/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220301.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, March 1, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 37

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Faces Charges of Hazardous Chemical Waste Exposure
3M COMPANY: Johnson Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Lenzi Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Toxic Waste Disposal Charge Shelved Pending Mediation
77 GRANDVILLE: Court Refuses to Approve Hodges' Revised Settlement

ACE GATHERING: Escobedo Sues Over Crude Haulers' Unpaid Overtime
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Ruling on Versetto Settlement Pending
ALL STAR: Hamer Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Production Workers
ALPHA AND OMEGA: Gray's Securities Class Action Dismissed
ANCESTRY.COM: Uses Personal Info to Promote Website, Fry Suit Says

ARTHUR SCHUMAN: Salinas Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Practices
ATRIA SENIOR: Stickles' Bid to Reconsider Class Period Denied
ATTAIN INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BAGELWORKS INC: Hernandez Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Secure Public Benefits, Eggiman Suit Says

BARBIER SECURITY: Massey Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BATH & BODY: Can Compel Individual Arbitration in Holman Wage Suit
BELL FLAVORS: Associated Files Complaint for Declaratory Judgment
BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Appeals Mishal Securities Suit Ruling
BODHI LEAF: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

BOYERTOWN AREA: Class Suit Filed in E.D. Pennsylvania
BP EXPLORATION: Court Denies CTEH's Bid to Quash in Culliver Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Faces Securities Suit Over Cancer Meds Report
CAER INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CAKOR RESTAURANT: Black Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Bartenders

CAMOLOTS1503 INC: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CANOPY GROWTH: To Settle Securities Suit Over Reporting Oversight
CARRIER GLOBAL: Moves to Dismiss Darnis' Amended Complaint
CELGENE CORP: Securities Suit Over Drug Issues Dismissed
CELGENE CORP: Settlement of Generic Drug Anti-trust Suit OK'd

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Achey Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
CHAIRS BYN: Lorenzo Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Restaurant Staff
CHAMBERLAIN UNIVERSITY: Dismissal of Class Suit Under Appeal
CHAMBERLAIN UNIVERSITY: Moves to Dismiss Johnson's Biometrics Suit
CONCENTRIX SOLUTIONS: Underpays Customer Reps, Barnett Suit Says

COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S: Strok Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
COTY INC: Court Junks Garrett-Evans Securities Suit Over P&G Deal
COTY INC: Court OKs Dismissal of Lewis Securities Suit
COTY INC: MA Pension Fund Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
COVID CARE: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

CREDIT COLLECTION: Thaller Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Debts
CVS HEALTH: Consolidated ERISA Suit Dismissed
CVS HEALTH: Faces Suits Over Omissions in SEC Filings
DECK HELMET: Mebane Files TCPA Suit in D. Maryland
DEERE & CO: Monopolizes Repair Service Market, Ferrell Suit Alleges

DIAMONDERE INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: $15.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 6
DONA CHAI: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DRIFT FREEDIVING: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EASSIST INC: Lewis Seeks OT & Minimum Wages for Billing Specialists

EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Court Dismisses Souter's 1st Amended Complaint
ELECTROMED INC: Moves to Dismiss Suit Over Data Breach Incident
EOG RESOURCES: Misclassifies Water Consultants, Brown Suit Says
ESCO LTD: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FAMILY DOLLAR: Lacy Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi

FILTERS FAST: Bid for Final OK of Settlement in Powers Suit Denied
FIRST SAVINGS: Settlement Reached Over NSF Dispute
FORD MOTOR: Court Modifies Case Schedule in Hoffman Class Suit
FRAGRANT JEWELS: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FREEMAN BODY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages Under FLSA, AMWA

FRESH MARK: McElroy Seeks Overtime Pay for Production Employees
FUNICI WELDING: Perez Sues Over Truck Drivers' Unpaid Wages
GATOS SILVER: Faces Bilinsky Suit Over 69% Drop of Stock Price
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Narrows Claims in 3rd Amended Goldstein Suit
GFL ENVIRONMENTAL: Faces Hill Suit Over Unpaid OT, Retaliation

GROWERS' CHOICE: Class Settlement in Lizarraga Suit Wins Final OK
GXO LOGISTICS: Quijano Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
HALL FERRY: Class Cert. Hearing in Tierney Continued to March 23
HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Continuance of Class Cert. Hearing Sought
HENRY THAYER: Parties Must File Joint Status Report by March 17

HG WEBER: Mattie Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, WWPCL
ILLINOIS: Kelly Seeks More Time to Respond to Class Cert. Bid
INNOVAGE HOLDING: Faces Securities Suit in D. Colo.
INSTAGRAM LLC: Dangaard Sues Over Blacklisting of AE Performers
JACKSON, MS: Roadblock Policy "Unconstitutional," Gibbs Suit Says

JACOBS ENGINEERING: Delozier Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
JODI HARPSTEAD: Court Junks Daywitt Bid for Payment of Fees & Costs
JUUL LABS: Black River Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Youth Ads
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Nebo School Suit Says
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Smyrna School Suit Says

JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Eman Schools Suit Says
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Penn Yan Says
JUUL LABS: Faces Brown Suit Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
JUUL LABS: Faces North Valley Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign
JUUL LABS: Faces Paw Paw Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign

JUUL LABS: Lake Mills Area Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: Lawrence Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Michigan
JUUL LABS: Logan Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Crisis in New Mexico
JUUL LABS: Lyle Public School Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Minn.
JUUL LABS: Madison-Oneida Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic

JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Deerfield Community Claims
JUUL LABS: Owosso Suit Claims E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth in Mich.
JUUL LABS: Red Clay Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic in Del.
JUUL LABS: Saddleback Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Cal.
JUUL LABS: South Portland Suit Claims E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth

JUUL LABS: Sulphur Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Cal.
JUUL LABS: Vallivue Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis in Idaho
KIA MOTORS: Filing of Third Amended Class Action Complaint OK'd
KODIAK CAKES: Court Confirms Settlement in Stewart Class Suit
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Griffin Suit Moved From S.D. Ala. to W.D. Pa.

KRIGER LAW: Court Sets Hearing Date to Spread 9th Cir. Mandate
KRYSTAL CO: Laliberte Seeks to Certify FLSA Laborer Collective
L'OREAL USA: Eshelby Sues Over Mislabeled Beauty Products
LB PIZZA: Acosta Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
LIBERTY PERSONAL: Ursin Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid

LOEWS CORP: Appeals Filed in Supreme Court Over Securities Suit
LOUISVILLE COUNTY, KY: Class Cert Filing Extended to April 22
MADISON SQUARE GARDEN: Faces Leisz Securities Suit Over Merger Deal
MADISON SQUARE GARDEN: Faces Securities Suit Over Merger Deal
MADISON SQUARE GARDEN: Faces Stevens Suit Over Merger Deal

MADISON SQUARE GARDEN: Three Stockholder Complaints Consolidated
MAIMONIDES MEDICAL: Vurgun Sues Over Rounding Hours, Time Shaving
MARATHON REFINING: Continuance of Class Cert. Hearing Sought
MARIYAM JEWELS: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MATTHEWS INT'L: Class Cert & Trial Deadlines Vacated in Beinbrech

MCKESSON CORPORATION: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL: Scheduling Order Modified in Harris
MCMC LLC: Amended Briefing Schedule Order Entered in Mauthe Suit
MDL 2036: Approval of Dasher Deal With PNC in Overdraft Suit Upheld
MDL 2406: Court Dismisses Claims of Love Providers With Prejudice

MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Nair Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California
MIGHTY BUILDINGS: Brister Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages
MINOS DINER: Rodriguez Seeks to Unpaid OT for Restaurant Staff
MONMOUTH REAL ESTATE: Faces Amended Shareholder Suit
NATURELO PREMIUM: Misrepresents Magnesium Supplements, Wallin Says

NAVIENT CORP: Faces Multiple Suits in State, Federal Courts
NAVIENT CORP: Securities Suit Consolidated in D. Del.
NAVIENT CORP: Settlement in Securities Suits Gets Initial Nod
NCR CORP: Harris Sues Over Sales Representatives' Unpaid Overtime
NEW YORK: Court Tosses Street Suit v. City, Transportation Dep't

NEWARK, NJ: Consent Order for Class Cert. Entered in Ramsahai
NEWREZ LLC: Ricci Suit Seeks Proper Wages
NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL: Hale Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
NOVA SOUTHEASTERN: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Ferretti Class Suit
OVERSTOCK.COM: Love Seeks Overtime Wages for Call Center Agents

PABST BREWING: Bid to Strike Nationwide Class Allegations Nixed
PATAGONIA INC: Aleisa Suit Removed to C.D. California
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Moves to Dismiss Wilson Securities Suit
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Shareholders Seeks Consolidation of Suits
PEREGRINE ENTERPRISES: Faces Brown Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.

PFIZER INC: Abreu Consumer Suit Moved From S.D. Fla. to S.D.N.Y.
PFIZER INC: New York Court Dismisses Harris' Amended Consumer Suit
PFIZER INC: Wins Bid to Change Venue; Abreu Suit Moved to New York
PKS BAGELS: Martinez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
PRECIOUS METALS: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Holmes Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
PSA COMMUNITY: Court Denies Bid for Injunction in 1199SEIU Suit
PTC INC: Initial Approval of Settlement Sought in ERISA Suit
PURALWALA INC: Faces Pettigrew Suit Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
R.C. BIGELOW: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Banks Suit

RAFAEL INC: Gannon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RANDALL ASSOCIATES: Nationwide Seeks to Certify Defendant Class
RED WING BRANDS: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
REDDEN FUNERAL: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RICOH USA: Breaches Fiduciary Duty, Kruchten ERISA Suit Alleges

RIEDELL SHOES: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RISE SERVICES: Anthony Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Wrongful Termination
ROBERT D. SMITH: Faces Rombough Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
RUANE CUNIFF: DuCharme Appeals Stay Bid Ruling in ERISA Suit
RYDER SYSTEM: Fails to Provide COBRA Notice, Thompson Suit Says

S&P GLOBAL: Faces Suits Over Investment Losses in Australia
SAFEMOON LLC: Merewhuader Files Suit in C.D. California
SAFEWAY INC: Reynolds Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
SAN MATEO, CA: Bid to File Supplemental Complaint Nixed as Moot
SCRATCH SERVICES: Dicks Sues Over Unlawful PPP Loan Collection

SCWORX CORP: Hearing on Yannes' Class Deal Approval on March 21
SHREVEPORT, LA: Goodwin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SOCLEAN INC: Hill Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
SONOCO PRODUCTS: Illegally Collects Biometrics, Campos Suit Claims
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Contests Breach of Contract Suit

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Court Dismisses Appeal Over Settlement Deal
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Securities Suit in N.D. Tex.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Suit Over RICO Violations
SPORE LIFE SCIENCES: Morris Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
STANLEY INDUSTRIAL: Streedharan Suit Removed to C.D. California

STAPLES THE OFFICE: Corral Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
SWEETGREEN INC: Sued Over Failure to Supply Uniform Maintenance
TALEN ENERGY: Filing of Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due April 15
TASKUS INC: Faces Lozada Suit Over 15% Decline of Stock Price
TAURUS INTERNATIONAL: Wins Bid to Dismiss Rita Harman's Claims

TD BANK: Illegally Charges OD Fees, Amazing FishStore Suit Says
TEAM HEALTH: Initial OK of Class Settlement Sought in FML Suit
TESLA INC: Fiduciary Breach Suit Pending in Delaware Court
TESLA INC: Plaintiff Bid for Partial Summary Judgment Pending
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: $420MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 2

TEXAS: Deanda Loses Class Certification Bid
TEXLARK EXPLORATION: Order on Pretrial & Trial Schedule Entered
TFORCE FREIGHT: Tappin Labor Code Suit Removed to E.D. California
TIME WARNER: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Sydney FLSA Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES: Freeman Suit Transferred to C.D. California

TRUE SELECT: Home Care Workers Get Conditional Certification
TUNNEL BARREL: Underpays Barrel and Drum Cleaners, Licona Claims
TYSON FOODS: Court OK's Dismissal of State Anti-trust Claims
TYSON FOODS: Discovery Ongoing in Wage Rigging Suit
UNCLE GIUSEPPE'S: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

UNITED STATES: Althouse Files Suit in N.D. Texas
UNITED STATES: Bid to Certify Crutchfield as Class Action Denied
UNITED STATES: Class Cert Briefing Schedule Modified in Kang Suit
UNUM GROUP: Plumitallo Sues Over Unpaid OT, Wage Notice Violations
VANDE CORP: Romero Suit Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages Under FLSA

W E K ENTERPRISES: Nelson Collective Action Gets Conditional Cert.
WALDEN AND LAUREATE: Labor Dispute Settlement Awaits Court Approval
WC LOGISTICS: Lindsey Class & PAGA Actions Remanded to State Court
WELLS FARGO: Brandt Sues Over Client Associates' Unpaid Overtime
WELLS FARGO: Disparate Impact Claims in Abdur-Rahman Suit Dismissed

WILLIAM HYATT: Mayberry Seeks Certification of Prisoner Class
WOODALLS INC: Renewed Bid to Certify Mobile Homeowner Class Filed
WOODMAN'S FOOD: Robertson FLSA Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin
ZILLOW GROUP: Barua, Silverberg and Hillier Actions Consolidated
ZOOM VIDEO: N.D. California Trims Claims in Securities Class Suit


                            *********

3M COMPANY: Faces Charges of Hazardous Chemical Waste Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 9, 2022, that a former employee filed a
putative class action lawsuit against 3M together with BFI Waste
Management Systems of Alabama, and others in the Circuit Court of
Morgan County, Alabama, seeking property damage from exposure to
certain perfluorochemicals at or near the 3M's Decatur, Alabama,
manufacturing facility.

The parties have agreed to repeated stays of said case, to permit
ongoing mediation between the parties involved in this case and
another case. Two additional putative class actions filed in the
same court by certain residents in the vicinity of the Decatur
plant seeking relief on similar grounds are stayed pending the
resolution of class certification issues.

The 3M Company is a manufacturer of surgical, medical instruments
and apparatus based in St. Paul MN.


3M COMPANY: Johnson Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HERMAN JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00563-RMG
(D.S.C., February 22, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design
defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express
and implied warranties, and wantonness.

The case arises from severe personal injuries allegedly sustained
by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants'
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care
in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction,
training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their
PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF
products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a
danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff
was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with colon cancer,
says the suit.

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

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.

Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
         Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
         GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         270 West Main Street
         Sayville, NY 11782
         Telephone: (631) 600-0000
         Facsimile: (631) 543-5450

                - and –

         Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
         Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
         Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
         ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
         2160 Highland Avenue South
         Birmingham, AL 35205
         Telephone: (205) 328-9200
         Facsimile: (205) 328-9456

3M COMPANY: Lenzi Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
-------------------------------------------------------
Gary Frank Lenzi, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-00447-RMG (D.S.C., Feb. 11,
2022), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.

The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
kidney cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.

The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Phone: 205-328-9200
          Facsimile: 205-328-9456


3M COMPANY: Toxic Waste Disposal Charge Shelved Pending Mediation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 9, 2022, that a case filed in connection
with the disposal of certain toxic compounds was stayed pending
ongoing mediation and discussions between the parties in
conjunction with a putative class action lawsuit against 3M, BFI
Waste Management Systems of Alabama, and others in the Circuit
Court of Morgan County, Alabama filed by a former employee.

In June 2016, the Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc., a non-profit
corporation, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama against 3M, BFI Waste Systems of
Alabama, the City of Decatur, Alabama and the Municipal Utilities
Board of Decatur, Morgan County, Alabama. The complaint alleges
that the defendants violated the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act in connection with the disposal of certain toxic compounds
through their ownership and operation of their respective sites.
The complaint further alleges such practices may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to health and/or the
environment and that Riverkeeper has suffered and will continue to
suffer irreparable harm caused by defendants' failure to abate the
endangerment unless the court grants the requested relief,
including declaratory and injunctive relief.

The 3M Company is a manufacturer of surgical, medical instruments
and apparatus based in St. Paul MN.


77 GRANDVILLE: Court Refuses to Approve Hodges' Revised Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHANELL HODGES, Plaintiff v. 77 GRANDVILLE, et al.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-81 (W.D. Mich.), Judge Paul L. Maloney
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan,
Southern Division, refuses to approve the Plaintiff's Revised
Settlement Agreement.

I. Introduction

The parties have twice sought Court approval of a settlement, which
the Court has denied both times. After the second denial, the Court
held a telephone conference with the attorneys. The Plaintiff then
filed a revised settlement agreement. The parties did not file a
new motion. The parties apparently continue to rely on the brief in
support filed with their original request for the Court to approve
the preliminary settlement.

II. Background

Plaintiff Hodges alleges three employment claims, two claims under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and one claim under state law.
She complains about two policies at her place of employment. She
alleges that the Defendants required servers and bartenders to
participate in a "tip pool," and the proceeds were distributed to
employees who did not interact with customers. Second, she alleges
the Defendants required servers and bartenders to clean the
facilities after their shifts ended. She contends the Defendants
did not pay the servers and bartenders for their cleaning time, or
pay them at a discounted rate, even though the servers and
bartenders could not earn tips during the time they were cleaning.

In the portion of the amended complaint enumerating the causes of
action, the Plaintiff indicates she brings her two federal claims
as FLSA collective actions and her state law claim as a Rule 23
class action.

In October 2019, the Magistrate Judge granted in part the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective
action under the FLSA. The parties indicate that 27 servers and
bartenders, including Hodges, opted in to the collective action.
They have identified another 93 individuals who did not opt in to
the collective action.

The parties participated in voluntary facilitative mediation and
reached a tentative settlement. They filed a joint motion for
settlement approval. The Court denied the motion. It could not
determine the amount of money the Defendants agreed to pay to
settle the dispute and identified a number of concerns about the
language in the proposed agreement.

The parties reworked the proposed settlement and filed a renewed
motion for preliminary settlement approval. They relied on their
prior brief in support of the renewed motion. The Court again
denied the proposed preliminary settlement. It explained that FLSA
claims cannot be settled through a Rule 23 class action. The
proposed settlement did not bifurcate the FLSA claims into a
collective action and the state law claims into a class action.

III. Discussion

The parties have filed a Revised Settlement Agreement. They propose
to settle all of the claims as a class action, a class in which all
of the identified former employees would be included, the
"Settlement Class." The Agreement distinguishes between the "Opt-In
Plaintiffs" who will release their FLSA and state-law claims from
the "Remaining Class Members," who will release only their
state-law claims.

The parties functionally agreed to create three funds. Fund One
would be used to proportionately settle all of the claims of the
Opt-In Plaintiffs. Fund Two, which the parties have kept
confidential, would also be distributed to the Opt-In Plaintiffs.
Fund Three would be used to settle the state-law claims for those
former employees who did not opt in to the FLSA collective action.
Each of the Remaining Class Members would receive $200 from Fund
Three. Additionally, Hodges will be paid a $10,000 service award.

Judge Maloney identifies multiple problems with the proposed
agreement. First, the proposed agreement still seeks to resolve
FLSA claims through a class action. His second concern is a
corollary to the first concern. As written, the agreement does not
permit the Opt-In Plaintiffs to object to or to opt out of the
class action. Third, the named representative does not adequately
represent the entire proposed class. Finally, Judge Maloney says he
cannot endorse the portion of the settlement agreement that keeps
part of the settlement confidential.

Judge Maloney will not approve the settlement agreement as
currently drafted. The parties continue to try to resolve FLSA
claims through a Rule 23 class action, something the Court has
already found improper. As a class action settlement, the agreement
does not permit 27 of the class members to file objections or to
opt out of the class. The compensation structure of the agreement
undermines Hodges's incentive to adequately represent all members
of the class. Finally, the purpose of the FLSA generally prohibits
parties from keeping FLSA settlements confidential, which the
parties functionally seek to do in the case.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons provided in the accompanying Opinion, Judge Maloney
denied the Revised Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 15, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2dv8ythx from Leagle.com.


ACE GATHERING: Escobedo Sues Over Crude Haulers' Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH ESCOBEDO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACE GATHERING, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 4:22-cv-00538 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 18, 2022) seeks declaratory
judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
interest and costs arising from the Defendants' alleged violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees lawful overtime compensation for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a crude hauler from
December of 2018 until January of 2022.

Ace Gathering, Inc. engages in purchasing and delivering of crude
oil.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ADTALEM GLOBAL: Ruling on Versetto Settlement Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2022, that a
decision is still pending by the Appellate Court over a settlement
dispute filed in the First Circuit.

On April 13, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Nicole Versetto, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, against Adtalem, DeVry University Inc., and DeVry/New
York Inc. (Adtalem Parties) in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, Chancery Division. The complaint was filed on behalf of
herself and three separate classes of similarly situated
individuals who were citizens of the State of Illinois and who
purchased or paid for a DeVry University program between January 1,
2008 and April 8, 2016. The plaintiff claims that defendants made
false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University's
graduate employment rate and asserts causes of action under the
Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Illinois Private
Business and Vocational Schools Act, and claims of breach of
contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment, negligence,
breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory relief as to violations of state law.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and
statutory penalties and damages, including pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, in addition to restitution, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

The Adtalem Parties moved to dismiss this complaint on June 20,
2018. On March 11, 2019, the court granted plaintiff's motion for
leave to file an amended complaint. The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint that same day, asserting similar claims, with new lead
plaintiff, Dave McCormick.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended
complaint on April 15, 2019 and the court granted defendants'
motion on July 29, 2019, with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed
an amended complaint on August 26, 2019. On October 18, 2019,
defendants moved to dismiss this complaint as it was substantially
similar to the one the court previously dismissed.

