tiller, Esq.
         BLC LAW CENTER, APC
         1230 Columbia St., Ste. 1100
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 894-8831
         Facsimile: (866) 444-7026
         E-mail: ahren.tiller@blc-sd.com


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 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 ***