After settlement discussions, the court granted a Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement on May 28, 2020. In
conjunction with the Settlement, Adtalem was required to establish
a settlement fund by placing $44.95 million into an escrow account,
which is recorded within prepaid expenses and other current assets
on the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2021, June
30, 2021, and December 31, 2020. Adtalem management determined a
loss contingency was probable and reasonably estimable. The court
issued an order approving the Settlement on October 7, 2020, and
dismissed the action with prejudice.

On November 2, 2020, Stoltmann Law Offices filed on behalf of Jose
David Valderrama, a class member who objected to the terms of the
Settlement, a notice to appeal the court's order approving the
Settlement. On November 5, 2020, Richard Peart, another class
member who objected to the terms of the Settlement, filed a notice
to appeal the court's order approving the Settlement.

Those appeals were consolidated before the Appellate Court of
Illinois, First District and fully briefed. The Appellate Court has
agreed to stay Valderrama's and Peart's appeals of the Settlement
pending the outcome of mediation involving the objections to the
Settlement. The objections were not resolved at mediation on
February 1, 2022 and are still pending a decision by the Appellate
Court.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. is a workforce solutions provider
based in Illinois.


ALL STAR: Hamer Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Production Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER HAMER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALL STAR PERSONNEL, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-00123 (M.D. Tenn., February 23, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Hamer was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
non-exempt worker at Vi-Jon, LLC's manufacturing facility in
Smyrna, Tennessee until January 2022.

All Star Personnel, LLC is a staffing and employee leasing agency,
with its principal address located at 109 International Drive,
Suite 230, Franklin, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
         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: gjackson@jsyc.com
                 rbryant@jsyc.com
                 rturner@jsyc.com
                 rmorelli@jsyc.com

ALPHA AND OMEGA: Gray's Securities Class Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Alpha and Omega Semiconductor Limited (AOS) disclosed in its Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2022, that
Darry Gray's second amended stockholder complaint was dismissed
with prejudice on November 9, 2021.

On March 19, 2020, Gray, a stockholder of the company, filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the company
and its management members made material misstatements or omissions
regarding the company's business and operations, including its
export control practices relating to business transactions with
Huawei and its affiliates. The Gray action asserts claims under
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act against the company, its Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as well as claims
under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer. Among other remedies, Gray
seeks to recover compensatory and other damages as well as
attorney's fees and costs.

On May 18, 2020, Gray moved for an order appointing him as Lead
Plaintiff pursuant to Section 21D of the Exchange Act and approving
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as Lead Counsel for the putative class
(the Motion). On July 1, 2020, the court entered an order granting
the Motion and requiring that: (i) Gray filed an amended complaint
or designate the current complaint as operative within sixty days;
(ii) Defendants answer the complaint or otherwise move within sixty
days of such filing or designation; (iii) Lead Plaintiff file an
opposition, if any, within 45 days; and (iv) Defendants file a
reply, if any, forty-five days thereafter.

On August 28, 2020, Gray filed an amended complaint asserting the
same claims against the Defendants, and adding the company's
Executive Vice President of Product Line as a defendant on both
claims. On October 27, 2020, the Defendants moved to dismiss the
action in its entirety. Gray filed his opposition on December 11,
2020 and Defendants filed their reply brief on January 25, 2021.

On September 27, 2021, the Court entered an opinion and order
granting Defendants' motion and dismissing the amended complaint in
its entirety. In so doing, the Court found, among other things,
that Plaintiff failed adequately to allege that any of AOS'
indirect sales to Huawei were illegal, and therefore none of the
company's statements regarding its positive performance or its
efforts to contend with a difficult geopolitical climate and trade
tensions could plausibly be seen as "inaccurate, incomplete, or
misleading."

The court's order allowed Gray an opportunity to file a second
amended complaint by October 27, 2021. As of that date, however, no
such filing was made and a Joint Stipulation and Order of Dismissal
was entered on November 9, 2021, dismissing the case with prejudice
and directing the Clerk of Court to close the case.

Alpha and Omega Semiconductor Limited is a supplier of power
semiconductors based in Bermuda.


ANCESTRY.COM: Uses Personal Info to Promote Website, Fry Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JASON FRY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS INC., a Virginia Corporation;
ANCESTRY.COM INC., a Delaware Corporation; and ANCESTRY.COM LLC, a
Delaware limited company, Case No. 3:22-cv-00140 (N.D. Ind., Feb.
22, 2022) seeks damages, an injunction, and additional relief from
Defendants, which own and operate the website www.ancestry.com.

Ancestry allegedly used Plaintiff's and Class members' names and
personalities to promote paid subscriptions to the Ancestry website
without consent in violation of Indiana's right of publicity
statute, Ind. Code section 32-36-1, and Indiana common law
prohibiting misappropriation of a name or likeness.

The Plaintiff and Class members are private individuals who have no
relationship with Ancestry. The Plaintiff and the Class have never
used Ancestry.com, nor did they provide their names, photographs,
or any other personal information to Ancestry.

The Plaintiff was seriously distressed to discover that Ancestry is
using decades-old photographs of Plaintiff and the Class as
children to advertise paid subscriptions to Ancestry.com, says the
suit.

Ancestry uses Plaintiff's and Class members' names and likenesses
in at least three advertising techniques. In all three advertising
techniques, Ancestry displays the Plaintiff's and Class members'
photographs in low-resolution or time-limited formats to a
potential customer. Ancestry promises the potential customer that
purchasing a paid subscription to Ancestry.com will reveal the full
versions of Plaintiff's and Class member's photographs and personal
information. Ancestry promises that a paid subscription will also
deliver many additional services, including the ability to search
for and view billions of additional records about millions of other
individuals. Searchable records included with an Ancestry.com
subscription include yearbook photos, marriage records, baptism
records, death certificates, divorce records, photographs of grave
sites, and others, added the suit.

Plaintiff Jason Fry is a private individual who has no relationship
with Ancestry. He has never visited, used, or subscribed to
Ancestry.com. Ancestry is the sole author, designer, and
implementor of the advertising techniques and messages giving rise
to this lawsuit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas S. Reynolds, II, Esq.
          Michael C. Lueder, Esq.
          HANSEN REYNOLDS LLC
          301 N. Broadway, Suite 400
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: 414-273-8470
          Facsimile: 414-273-8476
          E-mail: treynolds@hansenreynolds.com
                  mlueder@hansenreynolds.com

               - and -

          Benjamin R. Osborn, Esq.
          102 Bergen St.
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (347) 645-0464
          E-mail: ben@benosbornlaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          Raina Borelli, Esq.
          613 Williamson St., Suite 201
          Madison, Wisconsin 53703
          Telephone: (608) 237-1775
          Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
          E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
                  raina@turkestrauss.com

               - and -

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          Marie N. Appel, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 358-6913
          Facsimile: (415) 358-6923
          E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
                  mappel@forthepeople.com

ARTHUR SCHUMAN: Salinas Sues Over Unlawful Biometric Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Araceli Salinas, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly
situated v. ARTHUR SCHUMAN MIDWEST, LLC and SURESTAFF, LLC, Case
No. 2022LA000152 (Ill. 18th Judicial Cir. Ct., DuPage Cty., Feb.
10, 2022), is brought to obtain statutory damages and other
equitable relief under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act as a result to the unlawful biometric scanning and storage
practices of the Defendant.

As past and present employees of Defendant, Plaintiff and class
members were required to provide it with their personalized
biometric indicators and the biometric information derived
therefrom ("biometric data"). Specifically, Defendants collect and
store employees' fingerprints and require employees to clock-in and
clock-out by scanning their fingerprints into a
fingerprint-scanning machine. The Plaintiff and class members have
not been notified where their fingerprints are being stored, for
how long Defendants will keep the fingerprints, and what might
happen to this valuable information.

The State of Illinois recognized the value and importance of
preserving people's biometric data when it passed the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act. Unlike other forms of personal
identification, such as photo IDs or passwords, fingerprints are
immutable aspects of our bodies. This makes them a promising source
of future identification-related technology, particularly in our
increasingly insecure technological world.

If the Defendants insist on collecting and storing their employees'
fingerprints, the Defendants must comply with the BIPA. This
includes notifying employees the practice is taking place;
informing employees of how the practice is implemented; obtaining
written consent from the employees to collect and store their
biometric data; maintaining their employees' biometric data in a
sufficiently secure manner; and maintaining a publicly available
disclosure of how the biometric data will be handled and destroyed.
Unfortunately for the Plaintiff and class members, none of these
directives were followed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff bring this
action on behalf of herself and class members pursuant to obtain
statutory damages and injunctive relief for violations of the BIPA,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual subject to the same fingerprint
storing practices as other of the Defendants' employees.

The Defendants are Illinois-based, for-profit corporations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          107 W. Van Buren, Suite 209
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Phone: (773) 831-8000
          Email: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
                 whb@beaumontcostales.com


ATRIA SENIOR: Stickles' Bid to Reconsider Class Period Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GEORGE STICKLES and MICHELE RHODES, Plaintiffs v.
ATRIA SENIOR LIVING, INC. and ATRIA MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. C 20-9220 WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge William Alsup
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
denied:

    (i) the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the class
        period; and

   (ii) the Plaintiffs' motion, in the alternative, to name and
        appoint another class representative and to modify the
        class period.

I. Background

In the wage-and-hour class action, Plaintiffs Stickles and Rhodes
each worked as a "Community Sales Director" for Defendants Atria
Senior Living, Inc. and Atria Management Co., LLC. The Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendants misclassified them and other CSDs as
exempt employees.

A previous order certified the following class: CSDs who did not
sign arbitration agreements and whom the Defendants classified as
exempt outside salespersons from the date Plaintiff Stickles began
his employment with defendants (April 9, 2018) through Sep. 29,
2019. Certification applied solely to this issue: Whether the
Defendants properly classified CSDs as exempt outside salespersons.
Certification of the underlying wage-and-hour claims was held in
abeyance.

On Jan. 5, 2022, the Plaintiffs' counsel asked the Defendants'
counsel whether it would stipulate to amend the complaint to name
an additional class representative. On the following day, the
Defendants' counsel responded in the negative. On Jan. 14, 2022,
the Plaintiffs' counsel moved for leave to move for reconsideration
and to move for alternative relief regarding the class period. A
pervious order granted the Plaintiffs' motion.

The Plaintiffs now move to reconsider the class period, arguing the
class period should begin four years prior to the filing of the
complaint (Dec. 18, 2016) rather than on Plaintiff Stickles' hire
date.

In the alternative, the Plaintiffs move to amend the complaint and
to name an additional class representative, Rellie Kirwan -- a
former CSD whom the Defendants employed from February 2016 to April
2018. The deadline to amend the pleadings passed eight months ago.
The Plaintiffs also move to appoint Kirwan as a class
representative.

The Plaintiffs argue that Kirwan satisfies the typicality and
adequacy requirements under FRCP 23 for CSDs whom the Defendants
employed as early as four years prior to the filing of the
complaint. Thus, if Kirwan is appointed as a class representative,
the Plaintiffs request that the class period be modified to begin
on Dec. 18, 2016, rather than on Plaintiff Stickles' hire date.

Additionally, the Plaintiffs seek to reopen discovery for the sole
purpose of allowing the Defendants to conduct discovery regarding
Kirwan's typicality and adequacy under FRCP 23. The deadline for
non-expert discovery passed two months ago.

The Order follows full briefing.

II. Discussion

A. Motion for Reconsideration

Judge Alsup holds that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden to
show reconsideration of the class period is warranted. They have
not presented newly discovered evidence. They merely raise
arguments and evidence they raised in their motion for class
certification. Further, the Plaintiffs do not contend there has
been an intervening change in the controlling law. Although they
cite earlier orders of the certifying class periods that commenced
prior to the class representative's hire date, those orders do not
stand for the proposition that the class period must begin before
such date.

Moreover, the class period begins on Plaintiff Stickles' hire date
because the record does not establish that his experience was
typical of that of employees who worked prior to his hire date. In
the absence of affirmative proof to the contrary, Judge Alsup will
not extend the class period back. That the same job description was
applicable to all CSDs before and after Plaintiff Stickles' hire
date is not such affirmative proof. Plaintiff Stickles worked for
only seventeen months and counsel wants to presume that everything
workwise was the same for sixteen months preceding his arrival. A
shorter extension backward might be plausible, but the counsel
seeks to stretch it too far.

For these reasons, Judge Alsup denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration.

B. Motion for Alternative Relief

As a threshold matter, contrary to the Defendants' assertion, Judge
Alsup holds that the motion to amend the complaint to allow
intervention by Rellie Kirwan and to appoint him as another class
representative is properly before the Court. That the motion was
presented as an alternative to the Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration does not prevent the Court from considering it.

Judge Alsup holds that even presuming the Plaintiffs could amend
the scheduling order and complaint to allow intervention by Kirwan,
Kirwan cannot be appointed as another class representative because
he is atypical of the class he seeks to represent. As to adequacy,
he holds that there is a danger that the class members will suffer
if Kirwan is preoccupied with fighting the defense discussed above,
which is unique to him. He says the Plaintiffs' counsel would spend
time and resources defending depositions and conducting discovery
that would best be devoted to the class rather than to Kirwan. And
Kirwan would be at risk of putting his interests before those of
the class. Plaintiffs do not rebut these arguments. Thus, Judge
Alsup finds Kirwan atypical of the class he seeks to represent.

Hence, the Plaintiffs' motion for alternative relief is denied.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Alsup denied the Plaintiffs'
motions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 15, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4a7z2c35 from Leagle.com.


ATTAIN INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Attain Inc. The case
is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Attain Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01513
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2022).

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

Attain, Inc. -- https://myattain.org/ -- has been supporting people
with developmental disabilities for over 30 years in the Central
Florida community.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BAGELWORKS INC: Hernandez Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
TOMAS HERNANDEZ JUAREZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. BAGELWORKS INC. (D/B/A BAGELWORKS), RAMSEY
HINNAWI, MONA HINNAWI, and MIGUEL COSTANZO, Case No. 1:22-cv-01436
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law sections 190 et seq. and 650
et seq., including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

Mr. Hernandez was ostensibly employed as a delivery worker.
However, he was required to spend a considerable part of his work
day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to
mopping, sweeping, washing the oven, cleaning the bathroom, washing
the floor mats, taking out the trash, and cleaning the business
(hereafter the "non-tipped duties"), the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the
hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay
Plaintiff Hernandez appropriately for any hours worked, either at
the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium,
the lawsuit added.

Plaintiff Hernandez is a former employee of the Defendants as a
delivery worker at Defendants' deli.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located at 1229 1st
Ave., New York, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Catalina Sojo, Esq.
          CSM LEGAL, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: catalina@csmlegal.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Secure Public Benefits, Eggiman Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SAM EGGIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-10298 (D. Mass., February 22, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Electronic Funds Transfer
Act and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, breach of
contract, negligence, and other state common law and statutory
claims.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to take
reasonable steps to protect the Plaintiff and Class Members'
benefits under the Massachusetts Department of Unemployment
Assistance's benefits payment programs from fraudulent access by
third parties. The Defendant failed to secure the Plaintiff's and
Class Members' sensitive card and account information and issued
them debit cards without the industry-standard, fraud-preventing
Europay, MasterCard, and Visa (EMV) chip technology that the
Defendant has used on all its regular consumer customers' debit and
credit cards since 2014. Moreover, the Defendant has deprived them
of their statutory right to public benefits without providing them
with notice or an opportunity to be heard.

Bank of America, N.A. is a financial institution, headquartered in
North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Kevin Crick, Esq.
         Rights Protection Law Group, PLLC
         100 Cambridge St., Suite 1400
         Boston, MA 02114
         Telephone: (617) 340-9225
         Facsimile: (888) 622-3715
         E-mail: k.crick@rightsprotect.com

                 - and –

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

BARBIER SECURITY: Massey Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barbier Security
Group, et al. The case is styled as Darrel S. Massey, individually
and on behalf of, all others similarly situated v. Barbier Security
Group, Does 1 through 20, Inclusive, Case No. CGC22598210 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 22, 2022).

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

Barbier Security Group -- http://barbiersecuritygroup.com/--
offers clients the highest quality security services
available.[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


BATH & BODY: Can Compel Individual Arbitration in Holman Wage Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KIANDRA HOLMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BATH & BODY WORKS, LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-1603 JLT SAB (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Jennifer L. Thurston of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California granted:

    (i) the Defendants' motion to compel individual arbitration;

   (ii) the Defendants' motion to strike the Plaintiff's class
        allegations; and

  (iii) the Defendants' motion to dismiss the action.

Plaintiff Holman worked as a sales associate at a Bath & Body Works
store located in Palmdale, California. The Plaintiff seeks to hold
the Defendants -- Bath & Body Works, LLC; Bath & Body Works Direct,
Inc.; and L. Brands, Inc. -- liable for violations of California's
wage and hour laws. The Plaintiff stated these claims on behalf of
herself and similarly situated employees of Bath & Body Works
stores in the state of California.

The Defendants asserted the Plaintiff entered into an arbitration
agreement with Bath & Body Works, and moved to compel individual
arbitration. They also requested the Court strike the class
allegations and dismiss the action. On Oct. 15, 2021, the motion
was referred to the assigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. The magistrate judge
issued Findings and Recommendations on Dec. 8, 2021, recommending
the Plaintiff be compelled to arbitration under the Federal
Arbitration Act.

There is no dispute the Defendants operate nationwide, such that
their business affects interstate commerce. The magistrate judge
concluded the Plaintiff and the Defendants entered into a valid
arbitration agreement for individual arbitration, and the Plaintiff
waived her right to bring a class action. In addition, the
magistrate judge found it was undisputed that the agreement
encompassed the Plaintiff's individual claims. Although the
agreement contained an unenforceable provision waiving
representative claims -- such as those under the Private Attorneys
General Act (PAGA) -- the magistrate judge noted the Plaintiff did
not bring a PAGA claim in the action and found the provision could
be severed from the arbitration agreement. Because the arbitration
agreement was not both procedurally and substantively
unconscionable, the magistrate judge recommended it be enforced and
the Plaintiff be compelled to individual arbitration.

The Defendants moved to have the class allegations stricken from
the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The magistrate judge found the agreement made
"individual arbitration the exclusive manner" of resolving
employment disputes such as those raised by the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Plaintiff's class
allegations be stricken.

Finally, the Defendants requested the action be dismissed because
the only claims the Plaintiff could maintain were subject to
arbitration. The magistrate judge observed that when all claims
raised in the action are subject to arbitration, the action may be
dismissed or stayed. Because each of the Plaintiff's claims "are
required to be submitted to individual arbitration pursuant to the
Agreement," the magistrate judge recommended the request for
dismissal be granted.

The parties were granted fourteen days from the date of service to
file any objections to the findings and recommendations of the
Magistrate Judge. Thus, any objections were due no later than Dec.
22, 2021. The parties were also "advised that failure to file
objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of
rights on appeal." The period for filing objections has passed, and
no objections were filed.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section
636(b)(1)(C), and Britt v. Simi Valley United School Dist., 708
F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), Judge Thurston conducted a de novo
review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, she
finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the
record and proper analysis.

Based upon the foregoing, she adopted in full the Findings and
Recommendations dated Dec. 8, 2021. The representative action
waiver provision is severed from the arbitration agreement.

Judge Thurston granted the Defendants' (i) motion to compel
individual arbitration, (ii) motion to strike the Plaintiff's class
allegations, and (iii) motion to dismiss the action. She dismissed
the case without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to
close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 15, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yc5jwskz from Leagle.com.


BELL FLAVORS: Associated Files Complaint for Declaratory Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. BELL FLAVORS &
FRAGRANCES, INC. and JEROHAM GUZMAN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00767 (N.D.
Ill., Feb. 11, 2022), is brought as a Complaint for Declaratory
Judgment, seeking a determination of its rights and obligations
under insurance policies issued to Defendant Bell Flavors in
connection with an Underlying Action filed by Jeroham Guzman, which
asserts certain claims against Bell Flavors.

The Underlying Action is pending in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois. Associated issued successive Commercial General
Liability Policies (the "Policies") to Bell Flavors. The Defendant
Bell Flavors tendered the claims asserted against it in the
Underlying Action to Associated for a defense and indemnity under
the Policies. The scope of coverage available to Bell Flavors in
connection with the claims asserted against it in the Underlying
Action is governed by the terms, conditions, and exclusions of the
Policies.

On December 20, 2021, Jeroham Guzman, individually and on behalf of
other persons similarly situated, filed a proposed class action
against Bell Flavors in the Circuit Court of Cook Count, Illinois,
captioned Guzman v. Bell Flavors and Fragrances, Inc. (Case No.
2021-CH-6316) ("Underlying Action"). The Complaint seeks statutory
damages and equitable relief under the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act, due to allegedly unlawful biometric
fingerprint scanning and storage practices by Bell Flavors. The
Complaint alleges that past and present employees of Bell Flavors
were required to provide Bell Flavors with their personalized
biometric indicators and biometric data in the form of fingerprints
in order to capture clock-in/clock-out data.

Associated issued successive commercial general liability policies,
in effect between December 1, 2018 and December 1, 2022, to Bell
Flavors (collectively, the "Policies"). The Policies contain a
limits of liability of $1 million per Each Occurrence; $1 million
Personal and Advertising Limit; and a $5 million General Aggregate,
subject to a $5,000 deductible per occurrence/per offense, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff, Associated, is a corporation organized under the
laws of Florida with its principal place of business in Boca Raton,
Florida.

Bell Flavors, is a corporation organized under the laws of Illinois
with its principal place of business in Northbrook, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J. Hickey, Esq.
          Colin B. Willmott, Esq.
          KENNEDYS CMK
          100 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 800-5029
          Fax: (312) 207-2110
          Email: James.Hickey@kennedyslaw.com
                 Colin.Willmott@kennedyslaw.com


BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Appeals Mishal Securities Suit Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2022, that the
defendants, including the company, have appealed the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware ruling to the Supreme Court of
the State of Delaware in which the plaintiff filed a cross-appeal
to the Supreme Court.

On May 25, 2018, plaintiffs Tsemach Mishal and Paul Berger (on
behalf of themselves and the purported class, Plaintiffs) initiated
a purported class action in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the Trial Court) against the following defendants: the
Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, Boardwalk GP, LP (Boardwalk GP),
Boardwalk GP, LLC and BPHC, regarding the potential exercise by
Boardwalk GP of its right to purchase the issued and outstanding
common units of the company not already owned by Boardwalk GP or
its affiliates (Purchase Right).

On June 25, 2018, Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, subject to
the approval of the Trial Court (the Proposed Settlement). Under
the terms of the Proposed Settlement, the lawsuit would be
dismissed, and related claims against the Defendants would be
released by the Plaintiffs, if BPHC, the sole member of the general
partner of Boardwalk GP, elected to cause Boardwalk GP to exercise
its Purchase Right for a cash purchase price, as determined by the
company's Third Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited
Partnership, as amended (the Limited Partnership Agreement), and
gave notice of such election as provided in the Limited Partnership
Agreement within a period specified by the Proposed Settlement. On
June 29, 2018, Boardwalk GP elected to exercise the Purchase Right
and gave notice within the period specified by the Proposed
Settlement. On July 18, 2018, Boardwalk GP completed the purchase
of the company's common units pursuant to the Purchase Right.

On September 28, 2018, the Trial Court denied approval of the
Proposed Settlement. On February 11, 2019, a substitute verified
class action complaint was filed in this proceeding, which, among
other things, added Loews as a Defendant. The Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss, which was heard by the Trial Court in July 2019.
In October 2019, the Trial Court ruled on the motion and granted a
partial dismissal, with certain aspects of the case proceeding to
trial. A trial was held the week of February 22, 2021, and
post-trial oral arguments were held on July 14, 2021.

On November 12, 2021, the Trial Court issued a ruling in the case.
The Trial Court held that Boardwalk GP breached the Limited
Partnership Agreement and found that Boardwalk GP is liable to the
Plaintiffs for approximately $690.0 million in damages, plus
prejudgment interest (approximately $166.0 million), post-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees. The Trial Court's ruling and damages
award is against Boardwalk GP, and not the company or its
subsidiaries.

The Defendants believe that the Trial Court ruling includes factual
and legal errors. Therefore on January 3, 2022, the Defendants
appealed the Trial Court's ruling to the Supreme Court of the State
of Delaware. On January 17, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a
cross-appeal to the Supreme Court contesting the calculation of
damages by the Trial Court.

Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP is into integrated pipeline and
storage systems for natural gas and natural gas liquids and other
hydrocarbons based in Texas.


BODHI LEAF: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bodhi Leaf Trading
Company. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Bodhi Leaf
Trading Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-01507 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2022).

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

Bodhi Leaf -- https://www.bodhileafcoffee.com/ -- is a specialty
coffee importer, roaster and cafe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BOYERTOWN AREA: Class Suit Filed in E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boyertown Area School
District, et al. The case is styled as JOHN DOE 1 and JANE DOE 1,
in their own Capacity and as parents of CHILD DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2 and
JANE DOE 2, in their own Capacity as parents of CHILD DOE 2; JANE
DOE 3, in her own capacity and as parent of CHILD DOE 3; and on
behalf of those similarly Situated v. Boyertown Area School
District, a Pennsylvania Governmental entity; James H. Brophy,
Brian J. Hemingway, Ruth Dierolf, Lisa C. Hogan, Christine M.
Neiman, Anthony D. Panarello, Marianne Scott, Roger A. Updegrove,
Jeffrey Zawada, all individual elected officials sued in their
individual capacity and in their capacity as members of the
Boyertown Area School District Board Of Directors, a Pennsylvania
elected legislative body; Case No. 5:22-cv-00699-JMG (E.D. Pa.,
Feb. 23, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Education Civil Rights for the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Boyertown Area School District -- https://www.boyertownasd.org/
-- is a large public school district which covers portions of Berks
and Montgomery Counties in southeastern Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ian Musselman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF IAN J. MUSSELMAN
          PO Box 185
          Richboro, PA 18954
          Phone: (215) 828-1682
          Email: ian.j.musselman@gmail.com


BP EXPLORATION: Court Denies CTEH's Bid to Quash in Culliver Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VINCENT CULLIVER, Plaintiff v. CENTER FOR TOXICOLOGY &
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LLC, Petitioner v. BP EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION, INC. & BP AMERICAN PRODUCTION CO., Defendants. This
Document Relates to: Culliver v. BP, Case No. 3:21-cv-4942-MCR-GRJ,
Case No. 3:22-mc-00006 (N.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Gary R. Jones
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida,
Pensacola Division, denied Non-Party Center for Toxicology &
Environmental Health, LLC's Motion to Quash and for Protective
Order.

I. Background

Pending before the Court is Center for Toxicology & Environmental
Health, LLC ("CTEH")'s Motion to Quash and for Protective Order. In
its motion, CTEH challenges 39 areas of inquiry set forth in the
Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) notice of deposition, as well as 32
categories of documents subpoenaed by the Plaintiff pursuant to
Rule 45. Defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc. and BP
American Production Co. (collectively, "BP") support CTEH's
petition, and the Plaintiff opposes it. The motion is now ripe and
has been referred to Judge Jones for resolution.

The discovery dispute relates to the Plaintiff's Back-End
Litigation Option ("BELO") lawsuit pending before the Court --
Culliver v. BP, Case No. 3:21-cv-4942-MCR-GRJ. The process for
bringing a BELO lawsuit is outlined in the court-approved Medical
Benefits Class Action Settlement ("MSA"). Under the MSA, the BELO
process is the exclusive means by which a plaintiff may seek
compensation from BP for oil spill related injuries sustained as a
result of his or her oil spill clean-up work. The MSA sets forth
very limited issues that may be litigated at trial. Pertinent to
this dispute, the MSA expressly requires proof of the amount and
location of the toxic substances a plaintiff claims caused him or
her harm, as well as the level of exposure and legal causation.

CTEH's role in the BELO lawsuits is as an Industrial Hygiene
contractor. During the post oil-spill response, CTEH worked on
behalf of BP to collect and analyze industrial hygiene data and
reports of work-related illness and injuries. Plaintiff argues that
she cannot meet her burden of proving the harmful measure of
exposure and legal causation required by the MSA without presenting
numerous experts to rebut BP's counter-expert opinions which rely
on a large quantity of occupational monitoring datasets generated
by CTEH.

Citing Rule 45(d)(3)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
CTEH asks the Court to quash the Plaintiff's subpoena and
deposition notice because compliance with these requests would
cause CTEH undue burden and expense. Additionally, CTEH contends
that many of the documents subject to the Plaintiff's subpoena are
nine to 11 years old and are, therefore, difficult to retrieve. To
locate these documents, CTEH says it would be forced to search its
warehouse and expend "innumerable man-hours and expense." Moreover,
without the requested documents on hand, CTEH says that it will not
be able to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness or witnesses who can
adequately address the areas of inquiry in the Plaintiff's
deposition notice.

CTEH further argues that the Plaintiff's discovery requests are
overly broad, because "many of the areas of inquiry and document
requests are not limited to a particular relevant time period or
geographic location and are not limited to any particular exposure
alleged by the plaintiff in the case." Finally, it asks the Court
to enter a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26, suggesting that many of the documents requested "may
include proprietary information and/or information that is
protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine,
or contain confidential business information belonging to the
Defendants in the case." And, to the extent discovery is allowed,
CTEH requests that costs and expense associated with compliance be
shifted to the Plaintiff.

In response, the Plaintiff lodges four main counter arguments.
First, he argues that CTEH is not a disinterested nonparty. Rather,
CTEH is "an interested nonparty, a fact witness, and lead
Industrial Hygienist contractor for the Defendants." CTEH was also
BP's corporate deponent in the area of industrial hygiene. As such,
the Plaintiff says that CTEH should not be allowed to hide behind
blanket general objections "to resist relevant inquiries related to
data bias and the available exposure data collected by BP through
its contractors and employees."

In the present case, the Plaintiffs seek "information regarding the
amount of chemicals of concern released from the Deepwater Horizon,
the location and timing of the release and amounts of chemicals of
concern all BELO plaintiffs were exposed to, as well as the 'level
and duration' of exposure." He says, this information is "highly
relevant" to her lawsuit and that CTEH has failed to meet its
burden of establishing that compliance with his discovery requests
would cause it undue burden or expense.

Second, with respect to CTEH's argument that the Plaintiff's
requests are not narrowly tailored, he says that her requests are
"specific and limited to the relevant time period" and because CTEH
collected data "over a wide geographic area personal monitoring
data does not exist for him, nor for most clean-up workers." As a
result, he can only seek what CTEH has, which is data that exceeds
the "Plaintiff's personal breathing zone." He also says that her
request for communications between CTEH and BP and/or governmental
agencies and officials can be limited by a "search for electronic
communications" sent to or received by "CTEH employees with
managerial or oversight responsibilities." Moreover, any privileged
communications within these categories of documents can be redacted
if withheld.

Third, the Plaintiff argues that she should be allowed to test the
completeness of BP's production of CTEH materials requested in
discovery, and that she should be permitted to assess whether
CTEH's industrial hygiene data collected (or its conclusions) were
improperly influenced by BP. Despite CTEH's and BP's assertions
that all the information, the  Plaintiff seeks has either been
produced or is publicly available, the Plaintiff argues that this
particular type of information has not been disclosed by BP and
would not have found its way into the public arena.

Finally, the Plaintiff says that CTEH failed to meet its burden by
way of an affidavit that establishes either (1) CTEH's compliance
with her discovery requests would result in undue burden or
expense, or (2) that good cause exists to warrant a protective
order. Accordingly, he asks the Court to deny CTEH's Petition and
overrule CTEH's objections.

II. Discussion

Judge Jones concludes that CTEH has not met its burden under Rule
45 or Rule 26 to withhold the discovery the Plaintiff seeks. As an
initial matter, he says, the Plaintiff has established that the
requested documents and testimony are relevant to the lawsuit.
Indeed, they are relevant to all BELO lawsuits in which BP relies
upon CTEH's industrial hygiene data and opinions. As the Plaintiff
correctly points out, information regarding the amount of chemicals
released from the Deepwater Horizon, the location and timing of
their release, the amount of chemicals released, and the level and
duration of a person's exposure to the chemicals go to the heart of
what Plaintiff must prove at trial.

Additionally, discovery aimed at uncovering CTEH's potential bias
as BP's paid contractor, as well as the reliability of CTEH's data
and opinions, is fair game. Having determined that the discovery at
issue is relevant, Judge Jones turns next to whether CTEH met its
burden of establishing that the requests are overly burdensome or
would result in undue burden or expense.

Judge Jones finds that CTEH has not filed an affidavit or even
explained with specificity how or why it would be burdened by
producing the requested information. Conspicuously absent from
CTEH's motion is any information specifying how many documents are
at issue, or how much time it would take to search and identify
them, or the cost of retrieving and reviewing the documents. In the
absence of this information the Court is left to guess at the scope
and level of burden CTEH would incur. CTEH's failure to provide
this information is fatal to their motion. Therefore, because CTEH
has failed to detail the burden or the cost CTEH has failed to
establish that compliance with the requests would be either unduly
burdensome or costly.

Judge Jones further concludes that CTEH is not a typical
disinterested party given its intimate involvement in the
underlying events that gave rise to the BELO lawsuits. As a
practical matter, CTEH must have anticipated that litigation
related to the oil spill would be protracted and span many years.
The fact that CTEH failed to keep relevant information in an easily
retrievable manner is, therefore, unavailing.

As for CTEH's request for an order of protection, Judge Jones finds
that CTEH failed to meet its burden here as well. As the Plaintiff
points out, CTEH has not made a particular and specific
demonstration of facts as distinguished from stereotyped and
conclusory statements to establish that it is entitled to a
protective order. CTEH has not provided the Court with any detailed
information whatsoever describing the type of information that
merits protection.

In sum, Judge Jones has carefully reviewed the Plaintiff's 30(b)(6)
notice of deposition areas of inquiry and the documents subpoenaed
pursuant to Rule 45 -- along with CTEH's objections -- and he finds
that the Plaintiff's discovery requests are reasonable and not
overly burdensome given CTEH's role in the events underlying the
litigation.

Nevertheless, with regard to the Plaintiff's request for
communications between CTEH and BP and/or government
agencies/officials, Judge Jones will limit the requests to only
include communications sent to or received by CTEH employees who
had managerial or oversight responsibilities during the relevant
time period.

As for CTEH's request that the Court shifts the costs of compliance
to the Plaintiff, the general rule is that the costs of production
are borne by the producing party. CTEH has failed to offer any
reason to change this and has failed to meet its burden to
establish cost shifting

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Judge Jones denied CTEH's
Motion to Quash and for Protective Order. He overruled CTEH's
objections, except for the limitation placed upon the discovery of
CTEH's communications with BP and/or governmental agencies and
officials as explained in the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/39ud938b from Leagle.com.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Faces Securities Suit Over Cancer Meds Report
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS) disclosed in its Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2022,
that two class action complaints were filed, one complaint was
voluntarily dismissed while the other complaint was appealed and an
oral agreement was held.

Since February 2018, two separate putative class action complaints
were filed in the U.S. District for the Northern District of
California and in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against BMS, BMS's Chief Executive Officer, Giovanni
Caforio, BMS's Chief Financial Officer at the time, Charles A.
Bancroft and certain former and current executives of BMS. The case
in California has been voluntarily dismissed.

The remaining complaint alleges violations of securities laws for
BMS's disclosures related to the CheckMate-026 clinical trial in
lung cancer. In September 2019, the Court granted BMS's motion to
dismiss, but allowed the plaintiffs leave to file an amended
complaint. In October 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint. In September 2020, the Court granted BMS's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs
appealed the Court's decision in October 2020. In October 2021,
oral argument on the appeal was held in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is engaged in the discovery,
development, licensing, manufacturing, marketing, distribution and
sale of biopharmaceutical products based in New York.


CAER INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Caer, Inc. The case
is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Caer, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01517 (S.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 23, 2022).

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

Caer, Inc., doing business as Yumi -- https://helloyumi.com/ --
produces baby food products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAKOR RESTAURANT: Black Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Bartenders
-------------------------------------------------------------
KARA ELIZABETH BLACK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAKOR RESTAURANT, INC., BRIDGE CAFE INC.,
ISMET SUJAK, and SULTANIA SUJAK, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01447
(S.D.N.Y., February 22, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York State Labor Law including unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime wages, failure to provide wage notices, failure to provide
accurate wage statements, and failure to pay spread-of-hours
premium.

The Plaintiff was employed as a bartender at the Defendants' Bridge
Cafe from March 2018 through September 2019 and at Cakor restaurant
from November 2019 through April 2021.

Cakor Restaurant, Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator located
at 632 E 186th Street, Bronx, New York.

Bridge Cafe Inc. is a restaurant owner and operator located at 2382
Hughes Ave, Bronx, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
         Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
         LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 792-0048
         E-mail: Jason@levinepstein.com

CAMOLOTS1503 INC: Weekes Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Camolots1503 Inc. The
case is styled as Robert Weekes, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Camolots1503 Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-01505 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2022).

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

Camolots1503 Inc. is a Clothing Stores Corporation located in
Buffalo, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CANOPY GROWTH: To Settle Securities Suit Over Reporting Oversight
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Canopy Growth Corporation disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2022, that
the company has reached an agreement to settle a class action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

In November 2019, Canopy Growth and certain of its current and
former officers were named as defendants in a purported class
action alleging that the defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts,
regarding Canopy Growth's receivables, business, operations and
prospects relating to, among other things, the demand for its
softgel and oil products.

In November 2020, the defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's
second amended complaint and on May 6, 2021, the court granted the
defendant's motion to dismiss, without prejudice to the plaintiffs
filing a third amended complaint with the court within 30 days. On
June 14, 2021, the plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint.
Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint on August 16, 2021. Pursuant to documents filed with the
court on February 4, 2022, the company has reached an agreement to
settle the class action.

Canopy Growth Corporation is a cannabis and cannabinoid-based
consumer products company based in Ontario.


CARRIER GLOBAL: Moves to Dismiss Darnis' Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
Carrier Global Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2022, that the defendants
moved to dismiss the amended class action complaint captioned
Geraud Darnis, et al. v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation, et al.
in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

On August 12, 2020, several former employees of UTC or its
subsidiaries filed a putative class action complaint against
Raytheon Technologies Corporation (RTX), Carrier, Otis, the former
members of the UTC Board of Directors and the members of the
Carrier and Otis Boards of Directors.

The Complaint challenges the method by which UTC equity awards were
converted to RTX, Carrier and Otis equity awards following the
Separation and the Distribution. Defendants moved to dismiss said
complaint. Plaintiffs amended their Complaint on September 13,
2021.

The Amended Complaint, now with RTX, Carrier and Otis as the only
defendants, asserts that the defendants are liable for breach of
certain equity compensation plans and for breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Amended Complaint also
seeks specific performance. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint on October 13, 2021.

Carrier Global Corporation is a provider of building and cold chain
solutions based in Florida.


CELGENE CORP: Securities Suit Over Drug Issues Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS) disclosed in its Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2022,
that the consolidated class action complaints against Celgene
Corporation were dismissed with prejudice.

Beginning in March 2018, two putative class actions were filed
against Celgene Corporation and certain of its officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaints
allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws by
making misstatements and/or omissions concerning trials of the drug
GED-0301, Celgene's 2020 outlook and projected sales of the drug
"Otezla" and the new drug application for "Zeposia."

The court consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead
plaintiff, lead counsel, and co-liaison counsel for the putative
class.

In February 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's amended complaint in full. In December 2019, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss in part and granted the motion to
dismiss in part (including all claims arising from alleged
misstatements regarding GED-0301).

Although the court gave the plaintiff leave to re-plead the
dismissed claims, it elected not to do so, and the dismissed claims
are now dismissed with prejudice. In November 2020, the court
granted class certification with respect to the remaining claims.
In December 2020, the defendants sought leave to appeal the court's
class certification decision, which was denied without prejudice in
March 2021.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is engaged in the discovery,
development, licensing, manufacturing, marketing, distribution and
sale of biopharmaceutical products based in New York. It acquired
Celgene Corporation in 2019


CELGENE CORP: Settlement of Generic Drug Anti-trust Suit OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS) disclosed in its Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2022,
that a settlement was reached with the plaintiffs in certain
putative class action lawsuits filed against Celgene Corporation in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and was
dismissed by said court.

Beginning in November 2014, certain putative class action lawsuits
alleged that Celgene violated various antitrust, consumer
protection, and unfair competition laws by (a) allegedly securing
an exclusive supply contract for the alleged purpose of preventing
a generic manufacturer from securing its own supply of thalidomide
active pharmaceutical ingredient, (b) allegedly refusing to sell
samples of Thalomid and Revlimid brand drugs to various generic
manufacturers for the alleged purpose of bioequivalence testing
necessary for aNDAs to be submitted to the FDA for approval to
market generic versions of these products, (c) allegedly bringing
unjustified patent infringement lawsuits in order to allegedly
delay approval for proposed generic versions of "Thalomid" and
"Revlimid," and/or (d) allegedly entering into settlements of
patent infringement lawsuits with certain generic manufacturers
that allegedly have had anticompetitive effects.

The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and putative classes of
third-party payers, sought injunctive relief and damages. The
various lawsuits were consolidated into a master action for all
purposes. In March 2020, Celgene reached a settlement with the
class plaintiffs. In October 2020, the court entered a final order
approving the settlement and dismissed the matter. That settlement
did not resolve the claims of certain entities that opted out of
the settlement.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is engaged in the discovery,
development, licensing, manufacturing, marketing, distribution and
sale of biopharmaceutical products based in New York. It acquired
Celgene Corporation in 2019.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Achey Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jeffrey Achey, Marilyn Achey, Justin
Anderson, Perry Bicher, Gregory Burlak, Carla Chiorazzo, Judith
Chiorazzo, Adam Demarco, Dean Esposito, James Fisher, Allison
Gillingham, Lorraine Gillingham, Donna Hartman, Patricia Justice,
David Kelly, Pamela Lebak, Christina Manfredo, Alfred Mascoveto,
Alexander Navarra, Judith Oelenschlager, James Prate, Andrew
Roseman, Michael Scheufele, Russell Sewekow, Deborah Stroyek, Linda
Teer, Brenda Tripicchio, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Cellco Partnership doing business as: Verizon
Wireless, Verizon Communications Inc., Case No. MID L 000160 22 was
removed from the Superior Court Of New Jersey Middlesex County, to
the U.S. District Court for District of New Jersey on Feb. 10,
2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00752-ZNQ-TJB to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Cellco Partnership doing business as Verizon Wireless --
https://www.verizon.com/ -- is an American wireless network
operator that previously operated as a separate division of Verizon
Communications under the name of Verizon Wireless.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph A. Osefchen, Esq.
          DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN, P.C.
          525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Phone: (856) 797-9951
          Fax: (856) 797-9978
          Email: josefchen@denittislaw.com

               - and -

          Shane Travis Prince, Esq.
          Stephen Patrick Denittis, Esq.
          DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          5 Greentree Centre
          525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Phone: (856) 797-9951
          Fax: (856) 797-9978
          Email: sprince@denittislaw.com
                 sdenittis@denittislaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael Charles Zogby, Esq.
          FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          600 Campus Drive
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Phone: (973) 549-7209
          Fax: (973) 360-9831
          Email: michael.zogby@faegredrinker.com


CHAIRS BYN: Lorenzo Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Restaurant Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS FERNANDO LORENZO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. CHAIRS BYN, LLC (D/B/A 12 CHAIRS CAFE), RON
KEREN (AKA RON KEEREN), RONEN GRADY, and MAAYAN GLASS, Case No.
1:22-cv-00947 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law.

Mr. Lorenzo contends that he worked for Defendants in excess of 40
hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and
spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather,
the Defendants 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, says the suit.

Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Lorenzo the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10
hours a day. The Defendants’ conduct extended beyond Plaintiff
Lorenzo to all other similarly situated employees, the suit added.

Plaintiff Lorenzo is a former employee of Defendants Chairs BYN. He
was employed as cook.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Middle Eastern
restaurant, located at 342 Wythe Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. Ronen
Grady, and Maayan Glass, serve or served as owners, managers,
principals, or agents of Defendant Corporation and, through this
corporate entity, operate or operated the restaurant as a joint or
unified enterprise.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Catalina Sojo, Esq.
          CSM LEGAL, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: catalina@csmlegal.com

CHAMBERLAIN UNIVERSITY: Dismissal of Class Suit Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2022,
that an appeal is pending in the Sixth Circuit over the dismissal
of a breach of contract suit against its affiliate Chamberlain
University.

On January 19, 2021, a putative class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
against Chamberlain University by Tanesia Dean on behalf of herself
and similarly situated students of Chamberlain.

The complaint alleged breach of contract and unjust enrichment
claims against Chamberlain related to its decision to transition
all classes online in March 2020, in light of the global pandemic,
without altering tuition or fees. The putative class was defined to
include all students, nationwide, who paid tuition and fees during
the following academic sessions: May 2020, July 2020, September
2020, November 2020, and January 2021. Plaintiff sought monetary
relief exceeding $5 million, and attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses.

On April 5, 2021, Chamberlain filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety. The motion to dismiss was granted in
full on August 16, 2021 and the case was dismissed. On September
14, 2021, plaintiff filed an appeal in the Sixth Circuit asserting
that the trial judge erred in dismissing plaintiff's complaint.
Plaintiff's appeal is pending

Adtalem Global Education Inc. is a workforce solutions provider
based in Illinois.


CHAMBERLAIN UNIVERSITY: Moves to Dismiss Johnson's Biometrics Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2022, that its affiliate,
Chamberlain University, has a pending motion to dismiss a
biometrics-related complaint is pending in the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division.

On March 12, 2021, Travontae Johnson, a current student of
Chamberlain University, filed a putative class action against
Chamberlain. The plaintiff claims that Chamberlain's use of
Respondus Monitor, an online remote proctoring tool for student
examinations, violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act (BIPA), 740 ILCS 14/15. More particularly, the plaintiff claims
that Chamberlain required students to use Respondus Monitor, which
collected, captured, stored, used, and disclosed students'
biometric identifiers and biometric information without written and
informed consent.

The plaintiff also alleges that Chamberlain lacked a legally
compliant written policy establishing a retention schedule and
guidelines for destroying biometric identifiers and biometric
information. The potential class purportedly includes all students
who took an assessment using the proctoring tool, as a student of
Chamberlain in Illinois, at any time from March 12, 2016 through
January 20, 2021.

The plaintiff and the putative class seek damages in excess of
$50,000, attorneys' fees and costs. The plaintiff and class also
seek an unspecified amount of enhanced damages based on alleged
negligent or reckless conduct by Chamberlain.  

On June 16, 2021, Chamberlain filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's complaint. On June 29, 2021, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. On July 19, 2021, Chamberlain filed its motion to
dismiss the amended complaint arguing that plaintiff's lawsuit is
expressly preempted by Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
Chamberlain's motion is pending.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. is a workforce solutions provider
based in Illinois.


CONCENTRIX SOLUTIONS: Underpays Customer Reps, Barnett Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Barnett, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Concentrix Solutions Corporation, a New York
corporation, and Concentrix CVG Customer Management Group, Inc., an
Ohio corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00266-DJH (D. Ariz.,
Feb. 18, 2022) arises from the Defendants' failure to pay
Plaintiff's all wages due, overtime wages, and paid sick time in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Arizona Wage
Statute, and the Arizona Paid Sick Time Statute.

The Plaintiff is a full-time, non-exempt employee of Concentrix
employed as a customer representative in Arizona from October 11,
2021 until the present.

Concentrix Solutions Corporation provides marketing through
technology solutions for customers throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ty D. Frankel, Esq.
          YEN PILCH ROBAINA & KRESIN PLC
          6017 N. 15th Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85014
          Telephone: (602) 682-6450
          E-mail: tdf@yprklaw.com

               - and -

          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          YEN PILCH ROBAINA & KRESIN PLC
          9655 Granite Ridge Drive, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92123
          E-mail: pms@yprklaw.com

COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S: Strok Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cook County Sheriff's
Office (CCSO), et al. The case is styled as Lukask Strok,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons
in the County of Cook v. Cook County Sheriff's Office (CCSO); Tom
Dart, Sheriff; EM Company, (Bi.com); CCHHS, (Cermak Health), and
other applicable entities/vendors/subcontractors/providers, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00963 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 23, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

The Cook County Sheriff's Office --
https://www.cookcountysheriff.org/ -- is the principal law
enforcement agency that serves Cook County, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


COTY INC: Court Junks Garrett-Evans Securities Suit Over P&G Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
COTY Inc. disclosed in its 10-Q Report for the quarterly period
ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 8, 2022, that the company filed a motion to
dismiss an amended class action complaint over a securities dispute
and has been dismissed by the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

A purported stockholder class action complaint, alleging violations
of the U.S. securities laws in connection with the Proctor and
Gamble beauty brands acquisition, is pending against the company as
well as certain current and former officers of the company.

The case, which was filed on September 4, 2020, is captioned
"Crystal Garrett-Evans v. Coty Inc. et al.," Case No. 1:20-cv-07277
(the Evans Action). On November 23, 2020, the court appointed the
individual Susan Nock as lead plaintiff and the Rosen Firm as lead
counsel. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 22,
2021. The Amended Complaint asserts claims under the federal
securities laws and seeks, among other things, monetary relief.

On March 8, 2021, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, and on August 4, 2021, the court dismissed the amended
complaint, holding that it failed to set forth a valid claim. There
has been no appeal of the dismissal and the Evans Action has been
concluded.

COTY Inc. manufactures, markets, sells and distributes branded
beauty products based in New York.


COTY INC: Court OKs Dismissal of Lewis Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------
COTY Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 8, 2022, that a class action
pending in the US District Court for the Southern District of New
York was voluntarily dismissed and was approved by said court.

A purported stockholder class action and derivative complaint,
alleging violations of the U.S. securities laws in connection with
the P&G beauty brands acquisition and the Kylie Brands transaction
as well as claims for breach of fiduciary duties, unjust
enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and waste of
corporate assets by certain current and former officers and
directors of the company.

The case, which was filed on November 17, 2020, is captioned Chris
Lewis v. Becht et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-09685. The company was
named as a nominal defendant. The plaintiff seeks, among other
things, injunctive and/or monetary relief.

This action was voluntarily stayed during the pendency of the
motion to dismiss the Evans Action. Following the dismissal of the
Evans Action, counsel for the plaintiff in the Lewis Action agreed
to dismiss the case and the court has approved the dismissal of the
action as of October 2021.

COTY Inc. manufactures, markets, sells and distributes branded
beauty products based in New York.


COTY INC: MA Pension Fund Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
------------------------------------------------------------
COTY Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2022, that the second
amended complaint over a purported stockholder class action and
derivative complaint concerning breaches of fiduciary duties is
currently on discovery stage and its trial is scheduled for
November 2022.

A consolidated purported stockholder class action and derivative
complaint concerning the tender offer by Cottage Holdco B.V. and
the Schedule 14D-9 is pending against certain current and former
directors of the Company, JAB Holding Company S.à r.l., JAB
Holdings B.V., JAB Cosmetics B.V., and Cottage Holdco B.V. in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The company was named
as a nominal defendant. The case, which was filed on May 6, 2019,
was captioned "Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund v. Harf et
al.," Case No. 2019-0336-AGB.

On June 14, 2019, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a
Verified Amended Class Action and Derivative Complaint. After
defendants responded to the Amended Complaint, on October 21, 2019,
plaintiffs filed a Verified Second Amended Class Action and
Derivative Complaint, alleging that the directors and JAB Holding
Company S.à r.l., JAB Holdings B.V., JAB Cosmetics B.V., and
Cottage Holdco B.V. breached their fiduciary duties to the
company's stockholders and breached the Stockholders Agreement. The
Second Amended Complaint seeks, among other things, monetary
relief. On November 21, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss
certain claims asserted in the Second Amended Complaint, and
certain of the director defendants also answered the complaint.

On May 7, 2020, plaintiffs stipulated to the dismissal without
prejudice of JAB Holding Company S.à r.l. from the action. On
August 17, 2020, the court denied the remaining motions to dismiss.
The case is currently at the discovery stage with a trial date
scheduled for November 2022.

COTY Inc. manufactures, markets, sells and distributes branded
beauty products based in New York.


COVID CARE: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Covid Care NYNJ LLC.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Covid Care NYNJ LLC doing
business as: Covid Care, Case No. 1:22-cv-01488 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23,
2022).

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

COVID Care NJ | NY -- https://www.covidcarenynj.com/ -- is a
platform built to enable access to Covid-19 testing for
everyone.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



CREDIT COLLECTION: Thaller Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Debts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yaakov Thaller, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. CREDIT COLLECTION SERVICES, INC., Case No.
CACE-22-002159 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Feb. 10,
2022), seeks redress for the illegal practices of the Defendant,
concerning the collection of debts, in violation of the Florida
Consumer Collection Protection Act ("FCCPA"), and the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").

The Defendant began to attempt to collect an alleged consumer debt
from the Plaintiff. On June 6, 2021, the Defendant sent the
Plaintiff a collection letter seeking to collect a balance
allegedly incurred for personal purposes. The Defendant's Letter
states, in pertinent part, "this notice will serve as a Credit
Reporting Alert that adverse credit information is scheduled to be
reported to one or more of the three major credit bureaus."

Said language is deceptive and false because the Defendant knows
exactly to how many credit bureaus it will report the debt. It is
false to suggest that the debt will be reported to more than one
credit reporting agency when, it is not so reported. The language
is open to one or more interpretation, one of which is false. In
addition, the Plaintiff asserts that he does not owe the debt. By
presenting the insurance card, the Plaintiff agreed to the tests
performed with the understanding that it would be paid by
insurance. The Letter's language violates the FCCPA and FDCPA. The
Plaintiff suffered injury in fact by being subjected to unfair and
abusive practices of the Defendant, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was a resident and citizen of the state of Florida
and is a consumer.

The Defendant regularly engages, for profit, in the collection of
alleged consumer debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Omar M. Salazar II, Esq.
          LEVY & PARTNERS, PLLC
          3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Phone (954) 727-8570
          Facsimile (954) 241-6857
          Primary Email: omar@lawlp.com
          Secondary Email: claudia@lawlp.com
                           maritza@lawlp.com


CVS HEALTH: Consolidated ERISA Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 9, 2022, that a consolidated class
action suit over ERISA violations was dismissed without prejudice.

In August and September 2020, two class actions under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against CVS
Health, Aetna, and several current and former executives, directors
and/or members of Aetna's Compensation and Talent Management
Committee docketed "Radcliffe v. Aetna Inc., et al." and "Flaim v.
Aetna Inc., et al."

The plaintiffs in these cases assert a variety of causes of action
premised on allegations that the defendants breached fiduciary
duties and engaged in prohibited transactions relating to
participants in the Aetna 401(k) Plan's investment in company stock
between December 3, 2017 and February 20, 2019, claiming losses
related to the performance of the company's long-term care business
unit. The district court consolidated said actions. In October
2021, the consolidated case was dismissed without prejudice.

CVS Health Corporation is a health solutions company based in Rhode
Island.


CVS HEALTH: Faces Suits Over Omissions in SEC Filings
-----------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 9, 2022, that class action
complaints were filed against the company alleging certain
omissions and misrepresentations relating to the performance of the
company's long-term care (LTC) business unit.

Beginning in February 2019, multiple class action complaints, as
well as a derivative complaint, were filed by putative plaintiffs
against CVS and certain current and former officers and directors.
The plaintiffs in these cases assert a variety of causes of action
under federal securities laws that are premised on allegations that
the defendants made certain omissions and misrepresentations
relating to the performance of the company's LTC business unit.

CVS and its current and former officers and directors are defending
themselves against these claims. Since filing, several of the cases
have been consolidated, and the first-filed federal case, City of
Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust, et al.,
was dismissed with prejudice in February 2021. Plaintiffs have
appealed that decision to the First Circuit after their motion for
reconsideration was denied. Cases docketed "In re CVS Health Corp.
Securities Act Litigation" and "In re CVS Health Corp. Securities
Litigation" have been stayed pending the outcome of the First
Circuit appeal.

CVS Health Corporation is a health solutions company based in Rhode
Island.


DECK HELMET: Mebane Files TCPA Suit in D. Maryland
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Deck Helmet, Inc. The
case is styled as Robert C. Mebane, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Deck Helmet, Inc., a Maryland
corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-00442-LKG (D. Md., Feb. 24, 2022).

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

Deck Helmet -- https://www.deckhelmet.com/ -- is a deck resurfacing
system transforming old worn-out decks in to low maintenance
composite decks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aimee Michele Bader, Esq.
          ADVOCATES LAW OFFICE, LLC
          2029 Fleet Street
          Baltimore, MD 21231
          Phone: (410) 499-6793
          Fax: (410) 537-5950
          Email: anesquire1@yahoo.com


DEERE & CO: Monopolizes Repair Service Market, Ferrell Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MONTY FERRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DEERE & CO. (d/b/a JOHN DEERE), Case No.
5:22-cv-00157-G (W.D. Okla., Feb. 22, 2022) is class action
complaint about John Deere's monopolization of the repair service
market for John Deere brand agricultural equipment with onboard
central computers known as engine control units, or "ECUs."

According to the complaint, Farmers have traditionally had the
ability to repair and maintain their own tractors as needed, or
else have had the option to bring their tractors to an independent
mechanic. However, in newer generations of its agricultural
equipment, Deere has deliberately monopolized the market for repair
and maintenance services of its agricultural equipment with ECUs
("Deere Repair Services") by making crucial software and repair
tools inaccessible to farmers and independent repair shops.
Furthermore, Deere's network of highly-consolidated independent
dealerships (the "Dealerships") is not permitted through their
agreements with Deere to provide farmers or repair shops with
access to the same software and repair tools the Dealerships
have, says the suit.

As a result of shutting out farmers and independent repair shops
from accessing the necessary resources for repairs, Deere and the
Dealerships have allegedly cornered the Deere Repair Services
Market in the United States for Deere-branded agricultural
equipment controlled by ECUs and have derived supracompetitive
profits from the sale of repair and maintenance services.

This is an antitrust class action pursuant to Sections 1 and 2 of
the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. sections 1, 2) brought by Plaintiff
Monty Ferrell on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of persons
and entities similarly situated. Plaintiff seeks to represent those
persons and entities who purchased repair services from Defendant
Deere and Co. (d/b/a John Deere) and Deere-affiliated independent
Dealerships and technicians in the Deere Repair Services Market for
Deere agricultural equipment from January 12, 2018 to the present.

John Deere is the biggest player in agricultural machinery markets
in the United States. Deere wields significant economic power in
the market for large tractors and combine tractors in North America
1 and has a larger market share than that of the next two biggest
tractor makers, Case New Holland and Kubota Corp., the lawsuit
says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
          Isaac L. Diel, Esq.
          Greg M. Bentz, Esq.
          Ruth Anne French-Hodson, Esq.
          Hammons Hepner, Esq.
          SHARP LAW, LLP
          4820 W. 75th Street
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901-0505
          Facsimile: (913) 901-041
          E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com
                  idiel@midwest-law.com
                  gbentz@midwest-law.com
                  rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com
                  hhepner@midwest-law.com

               - and -

          Kyle B. Hadwiger, Esq.
          HADWIGER & JUNGMAN, PLLC
          120 S. Grand
          P.O. Box 306
          Cherokee, OK 73728
          Telephone: (580) 596-3591
          E-mail: kyle@hjoklaw.com

               - and -

          Tim Battin, Esq.
          BOIESBATTIN LLP
          4041 University Drive, 5th Floor
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 764-8700
          Facsimile: (703) 764-8704
          E-mail: tbattin@straus-boies.com

DIAMONDERE INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diamondere, Inc. The
case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Diamondere, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-01510-ER (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2022).

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

Diamondere -- https://www.diamondere.com/ -- is a custom fine
jewelry e-commerce store.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: $15.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the
Diplomat Pharmacy Securities Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

CHASE MORTIMER, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DIPLOMAT PHARMACY, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01735

(Consolidated)

CLASS ACTION

Honorable John F. Kness

SUMMARY NOTICE

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED DIPLOMAT PHARMACY, INC. ("DIPLOMAT")
COMMON STOCK FROM FEBRUARY 26, 2018 THROUGH AND INCLUDING NOVEMBER
11, 2019, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division (the "Court") and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, that (i) the above-captioned litigation (the
"Litigation") has been preliminarily certified as a class action on
behalf of a class of all Persons who purchased Diplomat common
stock from February 26, 2018 through and including November 11,
2019, and were damaged thereby, except for certain Persons excluded
from the Class as defined in the full printed Notice of Pendency
and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is
available as described below; and (ii) Lead Plaintiff and
Defendants in the Litigation have reached an agreement to settle
the Litigation for $15.5 million in cash (the "Settlement"). If the
Settlement is approved, it will resolve all claims in the
Litigation. Any capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice that
are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed
to them in the Amended Stipulation of Settlement dated January 24,
2022 (the "Stipulation"), and the Notice.

A hearing will be held on June 6, 2022, at 9:30 a.m., before the
Honorable John F. Kness, at the Everett McKinley Dirksen U.S.
Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, for
the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of
the claims in the Litigation for the sum of $15,500,000 in cash
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(2) whether a Class should be certified for purposes of the
Settlement; (3) whether, thereafter, this Litigation should be
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms and conditions set
forth in the Stipulation; (4) whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should
be approved; and (5) the reasonableness of the application of Lead
Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in
connection with this Litigation, together with the interest earned
thereon (and any payment to the Lead Plaintiff pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 in connection with
its representation of the Class).

If you purchased Diplomat common stock during the period between
February 26, 2018 and November 11, 2019, inclusive, your rights may
be affected by the settlement of this Litigation. If you have not
received a detailed Notice and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies (as well as
a copy of the Stipulation) by writing to Diplomat Securities
Litigation 2021, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O.
Box 43361, Providence, RI 02940-3361, or by downloading this
information at www.DiplomatSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a
Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, you must either submit a Proof of Claim online at
www.DiplomatSecuritiesLitigation.com by April 27, 2022, or by mail
postmarked no later than April 27, 2022, establishing that you are
entitled to recovery.

If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a
request for exclusion postmarked by April 27, 2022, in the manner
and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to above. All
Members of the Class who do not timely and validly request
exclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgment entered in
the Litigation pursuant to the terms and conditions of the
Stipulation.

Any objection to the Settlement must be mailed or delivered to the
Clerk of the Court and counsel for the Settling Parties at the
addresses below such that it is received no later than
May 16, 2022:

Court:

Clerk of the Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604

Counsel for Lead Plaintiff:

Theodore J. Pintar
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101

Counsel for Defendants:

James W. Ducayet
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
One South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60603

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact counsel for Lead Plaintiff at the address listed above
or go to the following website:
www.DiplomatSecuritiesLitigation.com.

DATED: January 27, 2022

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


DONA CHAI: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dona Chai LLC. The
case is styled as Juan Ortega, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Dona Chai LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01526
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2022).

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

Dona Chai -- https://drinkdona.com/ -- is Brooklyn's chai
concentrate offering handcrafted tea in small batches using fresh
ginger, freshly spices and organic black tea.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DRIFT FREEDIVING: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Drift Freediving LLC.
The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Drift Freediving LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01512 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2022).

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

Drift Freediving -- https://driftfreediving.com/ -- provide
freediving courses for all levels (F.I.I), training camps, island
trips along with a top-notch selection of freediving and
spearfishing gear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EASSIST INC: Lewis Seeks OT & Minimum Wages for Billing Specialists
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA LEWIS, an individual, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. EASSIST, INC. D/B/A EASSIST DENTAL
SOLUTIONS, a Utah corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00121-JCB (D. Utah,
Feb. 22, 2022) is a class action lawsuit against the Defendant for
its unlawful failure to pay overtime and minimum wage in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and the Collective Members are current and former
remote dental billing specialists who were misclassified as
independent contractors and compensated on a flat rate basis.

The Plaintiff and the Collective Members were not paid
one-and-one-half times their regular rates of pay for all time
worked in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek and were not paid
minimum wage for all hours worked, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant is dental billing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason D. Haymore, Esq.
          Brandon Sipherd, Esq.
          PEARSON BUTLER, LLC
          1802 South Jordan Parkway, Suite 200
          South Jordan, UT 84095
          Telephone: (801) 495-4104
          E-mail: JasonH@pearsonbutler.com
                  brandon@pearsonbutler.com

               - and -

          Amanda Kuklinski, Esq.
          ZOLDAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          5050 N. 40th St., Suite 260
          Phoenix, AZ 85018
          Tel & Fax: (480) 442-3410
          E-mail: akuklinski@zoldangroup.com

EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Court Dismisses Souter's 1st Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAUREN SOUTER, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE COMPANY;
EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE BRANDS, LLC; and EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-1486 TWR (BLM) (S.D. Cal.), Judge
Todd W. Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.

I. Background

The Plaintiff initiated the putative class action against the
Defendants based on allegedly misleading representations associated
with their antibacterial hand wipes known as "Wet Ones," which the
Plaintiff purchased multiple times during the class period. The
Plaintiff alleges that the misleading representations violate
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), False Advertising Law
("FAL"), and California Consumer Remedies Act ("CLRA"). She further
alleges breach of express warranty and quasi-contract.

Two representations are at issue: (1) that the hand wipes kill
99.99% of germs (the "Efficacy Representations"), and (2) that the
hand wipes are "hypoallergenic" and "gentle" (the "Skin Safety
Representations"). According to the Plaintiff, these
representations were false and misleading and would likely deceive
reasonable consumers. In buying the hand wipes, the Plaintiff
alleges that she relied on the Efficacy and Skin Safety
Representations on the product label. If she had known the truth,
the Plaintiff claims, she would not have purchased the hand wipes
or would have purchased them on different terms.

The Plaintiff filed her initial Complaint on July 31, 2020. On Oct.
6, 2020, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs Complaint
on five grounds: (1) lack of constitutional and statutory standing,
(2) failure to satisfy the heightened pleading standard under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), (3) failure to satisfy the
reasonable consumer test, (4) primary jurisdiction, and (5)
preemption. On June 7, 2021, the Court granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to
satisfy the reasonable consumer test, and granted the Plaintiff
leave to amend.

The Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint on July
7, 2021. On Aug. 6, 2021, the Defendants filed the instant Motion.
The Plaintiff Souter has filed a Response in Opposition to and the
Defendant has filed a Reply in Support of the Motion. The Court
heard oral argument on the Motion on Dec. 8, 2021.

II. Analysis

The Defendants move to dismiss on four grounds: (1) lack of
constitutional and statutory standing, (2) failure to satisfy the
reasonable consumer standard, (3) preemption, and (4) primary
jurisdiction. They also maintain that the Plaintiff's claim for
equitable relief should be dismissed. The Defendants have not
offered new arguments to change the Court's previous ruling on
preemption and primary jurisdiction; consequently, Judge Robinson
reaffirms its previous ruling denying the Defendants' motion to
dismiss on those grounds. He addresses their remaining arguments in
turn.

A. Constitutional and Statutory Standing

The Defendants reassert their claim that the Plaintiff lacks
constitutional and statutory standing based on the Plaintiff's
failure to allege a cognizable injury.

Judge Robinson is not persuaded by the Defendants' new arguments
and finds that the Plaintiff has both statutory and constitutional
standing. He explains that to have constitutional standing, the
Plaintiff must have "(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is
fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the Defendant, and
(3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial
decision. First, he finds that the Plaintiff adequately has alleged
an economic injury-in-fact as her allegations suffice the
requirement. Second, he finds that the Plaintiff alleges actual
misrepresentations she relied upon that are included on the
product's label. Consequently, as pled, she adequately has
established materiality at the motion to dismiss stage. For these
reasons, Judge Robinson denies the Defendants' Motion on this
ground.

B. The Reasonable Consumer Test Under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA

At the pleading stage, courts have dismissed cases under the
reasonable consumer test only in select circumstances, particularly
where the "alleged violations of the UCL, FAL, and CLRA are simply
not plausible." First, with respect to the Plaintiff's allegation
that the Defendants' Efficacy Representations are false and that a
reasonable consumer would be misled by the Defendants'
representations, Judge Robinson holds that the Plaintiff has not
adequately alleged facts that establish that diseases transmissible
by hand, preventable by keeping one's hands clean, and unresponsive
to Wet Ones, total more than 0.01% of germs. He therefore grants
the Defendants' Motion and dismisses the Plaintiff's claims related
to the Defendants' Efficacy Representation for failure to satisfy
the reasonable consumer test.

Second, Judge Robinson finds that the Plaintiff does not
sufficiently allege that the Skin Safety Representation is false or
that a reasonable consumer, after reading that the product is
"hypoallergenic," would assume that Wet Ones has no potential
allergens. The Plaintiff does not adequately allege that Wet Ones
are more likely to cause an allergic reaction compared to other
similar products. Judge Robinson therefore grants the Defendants'
Motion and dismisses the Plaintiff's claims related to the
Defendant's Skin Safety Representation for failure to satisfy the
reasonable consumer test.

C. Breach of Express Warranty

Judge Robinson also grants the Defendants' Motion and dismisses the
Plaintiff's breach of express warranty claim. He holds that the
Plaintiff's claim fails as to the Efficacy Representation because
the Defendants never promised that the hand wipes would kill 99.99%
of all germs, as the Plaintiff suggests, or even those specifically
identified in the First Amended Complaint. Thus, no express
warranty was breached. The Plaintiff's claim regarding the Skin
Safety Representation also fails. The Defendants' "hypoallergenic"
representation is not false or misleading; thus, no express
warranty was breached.

D. Quasi-Contract

The Plaintiff's claim for quasi-contract, or unjust enrichment,
also fails as to both the Efficacy and Skin Safety Representations.
A quasi-contract claim typically involves a plaintiff seeking the
return of a benefit that the defendant had unjustly gained through
"mistake, fraud, coercion, or request." Absent fraud, the Plaintiff
has no claim for unjust enrichment. In the case, no fraud has been
shown as to either the Defendants' Efficacy Representation or Skin
Safety Representation. Judge Robinson therefore grants the
Defendants' Motion and dismisses the Plaintiff's quasi-contract
claim.

E. Lack of Adequate Remedy of Law

Finally, the Plaintiff "must establish that she lacks an adequate
remedy at law before securing equitable restitution for past harm
under the UCL and CLRA." Judge Robinson denies the Defendants'
Motion as to the Plaintiff's claims for equitable restitution. He
finds that the Plaintiff seeks relief based on a likelihood of
future harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law;
therefore, she has properly sought and alleged entitlement to an
equitable remedy.

III. Conclusion

Because the Plaintiff's claims under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA do not
pass the reasonable consumer test, Judge Robinson granted the
Defendants' Motion and dismisses the Plaintiff's first through
third causes of action. Further, because the Plaintiff has not
adequately alleged that the Defendants breached an express warranty
or committed a fraudulent act to establish unjust enrichment, Judge
Robinson granted the Defendant's Motion and dismissed the remaining
state law claims. The Plaintiff will have 30 days from the date of
the Order to file an amended complaint. Should the Plaintiff fail
timely to file an amended complaint, the Court will enter an Order
dismissing the action without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p896692 from Leagle.com.


ELECTROMED INC: Moves to Dismiss Suit Over Data Breach Incident
---------------------------------------------------------------
Electromed, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2022, that it moved to
dismiss a class action complaint over a data breach incident and
the hearing is set for March 2022.

On September 8, 2021, a state court putative class action lawsuit
was filed in Minnesota against the company asserting injury
resulting from the previously announced data breach that impacted
the company's customer protected health information and employee
personal information and seeking compensatory damages, equitable
relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 6, 2021, the proceeding was removed to the District of
Minnesota. Electromed contends that the plaintiff was not injured
as a result of the data privacy incident, and, as a result, the
claims are without merit. Accordingly, on November 11, 2021, the
company moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, and the
hearing on such motion is currently set for March 2022.

Electromed Inc. develops, manufactures and markets innovative
airway clearance products based in Minnesota.


EOG RESOURCES: Misclassifies Water Consultants, Brown Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
HUNTER BROWN AND RONALD ALBRITTON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EOG RESOURCES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00116-KRS-SMV (D.N.M., Feb. 18, 2022)
is a collective action to recover overtime compensation and all
other available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are classified as
independent contractors, all of whom are paid a day rate and denied
overtime pay.

Plaintiffs Brown and Albritton worked for EOG as water consultants
from 2014 until March of 2020 and from August of 2012 until
December 25, 2021, respectively.

EOG Resources, Inc. is an American energy company engaged in
hydrocarbon exploration.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Josh Borsellino, Esq.
          BORSELLINO, P.C.
          1020 Macon St., Suite 15
          Fort Worth, TX 76102  
          Telephone: (817) 908-9861
          Facsimile: (817) 394-2412
          E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com

ESCO LTD: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Esco, Ltd. The case
is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Esco, Ltd., Case No. 1:22-cv-01514 (S.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 23, 2022).

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

ESCO, Ltd. of the United States -- https://www.ycmc.com/ -- retails
apparel and footwear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FAMILY DOLLAR: Lacy Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Family Dollar, Inc.
The case is styled as Martha Keisha Lacy, Lorraine Bennett-Freeman,
Sheena Bibbs, Nakedra Freeman, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Family Dollar, Inc., A North Carolina
Corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-00098-KHJ-MTP (S.D. Miss., Feb. 23,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Family Dollar -- https://www.familydollar.com/ -- is an American
variety store chain.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John W. Barrett, Esq.
          Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq.
          Sarah Sterling Aldridge, Esq.
          DON BARRETT, PA
          P. O. Box 927
          404 Court Square North
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Phone: (662) 834-2488
          Fax: (662) 834-2628
          Email: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
                 kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com
                 saldridge@barrettlawgroup.com


FILTERS FAST: Bid for Final OK of Settlement in Powers Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SANGER POWERS, ROBERT LEGG, JENNIFER McCREARY, BETTY
OWEN, and LYDIA POSTOLOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FILTERS FAST, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-982-jdp (W.D. Wis.), Judge James D.
Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin denied without prejudice the motions for final approval
of class settlement and for attorney fees and costs.

I. Introduction

The case is a class action involving a data breach that compromised
credit card information of Defendant Filters' customers between
July 2019 and July 2020. The parties move for final approval of a
class settlement and the Plaintiffs' counsel move for fees and
costs. Before the Court can grant either motion, the Plaintiffs and
the Plaintiffs' counsel will have to address the concerns of the
court related to the adequacy of the notice, the fairness of the
settlement, and the reasonableness of the class counsel's request
for fees and costs.

II. Analysis

A. Notice

The Court's first concern relates to the adequacy of the notice to
the class. The claims administrator says that it provided the
following notice: (1) an email to all class members on Dec. 8,
2021; (2) a second email on January 6 to any class member who
hadn't yet submitted a claim; and (3) a letter sent through the
postal service to any class member who couldn't be reached by
email. Using these methods, the administrator estimates that 89% of
the class received notice.

Judge Peterson opines that the notice appears adequate on its face.
But despite the administrator's efforts, the administrator
represents that it has received only 69 claims through the mail and
3,476 claims submitted electronically. The Plaintiffs estimate that
the class includes more 323,000 members, so the total number of
claims represents a little more than one percent of the class
members. This is so even though each class member was entitled to
submit a claim for $25 without showing any individualized injury.

The Plaintiffs offer no explanation for what appears to be a low
response rate in a context where there was little downside to
submitting a claim. The administrator's explanation of its notice
procedures is rather vague. It doesn't explain how it determined
that 89% of the class received notice.

To help establish the adequacy of the notice provided, the
Plaintiffs must do the following: (1) provide updated figures of
the number of class members who have submitted claims as of
February 11; (2) provide evidence that the response rate in the
case is reasonable, such as data from other cases involving similar
claims; (3) explain how the administrator determined that 89% of
the class members received notice; and (4) provide a copy of the
emails and letters that the administrator sent to the class.

B. Settlement amount

The Court's second concern relates to the cash portion of the
proposed settlement. The Plaintiffs say that the class members have
submitted claims totaling more than $103,000. But the Plaintiffs
don't say that the administrator has approved that amount. Rather,
they say that the claims "are subject to vetting for fraud and
duplications."

In evaluating the fairness of the settlement, the Court must
consider the "relief provided" to the class, not the "relief
requested." So Judge Peterson will give the Plaintiffs an
opportunity to identify the claims that have been approved and
their value. If any claims have been rejected or if the
administrator is still reviewing them, they should explain why and
provide any relevant documentation. The Plaintiffs should also show
cause why any claims that are still being reviewed should not be
excluded from the amount of the settlement for the purpose of
determining whether the settlement is fair and reasonable under
Rule 23 and for the purpose of evaluating the reasonableness of the
fee petition submitted by the Plaintiffs' counsel.

C. Fees and costs

The Court has multiple concerns related to the Plaintiffs'
counsel's petition for approximately $305,000 in fees and $15,000
in costs. As an initial matter, Judge Peterson holds that the
counsel didn't comply with the Court's procedures, which requires
fee petitions to be accompanied by billing logs, among other
things. The counsel should carefully review those procedures and
submit a new petition that complies with them, including a new
lodestar analysis. The counsel should also submit an itemized list
of their costs. Hence, the Plaintiffs will need to submit a new
petition for fees and costs that complies with the Court's
procedures and is otherwise consistent with this circuit's
requirements for showing reasonableness under a lodestar approach.

Among other things, the counsel's renewed motion should address
potential concerns about duplication of effort, failure to
delegate, and excessive hourly rates. The declarations of the
Plaintiffs' counsel show that no fewer than eight attorneys and
five paralegals from multiple law firms were assigned to this case
and that five of the attorneys billed at rates of $700 an hour or
more. The counsel should also address the question of what should
be done about any excessive fees. Should they be distributed to the
class, or should they revert to Filters Fast? Finally, the
Plaintiffs' counsel should exclude from their fee petition work
spent on their original motion for final approval of the settlement
and on their original petition for fees and costs, unless the
counsel shows that they reasonably relied on the same work to
support the renewed motions.

III. Conclusion

The motions for final approval of the settlement agreement and for
attorney fees and costs are denied without prejudice. The parties
have to submit renewed motions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 15, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3hx97d6w from Leagle.com.


FIRST SAVINGS: Settlement Reached Over NSF Dispute
--------------------------------------------------
First Savings Financial Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2022, that
First Savings Bank, a subsidiary of First Savings Financial Group,
Inc., received notice of a class action lawsuit on March 23, 2021
regarding its policy and practice of assessing customer fees
related to items presented on accounts with insufficient funds
(NSF). The company has reached a verbal settlement with the
claimant and has accrued a loss contingency for this pending
settlement at December 31, 2021.

First Savings Financial Group, Inc. is a financial holding company
based in Indiana


FORD MOTOR: Court Modifies Case Schedule in Hoffman Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOWARD HOFFMAN and ANDREW
TEN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. FORD
MOTOR COMPANY, a Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
8:20-cv-00846-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine L.
Staton entered an order granting stipulation to modify the case
schedule as follows:

       Description of the Event               Deadline

  -- Fact Discovery Cutoff:                 June 6, 2022

  -- Last Day to File a Motion for          July 8, 2022
     Class Certification:

  -- Last Day to Serve Initial              Sept. 8, 2022
     Expert Reports (as to any
     experts unrelated to class
     certification):

  -- Last Day to File Opposition            October 3, 2022
     to Motion for Class
     Certification:

  -- Last Day to Serve Rebuttal             October 6, 2022
     Expert Reports (as to any
     experts unrelated to class
     certification):

  -- Last Day to Conduct Settlement         November 3, 2022
     Proceedings:

  -- Expert Discovery Cutoff:               November 3, 2022

  -- Last Day to File Daubert               January 3, 2023
     Motions:

  -- Last Day to File Reply in              January 3, 2023
     Support of Motion for Class
     Certification:

  -- Last Day to File Motions
     (Excluding Motions in Limine):         January 3, 2023

  -- Last Day to File Other Motions          March 9, 2023
     in Limine (Excluding Daubert
     Motions):

  -- Final Pretrial Conference:              April 27, 2023

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

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35gH7UP at no extra charge.[CC]

FRAGRANT JEWELS: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fragrant Jewels LLC.
The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Fragrant Jewels LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01462 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2022).

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

Fragrant Jewels -- http://www.fragrantjewels.com/-- is a company
that sells candles, tarts, and bath bombs in a wide variety of
scents, themes, and packages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FREEMAN BODY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages Under FLSA, AMWA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES GEORGE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. FREEMAN BODY, GLASS, RENTAL, TOWING & SALES, INC., and
JEFF FREEMAN, Case No. 3:22-cv-00039-DPM (E.D. Ark., Feb. 22, 2022)
is a collective action brought by Plaintiff, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, against Defendant for
violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the overtime provisions of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and a reasonable
attorney's fee and costs as a result of Defendant's policies and
practices of failing to pay proper overtime compensation under the
FLSA and the AMWA.

Jeff Freeman, in his role as an operating employer of Freeman Body,
had the power to hire and fire Plaintiff, often exercised
supervisory authority over Plaintiff's work, including the
day-to-day job duties that Plaintiff's job entailed, determined his
work schedule, and made decisions regarding Plaintiff's pay, or
lack thereof.

The Defendant employs two or more individuals who engage in
interstate commerce or business transactions, or who produce goods
to be transported or sold in interstate commerce, or who handle,
sell, or otherwise work with goods or materials that have been
moved in or produced for interstate commerce, such as vehicles and
fuel, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

FRESH MARK: McElroy Seeks Overtime Pay for Production Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTOINE MCELROY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FRESH MARK, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00287-SL (N.D. Ohio,
Feb. 22, 2022) is a collective action instituted by Plaintiff as a
result of Defendant's practices and policies of not paying its
non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees, for all hours worked, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, as well as a class action pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23 to remedy violations of the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act.

The Defendant is a nationwide supplier of bacon, ham, hot dogs,
pepperoni and salami, sliced meats and other specialty meat items
and operates food processing, production, and distribution
facilities in Ohio.

The Defendant employed Plaintiff between May 2006 and July 2021 as
a machine operator at its Canton, Ohio production facility.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were employed
as production employees at Defendant's processing, production, and
distribution facilities.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated production employees frequently worked over 40 hours per
week. The Plaintiff worked on average 40-60 hours each week. But
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated production employees
were only paid for work performed between their scheduled start and
stop times, and were not paid for the following work performed
before and after their scheduled start and stop times: a) changing
into and out of their personal protective equipment, including, but
not limited to, a smock, gloves, boots, safety glasses, earplugs,
and/or a hairnet; b) washing their hands; c) temperature checks; d)
walking to and from their assigned areas of the production floor;
and e) performing their production work prior to their shift start
times.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250
          34555 Chagrin Boulevard
          Moreland Hills, OH 44022
          Telephone: (216) 696-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
          E-mail: chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com

FUNICI WELDING: Perez Sues Over Truck Drivers' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES PEREZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. FUNICI WELDING CO. and KUJTIM FUNICI, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01417 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2022) arises
from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law for failing to pay overtime wages
and failing to provide written notice of wage rates.

The Plaintiff worked as a truck driver and laborer at Funici
Welding from approximately 2012 to April 2020.

Funici Welding Co. is a construction and welding company based in
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
          225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 323-6980
          E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com

GATOS SILVER: Faces Bilinsky Suit Over 69% Drop of Stock Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BILINSKY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GATOS SILVER, INC., STEPHEN ORR, ROGER
JOHNSON, THOMAS S. KAPLAN, JANICE STAIRS, JEB BURNS, ALI ERFAN,
IGOR GONZALES, KARL HANNEMAN, IGOR LEVENTAL, DAVID PEAT, BMO
CAPITAL MARKETS CORP., GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, RBC CAPITAL
MARKETS, LLC, CANACCORD GENUITY CORP., and CIBC WORLD MARKETS
CORP., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00453-KLM (D. Colo., February
22, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission about Gatos Silver's business, operations, and prospects
in order to trade Gatos securities at artificially inflated prices
between October 28, 2020 and January 25, 2022. Specifically, the
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the technical
report for Gatos's primary mine, the Cerro Los Gatos deposit,
contained certain errors; (2) that, among other things, the mineral
reserves had been overestimated by as much as 50 percent; and (3)
that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive
statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

When the truth emerged, the company's stock price fell $7.02, or 69
percent, to close at $3.17 per share on January 26, 2022, on
unusually heavy trading volume, says the suit.

Gatos Silver, Inc. is a silver ore mining company, with its
principal executive offices located in Greenwood Village,
Colorado.

BMO Capital Markets Corp. is a financial services firm
headquartered in New York, New York.

Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC is a financial services firm headquartered
in New York, New York.

RBC Capital Markets, LLC is a financial services firm headquartered
in Toronto, Canada.

Canaccord Genuity Corp. is a financial services firm based in
Vancouver, Canada.

CIBC World Markets Corp. is a financial services firm headquartered
in Toronto, Canada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
         Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
         Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
         GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 201-9150
         Facsimile: (310) 201-9160

                 - and –

         Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
         1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 914-5007

GENERAL MOTORS: Court Narrows Claims in 3rd Amended Goldstein Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MATT GOLDSTEIN, et al., on behalf of themselves and a
class of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19cv1778-LL-AHG (S.D. Cal.), Judge Linda
Lopez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California granted in part and denied in part Defendant GM's Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third Amended Class Complaint.

I. Background

On April 13, 2020, the Court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part Defendant GM's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
First Amended Complaint. On Feb. 3, 2021, the Court issued an order
granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.

On March 5, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Class
Complaint ("TAC"). In the TAC, the Plaintiffs allege the following
five claims in the putative class action: (1) violation of
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California
Civil Code section 1750; (2) breach of the implied warranty
pursuant to Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act ("Song-Beverly"),
California Civil Code sections 1792 and 1791.1; (3) breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability, California Commercial Code
section 2314; (4) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"), California Business and Professions Code section 17200;
and (5) unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a Class of all persons and
entities who purchased or leased 2013 to 2017 Cadillac ATS, SRX,
and XTS vehicles and 2014 to 2017 Cadillac CTS, ELR, and Escalade
vehicles (hereinafter "Class Vehicles") equipped with General
Motors' Cadillac User Experience touch screen display in the state
of California. They also seek to represent a CLRA Sub-Class of all
members of the Class who are "consumers" within the meaning of
California Civil Code section 1761(d).

The Plaintiffs are four citizens of California who purchased new or
used Cadillacs designed, manufactured, and distributed by the
Defendant. They allege that the in-vehicle infotainment device,
known as the CUE System ("CUE"), is defective. The CUE is an
audio/visual interface comprised of a touch screen module that
provides "entertainment and information delivery to drivers." The
CUE controls the audio, phone, and climate inputs for the car and
displays the backup camera when the vehicle is in reverse. Id.

The Plaintiffs allege the CUE is defective because the plastic
cover that sits in front of the touch screen is prone to
delaminating or separating from the touch screen glass due to
either mechanical or thermal stress. When the plastic cover
separates, the Plaintiffs allege it causes a "spider-web-like
pattern on the display" to form, which prevents the CUE from
recognizing any touch input from a user (the "Defect").

The Plaintiffs allege that the CUE is "defectively designed"
because of the placement of the screws and rubberized gasket that
hold the plastic cover to the frame of the CUE. They claim that
"when Class Members bring their vehicles to GM's authorized dealers
for repair, the defective CUE Systems or components are replaced
with the same defective parts, ensuring that the defective
replacement CUE will eventually suffer the same delamination and
spider-webbing issues."

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant "knew, or should have
known, about the Defect." In support of this allegation, they cite
to four service bulletins and service bulletin updates ("Technical
Service Bulletins" or "TSBs") that the Defendant allegedly issued
to its dealers in the United States between December 2014 and
August 2017. They claim that these Technical Service Bulletins
demonstrated that the Defendant "was aware of the Defect and
recognized it was covered under its Warranty." These TSBs stated
that "some customers may report that their radio screen appears
bubbled, cracked, or is delaminating" and directed dealers to
"replace the ICS (Integrated Center Stack) by following the SI
replacement procedure." The Plaintiffs also point to various
consumer complaints filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration ("NHTSA") as evidence that the Defendant was aware
of the Defect.

Similarly, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant was aware of
the Defect because of complaints made by consumers on internet
forums that Defendant allegedly monitored. They claim that the
Defendant was aware of these complaints because it monitored and
responded to complaints through its agents by making online
postings in the various internet forums. Lastly, the Plaintiffs
allege that the Defendant was aware of the Defect "based on the
large number of repairs performed to the CUE System's exhibiting
delamination and spiderwebbing at its network of dealerships."

All the Plaintiffs claim that had they known that the CUE was
defective, they would not have purchased or leased the Class
Vehicles or would have paid less for them. Two of the Plaintiffs,
Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Guzman, additionally claim that they are
harmed by exposure to future attempted repairs.

The Plaintiffs seek (1) injunctive and equitable relief, as well as
"monetary, compensatory, and punitive damages" for the CLRA claim
(Count 1); (2) damages for the implied warranty claim pursuant to
Song-Beverly (Count 2); (3) damages for the implied warranty of
merchantability claim (Count 3); (4) injunctive relief for the UCL
claim (Count 4); and (5) injunctive relief for the unjust
enrichment claim (Count 5).

II. Discussion

The Defendant moves to dismiss four claims in the Plaintiffs' TAC
for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). It seeks to dismiss the Plaintiffs' CLRA injunctive
relief claim (Count 1), implied warranty of merchantability claim
(Count 3), UCL claim (Count 4), and unjust enrichment claim (Count
5).

A. Plaintiff's Equitable Claims (Counts 1, 4, and 5)

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' CLRA injunctive relief,
UCL, and unjust enrichment claims should be dismissed because (1)
Plaintiffs have adequate legal remedies, (2) recent Ninth Circuit
authority provides for dismissal at the pleading stage, and (3)
Plaintiffs lack standing to seek prospective injunctive relief.

Judge Lopez examines whether the Plaintiffs have established that
they lack an adequate remedy at law for their injunctive relief
claims. First, She finds that the Plaintiffs do not establish that
they lack an adequate remedy at law for injunctive relief for the
CLRA claim, stating only that the "Plaintiffs and the Class Members
are entitled to equitable relief." They failed to allege that the
injunctive relief claim they seek for the CLRA cause of action has
an inadequate remedy at law and Judge Lopez therefore grants the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' injunctive relief
claim under the CLRA without leave to amend.

Second, Judge Lopez grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
injunctive claims (1) to remove and replace their CUE Systems with
a suitable alternative product that does not contain the alleged
defects and (2) to perform a recall and repair. She finds that the
Plaintiffs' contention that monetary damages are not an adequate
remedy for their harms is unpersuasive as to past harm. The primary
alleged injury for past harm is that the "Plaintiffs and the Class
Members would have paid less for Class Vehicles equipped with the
subject CUE Systems or would not have purchased or leased them at
all" had they known about the defect.

The Plaintiffs thus seek damages to compensate for the same injury
that forms the basis of their requests for the Defendant (1) to
remove and replace their CUE Systems with a suitable alternative
product that does not contain the alleged defects and (2) to
perform a recall and repair. Judge Lopez finds there is an adequate
remedy at law because the damages and equitable claims for past
harm rest on the same alleged overpayment and the Plaintiff has not
alleged facts that monetary relief would be insufficient.

Lastly, Judge Lopez finds that the Plaintiffs do have standing to
seek injunctive relief compelling the Defendant to reform its
warranty to cover the injury alleged and to notify all the Class
Members that such warranty has been reformed. She says, this
injunctive relief claim pertains to the defective CUE and
allegations that Defendant replaces defective CUE or components
with defective parts, ensuring a recurrence of the same
delamination and spider-webbing issues. Two of the named
Plaintiffs, Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Guzman, still own their vehicles
and allege they will be harmed by future attempted repairs.

Because Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Guzman still own their vehicles, they
have sufficiently demonstrated that they are threatened with a
concrete and particularized legal harm from future attempted
repairs utilizing the same defective parts, and this injury is
likely to occur again barring injunctive relief. Accordingly, Judge
Lopez finds that at least two named Plaintiffs have standing to
seek injunctive relief compelling the Defendant to reform its
warranty to cover the injury alleged and to notify all Class
Members that such warranty has been reformed and thus denies the
Defendant's motion to dismiss this injunctive claim.

B. Plaintiffs' Implied Warranty of Merchantability Claim (Count 3)

The Defendant argues again that Plaintiff Guzman's implied warranty
of merchantability claim under section 2314 of the California
Commercial Code should be dismissed because Mr. Guzman does not
plead vertical privity with Defendant, and that the Court had not
previously addressed its argument that the "written labels or
advertisements" exception only applies to express warranty claims.

The Plaintiffs dispute this, contending that privity is not
required when they relied on written labels or advertisements of a
manufacturer, nor when they are third-party beneficiaries of
warranty agreements between the Defendant and its dealerships.

First, Judge Lopez finds that the Plaintiffs do not cite -- and the
Court did not find -- any California authority finding that the
written labels or advertisements exception to privity applies to
implied warranty claims under California Commercial Code section
2314. She thus finds that the written labels or advertisements
exception to privity does not apply to the Plaintiff's implied
warranty claims under California Commercial Code section 2314.

Second, viewing the factual allegations in the TAC and reasonable
inferences drawn from them as true, Judge Lopez finds that the
Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded third-party beneficiary
status. She says, the Plaintiffs allege that contracts and implied
warranties exist between the Defendant and its authorized
dealerships, but that the dealerships were not intended to be the
ultimate consumers of the class vehicles; the Plaintiffs -- the
ultimate consumers -- are the intended beneficiaries of the
Defendant's implied warranties. Other courts have found similar
allegations sufficient to convey third-party beneficiary status.

Judge Lopez also finds that the Ninth Circuit has not foreclosed a
third-party beneficiary exception to the privity requirement. In
Clemens, the Ninth Circuit acknowledged that certain exceptions to
privity exist but declined to "create a new exception" when the
plaintiff contended that "similar equities support an exception for
his case." Although courts in this district differ on whether there
is a third-party beneficiary exception to privity, Judge Lopez does
not agree with the Defendant's view and the cases that read Clemens
as barring such an exception. She is instead persuaded by the
decisions reasoning that Clemens does not bar the third-party
beneficiary exception to the vertical privity requirement because
it "did not specifically consider the third-party beneficiary
exception or cases that have adopted the third-party beneficiary
exception."

Because she finds that Plaintiff Guzman sufficiently pleaded
third-party beneficiary status to avoid the vertical privity
requirement under California Commercial Code section 2314, Judge
Lopez denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss the implied warranty
of merchantability claim.

III. Conclusion

Based on the reasons she stated, Judge Lopez granted in part and
denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the TAC.
Specifically, the she granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' injunctive relief claim under the CLRA (Count 1). She
also granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
injunctive relief claims under the UCL (Count 4) and unjust
enrichment claims (Count 5) to (1) remove and replace their CUE
Systems with a suitable alternative product that does not contain
the alleged defects, (2) to perform a recall and repair, (3) to
enjoin Defendant from further deceptive distribution, sales, and
lease practices with respect to Class Vehicles, and (4) to enjoin
Defendant from selling the Class Vehicles with the misleading
information.

Judge Lopez denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief under the UCL (Count 4) and
unjust enrichment claims (Count 5) compelling the Defendant to
reform its warranty to cover the injury alleged and to notify all
Class Members that such warranty has been reformed. She also denied
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the implied warranty of
merchantability claim pursuant to California Commercial Code
section 2314 (Count 3).

All claims dismissed in the Order are dismissed without leave to
amend. The Defendant is ordered to file its answer within 20 days
of the filing of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2ydctx6x from Leagle.com.


GFL ENVIRONMENTAL: Faces Hill Suit Over Unpaid OT, Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH HILL, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. GFL ENVIRONMENTAL USA INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-10359-MFL-CI (E.D. Mich., Feb. 18,
2022) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Family Medical
Leave Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Michigan Persons
with Disabilities Civil Rights Act.

The suit is brought as an action for money damages, liquidated
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and other relief against the
Defendant precipitated by the termination of Plaintiff's employment
after suffering a serious health condition in contravention of the
FMLA and PWDCRA.

Additionally, the Defendant allegedly implements policies and
practices to prevent Plaintiff and other similarly situated
individuals employed as temporary instructors permit loaders from
being compensated overtime hours despite working in excess of 40
hours a week, including retroactively manipulating employee
timesheets in violation of the FLSA.

GFL Environmental USA Inc. is a corporation performing
environmental services across Canada and the United States,
including solid waste management, liquid waste management and
infrastructure development.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah S. Hurwitz, Esq.
          HURWITZ LAW PLLC
          617 Detroit St. Ste. 125
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (844) 487-9489

GROWERS' CHOICE: Class Settlement in Lizarraga Suit Wins Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAMON LIZARRAGA and JAIME CARDENAS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROWERS'
CHOICE, INC.; ROBERT LONGSTRETH, an individual; and DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00526-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy
L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for an Order Granting
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

The Motion for Final Approval came before the Court on Feb. 10,
2022, the Honorable Nunley presiding. Judge Nunley has considered
the papers submitted in support of the motion.

On Aug. 6, 2021, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
Settlement. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval was timely
filed. No objections to the Motion for Final Approval were filed.

Judge Nunley finds that the Settlement was reached after
arms'-length negotiations between the Parties and occurred only
after the counsel for the Parties conducted adequate investigation
and formal discovery. The Settlement of the action, as embodied in
the terms of the Settlement Agreement, is finally approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate and in compliance with all applicable
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any other
applicable law, and in the best interests of the Class Members.

Plaintiffs Ramon Lizarraga and Jaime Cardenas are confirmed as the
Class Representatives.

Virginia Villegas of Villegas Carrera, Inc. and Cynthia L. Rice of
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation are confirmed as the
Class Counsel.

Simpluris Class Action Settlement Administration is confirmed as
the third-party Claims Administrator.

Judge Nunley finds that final certification of the following Class
is appropriate under Rule 23: "All individuals who have, or
continue to, perform work for Defendants in California as
non-exempt employees, at any time during the period beginning March
25, 2015 to Aug. 6, 2021."

The Settlement contemplates a Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA") allocation of $20,000, which will be distributed $15,000
to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and $5,000 to the
Class. The proposed allocation is fair and reasonable, serves the
deterrent and punitive purposes of the PAGA, is within the range
commonly approved by state and federal courts. Accordingly, the
proposed allocation is confirmed.

Judge Nunley also approved payment to the Administrator in the
total amount of $14,500 to be paid from the Settlement Distribution
Amount.

The proposed service payment of $10,000 to each named Plaintiff for
their service as Class Representatives is also approved.

Attorneys' Fees and Costs will be decided separately, and the Court
will issue a separate order with respect to the Class Counsel's
Motion for An Order Granting Attorneys' Fees and Costs currently
pending before the Court.

In accordance with the terms of the Settlement, as of the Effective
Date, Participating Class Members will forever and completely
release and discharge the Defendants and the Released Parties from
the Released Claims. Participating Class Members will be
permanently enjoined and restrained from and against initiating or
pursuing against any Defendant, any individual, representative, or
class claims released by the Settlement.

Final Judgment is entered based on the Parties' Settlement. The
Court retains jurisdiction, however, to enforce the terms of the
Settlement and ensure that its terms and the Order are carried
out.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 15, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yn9v2arp from Leagle.com.


GXO LOGISTICS: Quijano Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GLORIA LOPEZ QUIJANO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. GXO LOGISTICS SUPPLY CHAIN, INC.;
XPO LOGISTICS SUPPLY CHAIN, INC.; XPO LOGISTICS FREIGHT, INC.; XPO
LOGISTICS, INC.; and DOES 1 to 50, Case No. 22STCV01988, was
removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on February 23, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-01250 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California' Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay all minimum wages, failure to pay all
overtime wages, failure to provide rest periods and pay missed rest
period premiums, failure to provide meal periods and pay missed
meal period premiums, failure to maintain accurate employment
records, failure to pay wages timely during employment, failure to
pay all wages earned and unpaid at separation, failure to reimburse
business expenses, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and
unfair competition.

GXO Logistics Supply Chain, Inc. is an American global contract
logistics company based in North Carolina.

XPO Logistics Supply Chain, Inc. is an American freight
transportation company, headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut.

XPO Logistics Freight, Inc. is an American freight transportation
company, headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut.

XPO Logistics, Inc. is a logistics company, headquartered in
Greenwich, Connecticut. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Tim L. Johnson, Esq.
         Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq.
         Cameron O. Flynn, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990
         San Diego, CA 92122
         Telephone: (858) 652-3100
         Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
         E-mail: tim.johnson@ogletree.com
                 jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com
                 cameron.flynn@ogletree.com

HALL FERRY: Class Cert. Hearing in Tierney Continued to March 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH TIERNEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HALL FERRY PIZZA, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00828-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the
Hon. Judge John A. Ross entered an order that the class
certification hearing currently scheduled for February 23, 2022 at
1:30 p.m. is continued to Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in
Courtroom 12NN.

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

HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Continuance of Class Cert. Hearing Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PABLO SANCHEZ, VIOLET
ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. HEARST COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and DOES 1–10,
inclusive,Case No. 3:20-cv-05147-KAW (N.D. Cal), the parties
stipulate and agree that the class certification hearing be
continued to March 31, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. or at another date, at
the Court's convenience.

On February 7, 2022, the Court rescheduled the hearing from
February 17, 2022 to February 24, 2022. The Plaintiffs' and
Hearst's counsel have conflicts on February 24, March 17, and March
24, and the Court's website states that the Court is closed for
further hearings on March 3 and March 10. The parties are available
on March 31, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.

Hearst is an American multinational mass media and business
information conglomerate.

A copy of the Parties motion dated Feb. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3s9Iwp5 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Ottinger, Esq.
          THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C.
          535 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Telephone: (415) 262-0096
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0505
          E-mail: robert@ottingerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          Theanne Liu, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One California Street, 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638-8800
          Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
          E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
                  tliu@outtengolden.com

HENRY THAYER: Parties Must File Joint Status Report by March 17
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER LISOWSKI, v.
HENRY THAYER COMPANY, INC. and LOREAL USA, INC., Case No.
2:19-cv-01339-MJH (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Marilyn J. Horan
entered an order as follows:

   1. By March 17, 2022, the parties shall file a Joint Status
      Report as to the disputed discovery issues discussed at
      the February 15, 2022 telephone conference, indicating
      whether disputed issues remain.

   2. If disputed issues remain each party shall file a
      statement of position as to the nature of the disputed
      issues.

   3. No further discovery shall occur unless by mutual
      agreement of the parties or further order of Court.

   4. The deadline for filing a Motion for class certification
      is extended pending resolution of the disputed discovery
      issues and further order of Court.

Henry Thayer is in the Lozenges and Pharmaceutical business.

L'Oreal manufactures and markets cosmetic products.

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


HG WEBER: Mattie Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, WWPCL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SABELLA MATTIE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. H.G. WEBER & CO., INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00215-WCG
(E.D. Wis., Feb. 22, 2022) is a collective and class action brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws for unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees,
declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief
the Court may deem appropriate.

The Defendant operated (and continues to operate) an unlawful
compensation system that deprived Plaintiff and all other
hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of their wages earned for all
compensable work performed each workweek, including at an overtime
rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek, by failing to include all forms of non-discretionary
compensation, such as monetary bonuses, incentives, awards, and/or
other rewards and payments, in all current and former hourly-paid,
non-exempt employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation
purposes, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL, the lawsuit says.

H.G. Weber is a manufacturer of machines for the paper bag
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ILLINOIS: Kelly Seeks More Time to Respond to Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOMMY MCFARLAND v. BRENDAN
KELLY, in his official capacity as Director of the Illinois State
Police, Case No. 2:20-cv-02334-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order extending the time for him to
respond to Plaintiff's amended motion for class certification to
March 18, 2022, which is one week after the close of discovery.

The Plaintiff Tommy McFarland, a sex offender, challenges the
constitutionality of the Illinois Sex Offender Registration Act,
730 ILCS 5/7, alleging that he has not been afforded an opportunity
to contest extensions of his registration period.

The Plaintiff filed an amended motion for class certification, and
Defendant's response is currently due February 15, 2022.

The Defendant requests an extension for two reasons. First, counsel
was out of the office for a period of time due to the death of a
close family member. Second, the parties are currently working to
schedule Plaintiff's deposition. While Plaintiff was unavailable on
the previously noticed date, Defense counsel anticipates that
Plaintiff's deposition will be scheduled for a date within the next
several weeks.

The Illinois State Police is the state police force of Illinois.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 15, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JJyvF2 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kwame R. Aoul, Esq.
          Michael T. Dierkes, Esq.
          Hal Dworkin, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL
          GENERAL LAW BUREAU
          100 West Randolph Street, 13th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 814-3672

INNOVAGE HOLDING: Faces Securities Suit in D. Colo.
---------------------------------------------------
InnovAge Holding Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9, 2022, that a
class action complaint was filed against the company alleging
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

On October 14, 2021, InnovAge Holding was named as a defendant in a
putative class action complaint filed in the District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of individuals who purchased or
acquired shares of the company's common stock during a specified
period. Through the complaint, plaintiffs are asserting claims
against InnovAge Holding, certain of the company's officers and the
underwriters in the company's IPO, alleging violations of Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for making allegedly
inaccurate and misleading statements and omissions in connection
with the company's IPO and seeking compensatory damages, among
other things.

InnovAge Holding Corp. is into health services based in Colorado.


INSTAGRAM LLC: Dangaard Sues Over Blacklisting of AE Performers
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAWN DANGAARD, a/k/a ALANA EVANS; KELLY GILBERT, a/k/a KELLY
PIERCE; JENNIFER ALLBAUGH, a/k/a RUBY, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INSTAGRAM, LLC;
FACEBOOK OPERATIONS, LLC; FENIX INTERNET LLC; FENIX INTERNATIONAL
INC.; META PLATFORMS, INC.; LEONID RADVINSKY; and JOHN DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01101 (N.D. Cal., February 22, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for tortious interference
with contract, intentional interference with business
relationships, and violation of the California's Unfair Competition
Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in a scheme
to cause performers who worked with competitors of OnlyFans, an
Internet content subscription service, to be blacklisted by social
media platforms, including social media platforms owned and
operated by entities other than the Defendants, for the purpose of
interfering with those adult entertainment (AE) Platforms' business
and reducing competition with OnlyFans. The Defendants' alleged
scheme is illegal because the blacklisted AE performers and AE
Platforms were not terrorists and had nothing to do with terrorism
of any kind. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated AE performers
have suffered injury in fact, including the loss of money or
property, as a result of the Defendants' alleged unfair, unlawful
and/or deceptive practices.

Meta Platforms, Inc. is an American multinational technology
conglomerate based in Menlo Park, California.

Instagram, LLC is an American photo and video sharing social
networking service company based in Menlo Park, California.

Facebook Operations, LLC is a subsidiary of Meta Platforms, Inc.
based in Menlo Park, California.

Fenix Internet LLC is a multifaceted technology company located in
Chicago, Illinois.

Fenix International Inc. is a technology firm doing business in
California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         David E. Azar, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
         280 S. Beverly Drive, Suite PH
         Beverly Hills, CA 90212
         Telephone: (866) 252-0878
         E-mail: dazar@milberg.com

JACKSON, MS: Roadblock Policy "Unconstitutional," Gibbs Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANITA GIBBS, LAUREN RHOADES, LAQUENZA MORGAN, ARCHIE SKIFFER, JR.,
and TIMOTHY HALCOMB, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI;
CHIEF JAMES E. DAVIS, in his official capacity, Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-00099-KHJ-MTP (S.D. Miss., February 23, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for violation of civil rights
under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The case arises from the Defendants' implementation of a scheme
dubbed "Ticket Arrest Tow," which placed vehicular roadblocks or
checkpoints in majority-Black and low-income neighborhoods in
Jackson, Mississippi. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated
residents seek a court order prohibiting the Defendants from
implementing the roadblocks for crime control purposes as this
policy violated their rights under the Fourth Amendment.

City of Jackson is a municipal government in the state of
Mississippi. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Paloma Wu, Esq.
         Robert B. McDuff, Esq.
         MISSISSIPPI CENTER FOR JUSTICE
         5 Old River Pl., Ste. 203
         Jackson, MS 39202
         Telephone: (601) 709-0857
         E-mail: pwu@mscenterforjustice.org
                 rmcduff@mscenterforjustice.org

JACOBS ENGINEERING: Delozier Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2022, that a
class action lawsuit filed against the company alleging that they
failed to adequately warn local residents about risks associated
with the released fly ash, has been voluntarily dismissed.

In November 2019, a resident of Roane County, Margie Delozier,
filed a putative class action against TVA and the Company alleging
they failed to adequately warn local residents about risks
associated with the released fly ash. The Company and TVA filed
separate motions to dismiss the Delozier case in April 2020. In
February 2021, the Court granted dismissal of the Delozier
Complaint with prejudice, with the exception of plaintiffs'
nuisance cause of action, which plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed in
July 2021.

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. is a construction company based in
Dallas, Texas.


JODI HARPSTEAD: Court Junks Daywitt Bid for Payment of Fees & Costs
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kenneth S. Daywitt, David
Jannetta, Steven Hogy, Merlin Adolphson, Michael Whipple, Peter
Longergan, and Russell Hatton, v. Jodi Harpstead, Marshall Smith,
Nancy Johnston, Jim Berg, Jannine Herbert, Kevin Moser, Terry
Kniesel, and Ray Ruotsalainen, Case No. 0:20-cv-01743-NEB-HB (D.
Minn.), the Hon. Judge Hildy Bowbeer entered an order:

   1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion to suspend LR 7.1(a), LR
      7.1(a)(1) and LR 7.1(b)(v); and

   2. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for payment of fees and
      costs.

The Court does not rule out the possibility that such a showing
could be made in the future, although the Court does not yet see
anything to suggest this particular case will eventually present
the requisite "compelling circumstances." But at this point, the
Plaintiffs' request is, at the very least, premature. Among other
things, fact depositions have not yet been taken, class
certification is still under consideration, and it is not clear
whether any of Plaintiffs' claims would survive summary judgment
with or without expert testimony. Finally, the Court notes that a
future motion to appoint experts under Rule 706, if Plaintiffs
believe they can make the necessary showing, should be directed to
the District Judge at a later date, at least after a ruling on the
currently pending motions, as a decision on such a motion would be
integrally intertwined with her role in presiding over any trial
that may occur in this matter.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p0OUxg at no extra charge.[CC]


JUUL LABS: Black River Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Youth Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK RIVER LOCAL SCHOOLS, 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-01065 (N.D. Cal., February 21, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the 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.

Black River Local Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 257a County Road in Sullivan, 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: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Nebo School Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NEBO 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-01011 (N.D. Cal., February 18, 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.

Nebo School District is a unified school district with its offices
located at 350 South Main in Spanish Fork, Utah.

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: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Smyrna School Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SMYRNA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP,
INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS
PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-01070-WHO (N.D. Cal., February 21, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Delaware 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.

Smyrna School District is a school district with its offices
located on 82 Monrovia Avenue, Smyrna, Delaware.

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:                                   
                                  
         
         John Fiske, Esq.
         BARON & BUDD, P.C.
         11440 West Bernardo Court, Suite 265
         San Diego, CA 92127
         Telephone: (858) 251-7424
         E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com

                - and –

         Khaldoun A. Baghdadi, Esq.
         Conor M. Kelly, Esq.
         WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER
         650 California Street
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com

                - and –

         Philip C. Federico, Esq.
         Brent P. Ceryes, Esq.
         Matthew P. Legg, Esq.
         SCHOCHOR, FEDERICO & STATON, P.A.
         The Paulton
         1211 St. Paul Street
         Baltimore, MD 21202
         E-mail: pfederico@sfspa.com

                - and –

         Chase T. Brockstedt, Esq.
         BAIRD MANDALAS BROCKSTEDT LLC
         1413 Savannah Rd, Suite 1
         Lewes, DE 19958
         E-mail: chase@bmbde.com

JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Eman Schools Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
EMAN SCHOOLS, INC., 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-01059 (N.D. Cal., February 21, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the 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.

Eman Schools, Inc. is a charter school with its offices located at
11965 Allisonville Road in Fishers, Indiana.

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 Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Penn Yan Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
PENN YAN 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-01004 (N.D. Cal., February 18, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the 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.

Penn Yan Central School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 1 School Drive in Penn Yan, 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 Brown Suit Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
--------------------------------------------------------------
BROWN 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-01067 (N.D. Cal., February 21, 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.

Brown Local School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 3242 Coral Road in Malvern, 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: Faces North Valley Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign
------------------------------------------------------------------
NORTH VALLEY ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL, 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-01021 (N.D. Cal., February 18, 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.

North Valley Academy Charter School is a unified school district
with its offices located at 906 Main Street in Gooding, 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: Faces Paw Paw Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Campaign
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAW PAW PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 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-00996 (N.D. Cal., February 18, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the 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.

Paw Paw Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 119 Johnson Road in Paw Paw, 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: Lake Mills Area Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
------------------------------------------------------------------
LAKE MILLS 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-01061 (N.D. Cal., February 21, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the 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.

Lake Mills Area School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 120 East Lake Park Place in Lake Mills,
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: Lawrence Sues Over Youth Health Crisis in Michigan
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 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-01000 (N.D. Cal., February 18, 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.

Lawrence Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 650 West St. Joseph Street in Lawrence,
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: Logan Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Crisis in New Mexico
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LOGAN MUNICIPAL SCHOOLS, 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-01083 (N.D. Cal., February 22, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the 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.

Logan Municipal Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 301 N. 2nd St., Logan, New Mexico.

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: Lyle Public School Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Minn.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LYLE PUBLIC 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-01068 (N.D. Cal., February 21, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the 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.

Lyle Public School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 700 2nd Street in Lyle Township, 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: Madison-Oneida Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic
--------------------------------------------------------------
MADISON-ONEIDA BOCES, 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-01009 (N.D. Cal., February 18, 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-Oneida BOCES is a unified school district with its offices
located at 4937 Spring Road in Verona, 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: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Deerfield Community Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DEERFIELD COMMUNITY 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-01062 (N.D. Cal., February 21, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the 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.

Deerfield Community School District is a unified school district
with its offices located at 300 Simonson Boulevard in Deerfield,
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: Owosso Suit Claims E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth in Mich.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
OWOSSO PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 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-00999 (N.D. Cal., February 18, 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.

Owosso Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices
located at 765 East North Street in Owosso, 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: Red Clay Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic in Del.
----------------------------------------------------------------
RED CLAY CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA
GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN;
NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-01057 (N.D. Cal., February 21, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Delaware 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.

Red Clay Consolidated School District is a school district with its
offices located on 1502 Spruce Avenue, Wilmington, Delaware.

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:                                   
                                  
         
         John Fiske, Esq.
         BARON & BUDD, P.C.
         11440 West Bernardo Court, Suite 265
         San Diego, CA 92127
         Telephone: (858) 251-7424
         E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com

                - and –

         Khaldoun A. Baghdadi, Esq.
         Conor M. Kelly, Esq.
         WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER
         650 California Street
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com

                - and –

         Philip C. Federico, Esq.
         Brent P. Ceryes, Esq.
         Matthew P. Legg, Esq.
         SCHOCHOR, FEDERICO & STATON, P.A.
         The Paulton
         1211 St. Paul Street
         Baltimore, MD 21202
         E-mail: pfederico@sfspa.com

                - and –

         Chase T. Brockstedt, Esq.
         BAIRD MANDALAS BROCKSTEDT LLC
         1413 Savannah Rd, Suite 1
         Lewes, DE 19958
         E-mail: chase@bmbde.com

JUUL LABS: Saddleback Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
SADDLEBACK VALLEY UNIFIED 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-01034-WHO (N.D. Cal.,
February 18, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the 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.

Saddleback Valley Unified School District is a unified school
district with its offices located at 25631 Peter A. Hartman Way in
Mission Viejo, California.

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: South Portland Suit Claims E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
------------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTH PORTLAND SCHOOL DEPARTMENT, 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-01069 (N.D. Cal., February 21, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the 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.

South Portland School Department is a unified school district with
its offices located at 130 Westcott Road in South Portland, Maine.

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: Sulphur Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
SULPHUR SPRINGS UNION 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-01054 (N.D. Cal., February 21, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the 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.

Sulphur Springs Union School District is a unified school district
with its offices located at 27000 Weyerhaeuser Way in Canyon
Country, California.

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: Vallivue Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis in Idaho
---------------------------------------------------------------
VALLIVUE 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-01030 (N.D. Cal., February 18, 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.

Vallivue School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 5207 South Montana Avenue in Caldwell, 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

KIA MOTORS: Filing of Third Amended Class Action Complaint OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YANDERY SANCHEZ, LOUISE
KNUDSON, ANDREA REIHER-ODOM, DERRICK SMITH, and AMBER WITT, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. KIA
MOTORS AMERICA, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-01604-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order:

   1. granting joint stipulation regarding plaintiffs' filing of
      third amended class action complaint and amendments to
      scheduling order;

   2. deeming Kia America Inc.'s motion to dismiss certain
      claims alleged in plaintiffs' second amended complaint
      withdrawn; and

   3. vacating the March 4, 2022 hearing on Kia's motion to
      dismiss certain claims alleged in plaintiffs' second
      amended complaint.

The Scheduling Order is amended as follows:

                 Event                Old          New
                                      Deadline     Deadline

-- Deadline for Plaintiffs to   n/a              Feb. 11, 2022
   file  third amended class
   action complaint:

-- Deadline for Kia to file     n/a              March 4, 2022
   response to third amended
   class action complaint:

-- Fact Discovery Cutoff:       May 20, 2022     Sept. 22, 2022


-- Last Day to File a          June 17, 1022     Oct. 14, 2022
   Motion for Class
   Certification:

-- Last Day to File            Aug. 12, 2022     Dec. 14, 2022
   Opposition to Motion
   for Class
   Certification:

-- Last Day to File Reply in   Oct. 7, 2022      Feb. 6, 2023
   Support of Motion for
   Class Certification:

-- Expert Discovery Cutoff:    Nov. 4, 2022      March 2, 2023

-- Last Day to File            July 21, 2023     Aug. 20, 2023
   Motions (Excluding
   Daubert Motions and
   all other Motions in
   Limine):

-- Last Day to File Daubert    June 30, 20/23    Oct. 27, 2023
   Motions:

-- Last Day to File Other      July 21, 2023     Nov. 20, 2023
   Motions in Limine
   (Excluding Daubert
   Event Motions):

-- Final Pretrial              Aug. 18, 2023     Dec. 15, 2023
   Conference:

Kia Motors operates as an automobile dealer. The Company offers
passenger cars, minivans, sports utility vehicles, crossovers,
sedans, and vans.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sbzEj1 at no extra charge.[CC]

KODIAK CAKES: Court Confirms Settlement in Stewart Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TY STEWART, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
KODIAK CAKES, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-02454-MMA-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Michael S. Berg entered an order confirming settlement
and setting deadline to file joint motion to dismiss.

In a "Notice of Settlement in Principle and Joint Motion to Stay,"
dated February 14, 2022, counsel for the parties informed the Court
that the case settled in principle. They further state that
"Counsel for the Parties are in the process of finalizing
settlement documents and related dismissal paperwork," and they
"expect that the final executed Joint Stipulation of Dismissal of
all claims will be filed within 60 days." Finally, they ask the
Court to enter their stipulation to stay all dates in this action
for 60 days.

Considering the settlement, the Court vacates all pending dates
before Magistrate Judge Berg. Having consulted with United States
District Judge Michael M. Anello's chambers, the Court vacates all
class certification motion briefing deadlines, and any other
pending dates before the district judge.

Based on the parties' representation that they anticipate filing a
Stipulation of Dismissal, rather than a motion for preliminary
approval of class settlement, the parties are ordered to file their
Joint Motion to Dismiss this case, signed by counsel of record and
any unrepresented parties, no later than April 18, 2022. A proposed
order granting the joint motion must be e-mailed to the assigned
district judge's chambers on the same day.

If the fully executed Joint Motion to Dismiss is not filed by April
18, 2022, then all counsel of record and unrepresented parties are
required to appear in person for a Settlement Disposition
Conference. The Settlement Disposition Conference will be held on
April 21, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2C with Magistrate Judge
Berg. If the parties file their Joint Motion to Dismiss on or
before April 18, 2022, the Settlement Disposition Conference will
be vacted without further court order.

Kodiak Cakes offers pancake and waffle mix.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 15, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p9S3uu at no extra charge.[CC]

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Griffin Suit Moved From S.D. Ala. to W.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANDRE GRIFFIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., PHILIPS
NORTH AMERICA LLC, PHILIPS HOLDING USA, INC., and PHILIPS RS NORTH
AMERICA LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00044, was transferred from the
Southern District of Alabama to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on February 22, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00325-JFC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged strict products
liability, negligent design, negligent failure to warn, negligent
manufacturing, negligence/gross negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, fraudulent concealment, civil conspiracy,
breach of express warranties, breach of the implied warranty of
fitness for a particular purpose, breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, and violation of the Alabama Consumer Protection
Act by manufacturing and selling defective Continuous Positive
Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive Airway Pressure
(BiLevel PAP) devices.

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

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

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

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

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

KRIGER LAW: Court Sets Hearing Date to Spread 9th Cir. Mandate
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY A. ALMADA, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated class members,
v. KRIGER LAW FIRM, A.P.C., Case No. 3:19-cv-02109-TWR-MDD (S.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Todd W . Robinson entered an order setting
hearing to spread the mandate from the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirming in part and reversing in
part the Court's March 8, 2021 Order:

  (1) Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment;

  (2) Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment;

  (3) Denying as Moot the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
      Certification, and

  (4) Granting Plaintiff's Motion to File Documents Under Seal

The Court sets a hearing for 2:30 p.m. on March 10, 2022, in
Courtroom 3A to spread the Mandate. The Parties shall be prepared
to discuss the status of this litigation, including the Parties'
cross-Motions for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.

Kriger Law is doing business in the common interest development
industry.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 15, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35177Ut at no extra charge.[CC]

KRYSTAL CO: Laliberte Seeks to Certify FLSA Laborer Collective
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Laliberte, and all
others similarly Situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), v. Krystal
Companies, LLC d/b/a Krystal Klean, and Fleetwash, Inc. of  New
Jersey d/b/a Fleetwash, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-01179-HES-LLL (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court, pursuant to Section 16(b) of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), for entry of an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the proposed FLSA collective
      action on behalf of:

      "All hourly Laborers employed by Defendants who performed
      work in Florida or Georgia, within the previous 3 years,
      who had a 30-minute meal period automatically deducted
      from their compensable time;"

   2. directing Krystal Companies LLC and Fleetwash Inc. Of New
      Jersey to produce a computer readable data file containing
      the names, last known mailing addresses, Social Security
      numbers (for those notices returned undeliverable), and
      work locations for all Collective Action Members; and

   3. authorizing the issuance of notice to all Collective
      Action Members by U.S. Mail, email, text message, and a
      reminder notice during the opt-in period.

The Defendants operate a multi-state chain of residential,
commercial, and industrial pressure washing and fleet washing
services. The Defendants employ hundreds of hard-working hourly
Laborers who perform essential tasks that are instrumental to the
success of the company.

The Plaintiff filed this collective action lawsuit seeking to
recover unpaid overtime wages from Defendants based on violations
of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 201, et seq., for their failure to
pay proper overtime wages to himself and other hourly Laborers.

The Plaintiff alleges that hourly Laborers are required to work in
excess of 40 hours per week but are subject to automatic meal
deductions even when they are not completely relieved of their
duties.

On February 11, 2022, Opt-In Plaintiffs Devin Hoffman and
Christopher LeBlanc (Opt-In Plaintiffs) filed their Consents to sue
under the FLSA.

Krystal Company owns and operates chain of restaurants.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 15,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33JSVhY
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          Jake Blumstein, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS --
          JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 871-0050
          E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  jake@jordanrichardspllc.com
                  catherine@USAEmploymentLawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jacqueline A. Van Laningham, Esq.
          Daniel K. Bean, Esq.
          ABEL BEAN LAW, P.A.
          100 N. Laura St. Suite 501
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 944-4100
          E-mail: jvanlaningham@abelbeanlaw.com
                  dbean@abelbeanlaw.com
                  kbowden@abelbeanlaw.com

L'OREAL USA: Eshelby Sues Over Mislabeled Beauty Products
---------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Eshelby, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-01396 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's alleged violation of the State Consumer Protection
Acts, the California's Unfair Competition Law, the False
Advertising Law, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act due to its "Paris" marking on the front label of its
beauty products.

According to the complaint, the Defendant put "Paris" on the
product label along with French-language descriptions to convey to
consumers, including the Plaintiff, that the beauty products are
made in France. L'Oreal allegedly charges U.S. consumers a
corresponding price premium, compared to similar beauty products
that lack the Paris representation.

The truth however, is that Defendant's products are not made in
Paris or in France. They are not even sold in France (such that the
French language descriptions on them would be useful to French
customers). Instead, the products are made (and even designed) for
the U.S. market by L'Oreal USA and manufactured in its factory in
Arkansas, or elsewhere in the U.S. or Canada. None of the products
are made in Paris, says the suit.

L'Oreal USA, Inc. manufactures and markets cosmetic products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christin Cho, Esq.
          Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq.
          Simon Franzini, Esq.
          DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
          201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 656-7066
          Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
          E-mail: christin@dovel.com
                  jonas@dovel.com
                  simon@dovel.com

LB PIZZA: Acosta Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE RAMON ACOSTA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LB PIZZA LLC d/b/a DAVINCI'S
PIZZERIA and JAVED ALI, as an individual, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-00901 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2022) arises from the Defendants'
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law for unpaid overtime wages and spread of hours
compensation and for failure to provide accurate wage notices and
statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a food preparer,
cook, and cleaner while also performing related miscellaneous
duties from March 2020 until January 2022.

LB Pizza LLC, d/b/a DaVinci's Pizzeria, is a pizza restaurant based
in Island Park, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598

LIBERTY PERSONAL: Ursin Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERRICK URSIN,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY
PERSONAL INSURANCE, Case No. 3:21-cv-00286-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the time to
file his motion for class certification and to submit expert
reports related to class certification:

  -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class         May 12, 2022
     certification:

  -- The Plaintiffs' class certification      May 12, 2022
     expert report:

  -- The Defendant’s opposition to motion     July 12, 2022
     for class certification:

  -- The Defendant's class certification      July 12, 2022
     expert report:

  -- The Plaintiffs' reply in support          August 19, 2022
     of class certification:

The Plaintiff initiated this class action litigation on May 21,
2021. The Plaintiff alleges that Liberty Personal Insurance Company
breached its insurance policy with Plaintiff and putative class
members by artificially devaluing their total-loss vehicles by
applying an arbitrary "typical sold adjustment" to the "comparable
vehicles" used to determine the insured vehicles’ estimated
"actual cash value," in violation of Louisiana insurance law and in
breach of Liberty’s insurance obligations.

The parties conducted their Rule 26(f) planning conference in
August, and submitted a joint status report on August 26, 2021.

Liberty Personal operates as an insurance company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33Hn3KQ at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
          Soren E. Gisleson, Esq.
          John S. Creevy, Esq.
          Charles M. King, Esq.
          HERMAN HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
          820 O’Keefe Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 581-4892
          E-mail: sherman@hhklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Amy L. Judkins,Esq.
          Edmund A. Normand,Esq.
          NORMAND PLLC
          Post Office Box 1400036
          Orlando, FL 32814-0036
          Telephone: (407) 603-6031
          E-mail: ed@ednormand.com


LOEWS CORP: Appeals Filed in Supreme Court Over Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Loews Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Annual Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 8, 2022, that the defendants,
including the company, have appealed the trial court's ruling to
the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware in which the plaintiff
filed a cross-appeal to the Supreme Court.

On May 25, 2018, plaintiffs Tsemach Mishal and Paul Berger (on
behalf of themselves and the purported class) initiated a purported
class action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against the following defendants: Boardwalk Pipelines, Boardwalk
GP, LP (General Partner), Boardwalk GP, LLC and Boardwalk Pipelines
Holding Corp. (BPHC), regarding the potential exercise by the
General Partner of its right to purchase all of the issued and
outstanding common units representing limited partnership interests
in Boardwalk Pipelines not already owned by the General Partner or
its affiliates.

On June 25, 2018, Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, subject to
the approval of the Trial Court. Under the terms of the Proposed
Settlement, the lawsuit would be dismissed, and related claims
against the Defendants would be released by the Plaintiffs, if
BPHC, the sole member of the General Partner, elected to cause the
General Partner to exercise its right to purchase the issued and
outstanding common units of Boardwalk Pipelines pursuant to
Boardwalk Pipelines’ Third Amended and Restated Agreement of
Limited Partnership, as amended, within a period specified by the
Proposed Settlement. On June 29, 2018, the General Partner elected
to exercise its right to purchase all of the issued and outstanding
common units representing limited partnership interests in
Boardwalk Pipelines not already owned by the General Partner or its
affiliates pursuant to the Limited Partnership Agreement within the
period specified by the Proposed Settlement. The transaction was
completed on July 18, 2018.

On September 28, 2018, the Trial Court denied approval of the
Proposed Settlement. On February 11, 2019, a substitute verified
class action complaint was filed in this proceeding, which among
other things, added the Parent Company as a Defendant. The
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was heard by the Trial
Court in July of 2019. In October of 2019, the Trial Court ruled on
the motion and granted a partial dismissal, with certain aspects of
the case proceeding to trial. A trial was held the week of February
22, 2021 and post-trial oral arguments were held on July 14, 2021.

On November 12, 2021, the Trial Court issued a ruling in the case.
The Trial Court held that the General Partner breached the Limited
Partnership Agreement and awarded Plaintiffs approximately $690
million, plus prejudgment interest (approximately $166 million),
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees.

Loews Corporation contends that the Trial Court ruling includes
factual and legal errors. Therefore on January 3, 2022, the
Defendants appealed the Trial Court's ruling to the Supreme Court
of the State of Delaware. On January 17, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed
a cross-appeal to the Supreme Court contesting the calculation of
damages by the Trial Court.

Loews Corporation is a holding company based in New York.


LOUISVILLE COUNTY, KY: Class Cert Filing Extended to April 22
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ATTICA SCOTT, CORBIN
SMITH, KAYLA MEISNER, TYLER WEAKLEY, STEVIE SCHAUER, WILLA TINSLEY,
PATRICK MOORE, and the KENTUCKY ALLIANCE AGAINST RACIAL AND
POLITICAL REPRESSION, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO
GOVERNMENT, GREG FISCHER, ROBERT SCHROEDER, LaVITA CHAVOUS, and
LOUISVILLE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICER "J." JOHNSON,
LOUISVILLE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS JOHN DOES 1-15
and JANE DOE No. 1, Case No. 3:20-cv-00535-BJB-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the Plaintiffs'
deadline to file a motion for class certification until April 22,
2022, with a corresponding two-month extension of all discovery
deadlines as follows:

  A. Plaintiffs' motion for class             April 22, 2022
     certification shall be filed
     on or before:

  B. The parties shall complete fact          May 2, 2022
     discovery on or before:

  C. The Plaintiffs shall make any            June 13, 2022
     required expert disclosures on
     or before:

  D. The Defendants shall make any            July 25, 2022
     required expert disclosures on
     or before:

  E. The parties shall complete expert        August 22, 2022
     discovery on or before:

  F. The parties shall file all               October 7, 2022
     Daubert and dispositive motions
     on or before:

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33y71mq at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Corey Shapiro, Esq.
          Heather Gatnarek, Esq.
          ACLU OF KENTUCKY FOUNDATION, INC.
          325 W. Main St. Suite 2210
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 581-9746
          E-mail: corey@aclu-ky.org
                  heather@aclu-ky.org

               - and -

          Ashok Chandran, Esq.
          Christopher Kemmitt, Esq.
          Ajmel Quereshi, Esq.
          Catherine Logue, Esq.
          NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE &
          EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
          40 Rector St., 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 965-2200
          Facsimile: (212) 226-7592
          E-mail: achandran@naacpldf.org
                  ckemmitt@naacpldf.org
                  aquereshi@naacpldf.org
                  clogue@naacpldf.org

               - and -

          Samuel Shapiro, Esq.
          Andrew K. Jondahl, Esq.
          EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF
          ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP
          600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 763-5000
          E-mail: sshapiro@ecbawm.com
                  ajondahl@ecbawm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Chris J. Gadansky, Esq.
          James E. McKiernan, III, Esq.
          Bruce B. Paul, Esq.
          MCBRAYER PLLC
          500 West Jefferson Street, Suite 2400
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 327-5400
          E-mail: cgadansky@mcbrayerfirm.com
                  jmckiernan@mcbrayerfirm.com

MADISON SQUARE GARDEN: Faces Leisz Securities Suit Over Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. disclosed in its Form
10-Q/A Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9,
2022, that in July 2, 2021, the Court of Chancery denied a
preliminary injunction motion filed by the plaintiff in a
securities suit over a merger deal.

On June 9, 2021, a complaint captioned "Timothy Leisz v. MSG
Networks Inc. et al.," 2021-0504-KSJM, was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware by a purported stockholder of MSG
Networks Inc. against MSG Networks Inc., the MSG Networks Inc.
board of directors, certain Dolan family stockholders and Madison
Square Garden Entertainment. The complaint purported to allege
claims on behalf of a putative class of MSG Networks Inc.
stockholders concerning the Merger.

On July 9, 2021, the company completed its previously announced
acquisition of MSG Networks Inc. pursuant to the Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of March 25, 2021, among Madison Square Garden
Entertainment, Broadway Sub Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Madison Square Garden Entertainment and MSG Networks Inc. Merger
Sub merged with and into MSG Networks Inc. with MSG Networks Inc.
surviving and continuing as the surviving corporation in the merger
as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Madison Square Garden
Entertainment.

The MSG Networks Inc. Leisz alleged, among other things, that the
merger was a business combination with an interested stockholder
that is not allowed under Section 203 of the DGCL, that the MSG
Networks Inc. board members and majority stockholders violated
their fiduciary duties in agreeing to the Merger, and that the
disclosures relating to the merger were misleading or incomplete.

Leisz sought, among other relief, declaratory and preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief enjoining the stockholder vote and
consummation of the Merger, and an award of damages in the event
the transaction was consummated and plaintiff's attorneys' fees. On
June 21, 2021, plaintiff filed a brief in support of his motion
seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining the MSG Networks Inc.
stockholder vote and consummation of the Merger, which defendants
opposed.

Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. is into live experiences
comprising venues; marquee entertainment brands; regional sports
and entertainment networks; dining and nightlife offerings; and a
premier music festival based in New York.


MADISON SQUARE GARDEN: Faces Securities Suit Over Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. disclosed in its Form
10-Q/A Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9,
2022, that it is facing a securities suit over a merger deal in
July 9, 2021.

On August 31, 2021, a complaint captioned "Murray v. Dolan et al.,"
2021-0748, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware by purported stockholders of MSG Networks Inc. against the
MSG Networks Inc. board of directors. The complaint purported to
allege claims on behalf of a putative class of MSG Networks
stockholders concerning the Merger. Plaintiffs alleged, among other
things, that the MSG Networks Inc. board members and majority
stockholders violated their fiduciary duties in agreeing to the
Merger and that the disclosures relating to the merger were
misleading or incomplete.

Plaintiffs sought, among other relief, an order rescinding the
merger and an award of damages, and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. is into live experiences
comprising venues; marquee entertainment brands, regional sports
and entertainment networks; dining and nightlife offerings and a
premier music festival based in New York.


MADISON SQUARE GARDEN: Faces Stevens Suit Over Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. disclosed in its Form
10-Q/A Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9,
2022, that it is facing a securities suit over a merger deal in
July 9, 2021.

On July 6, 2021, a complaint captioned "Stevens et al. v. Dolan et
al.," 2021-0575, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware by purported stockholders of MSG Networks Inc. against the
MSG Networks Inc. board of directors. The complaint purported to
allege claims on behalf of a putative class of MSG Networks Inc.
stockholders concerning the merger.

The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the MSG Networks
Inc. board members and majority stockholders violated their
fiduciary duties in agreeing to the Merger and that the disclosures
relating to the merger were misleading or incomplete. Plaintiffs
sought, among other relief, an order rescinding the merger and an
award of damages in the event the transaction was consummated, and
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. is into live experiences
comprising venues; marquee entertainment brands, regional sports
and entertainment networks; dining and nightlife offerings and a
premier music festival based in New York.


MADISON SQUARE GARDEN: Three Stockholder Complaints Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. disclosed in its Form
10-Q/A Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 9,
2022, that on September 27, 2021, the Court of Chancery entered an
order consolidating the complaints "Timothy Leisz v. MSG Networks
Inc. et al.," (Case No. 2021-0504-KSJM), "Stevens et al. v. Dolan
et al." (Case No. 2021-0575), "The City of Boca Raton Police and
Firefighters' Retirement System v. MSG Networks Inc." (Case No.
2021-0578) and "Murray v. Dolan et al.," (Case No. 2021-0748) and
the new consolidated action is captioned: "In re MSG Networks Inc.
Stockholder Class Action Litigation," C.A. 2021-0575-KSJM.

The consolidated plaintiffs filed their Verified Consolidated
Stockholder Class Action Complaint on October 29, 2021. The
complaint asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of former
MSG Networks Inc. stockholders against each member of the board of
directors of MSG Networks Inc. prior to the Merger.

Plaintiffs allege that the MSG Networks Inc. board of directors and
majority stockholders breached their fiduciary duties in
negotiating and approving the Merger. Plaintiffs seek, among other
relief, monetary damages for the putative class and plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees.

Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. is into live experiences
comprising venues; marquee entertainment brands; regional sports
and entertainment networks; dining and nightlife offerings; and a
premier music festival based in New York.


MAIMONIDES MEDICAL: Vurgun Sues Over Rounding Hours, Time Shaving
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SERIN VURGUN, on behalf of herself, Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. MAIMONIDES MEDICAL CENTER,
and KENNETH GIBBS, Case No. 1:22-cv-00995 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2022)
seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime, due to an
impermissible policy of rounding hours down; unpaid wages,
including overtime, due to time shaving; liquidated damages; and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff contends that throughout her employment with the
Defendants, she was not always aid the overtime premium of
one-and-one-half times her regular rate of pay for her hours worked
in excess of 40 per week due to the Defendants' impermissible
policy of rounding hours down and time shaving, as required under
the FLSA and NYLL.

Maimonides Medical Center is a non-profit, non-sectarian hospital
located in Borough Park, in the New York City borough of Brooklyn,
in the U.S. state of New York. Maimonides is both a treatment
facility and academic medical center.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MARATHON REFINING: Continuance of Class Cert. Hearing Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE WOOD, ANTHONY
ALFARO, and AARON DIETRICH on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, v. MARATHON REFINING LOGISTICS SERVICES LLC,
and DOES 1 THROUGH AND INCLUDING 25, Case No. 4:19-cv-04287-YGR
(N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting
their joint stipulation requesting continuance of class
certification hearing as follows:

  1. The parties are arranging the           March 11, 2022
     completion of remaining declarant
     depositions via separate
     correspondence to bring the total
     number of depositions to
     depositions, and anticipate
     completing those depositions by:

  2. The Defendant's opposition to           March 25, 2022
     the Plaintiffs' motion for
     class certification is due two
     weeks thereafter, on:

  3. The Plaintiff's reply is due:           April 22, 2022

  4. Consistent with the Court's             May 24, 2022
     stated availability, the
     hearing is set for:

Marathon Petroleum is an American petroleum refining, marketing,
and transportation company headquartered in Findlay, Ohio.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3IgNEO6 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for Anthony Alfaro, Aaron Dietrich,
and Warren Kostenuk, are:

          Kristina L. Hillman, Esq.
          Jannah V. Manansala, Esq.
          Roberta D. Perkins, Esq.
          Alexander S. Nazarov, Esq.
          Maximillian D. Casillas, Esq.
          Kara L. Gordon, Esq.
          WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD
          A Professional Corporation
          1375 55th Street
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (510) 337-1001
          Facsimile: (510) 337-1023
          E-mail: courtnotices@unioncounsel.net
                  khillman@unioncounsel.net
                  manansala@unioncounsel.net
                  rperkins@unioncounsel.net
                  anazarov@unioncounsel.net
                  mcasillas@unioncounsel.net
                  kgordon@unioncounsel.net

Co-Counsel for the Plaintiffs Anthony Alfaro, Aaron Dietrich,
and Warren Kostenuk, are:

          Aaron Kaufmann, Esq.
          David Pogrel, Esq.
          LEONARD CARDER, LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2700
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 272-0169
          Facsimile: (510) 272-0174
          E-mail: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com
                  dpogrel@leonardcarder.com

The Defendant Marathon Refining Logistics Service LLC is
represented by:

          Timothy M. Rusche, Esq.
          Michael W. Kopp, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793
          Telephone: (213) 270-9600
          Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
          E-mail: trusche@seyfarth.com
                  mmanesis@seyfarth.com
                  afry@seyfarth.com
                  mkopp@seyfarth.com

MARIYAM JEWELS: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mariyam Jewels USA
Inc. The case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself
and all other persons similarly situated v. Mariyam Jewels USA
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01371 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2022).

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

Mariyam Jewels USA -- https://mariyamjewels.com/ -- is a wholesale
jeweler in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MATTHEWS INT'L: Class Cert & Trial Deadlines Vacated in Beinbrech
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jason Beinbrech v.
Matthews International Corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-01971-FLA-SP
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha entered an
order granting joint stipulation vacating motion for class
certification and trial deadlines as follows:

   1. All current pretrial and trial dates, and deadlines are
      vacated; and

   2. The Parties shall file a joint status report regarding
      settlement or Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
      Action Settlement by Friday, April 8, 2022.

On February 4, 2022, the Parties filed the stipulation.

The Parties state they have reached a class-wide settlement that
will resolve the action in its entirety and request the court
vacate the upcoming hearing deadline for a Motion for Class
Certification and remaining pretrial and trial dates.

Matthews International is a global provider of brand solutions,
memorialization products and industrial technologies.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33Lciaw at no extra charge.[CC]

MCKESSON CORPORATION: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McKesson Corporation.
The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. McKesson Corporation, Case No.
1:22-cv-00927 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2022).

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

McKesson Corporation -- https://www.mckesson.com/ -- is an American
company distributing pharmaceuticals and providing health
information technology, medical supplies, and care management
tools.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL: Scheduling Order Modified in Harris
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN HARRIS, individually
and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v.
MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL INC., a Virginia Corporation; and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01321-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge  entered an order scheduling order to be modified as
follows:

  -- Last Day to Make Expert Witness           Aug. 22, 2022
     Disclosures:

  -- Last Day to Make Rebuttal Expert          Sept. 12, 2022
     Disclosures:

  -- Last Day to Complete Discovery            Sept. 5, 2022
     Related to Class Certification
     (except expert discovery):

  -- Last Day to Complete Expert               Sept. 16, 2022
     Discovery Related to Class
     Certification:

  -- Last Day to Move for/against              Oct. 7, 2022
     Class Certification:

  -- Opposition to Class Certification         Oct. 21, 2022
     Motion(s) by:

  -- Repl(ies) to Class Certification          Oct. 28, 2022
     Motion(s) by:

  -- Hearing on Class Certification            Nov. 2, 2022
     Motion(s) on:

  -- [Assuming Certification Motion            Jan. 23, 2023
     is decided on 11/2/22] Last Day
     to Complete Remaining Discovery or
     file any Motion re Discovery:

  -- Dispositive Motions and/or Motion         March 3, 2023
     to De-Certify Class filed by:

  -- Dispositive Motion or Motion to           May 9, 2023
     De-Certify Class hearing:

  -- Final Pre-Trial Conference:               June 23, 2023

  -- Jury Trial:                               Aug. 7, 2023

The Plaintiff filed his Complaint on April 3, 2020 in Placer County
Superior Court, and the Defendant timely removed this matter to
this Court on July 1, 2020.

On August 24, 2020, the Parties filed their Joint Report of their
Rule 26(f) 7 Conference and Proposed Discovery Plan, which included
proposed deadlines for Plaintiff to file a motion for class
certification, and for Defendant to oppose such a motion.

on August 25, 2020, this Court issued its Initial Scheduling Order,
however, the Court's Initial Scheduling Order did not include any
deadlines for Class Certification/De-Certification Motions, nor did
it include deadlines for expert disclosures relating to Class
Certification as requested in the Parties' Joint Report.

McKesson is a medical distributor of medical supplies, durable
medical equipment, surgical supplies, and medical lab supplies.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 15, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BL9g2w at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Christina M. Lucio, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
          E-mail: James@Jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  Christina@Jameshawkinsaplc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Tanja L. Darrow, Esq.
          Nathaniel H. Jenkins, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443.4300
          Facsimile: (213) 443.4299
          E-mail: tdarrow@littler.com
                  njenkins@littler.com

MCMC LLC: Amended Briefing Schedule Order Entered in Mauthe Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as  ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D.,
P.C., a Pennsylvania corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, v. MCMC
LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-01901-EGS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Edward
G. Smith entered the plaintiff's motion is granted and the court's
October 28, 2021 scheduling order is amended as follows:

   1. The Plaintiff shall have until March 14, 2022, to file a
      reply in further support of its renewed motion for class
      certification;

   2. The court will hold an oral argument on Wednesday, April
      13, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. on the renewed motion for class
      certification, at the Holmes Building, 101 Larry Holmes
      Drive, 4th Floor, Easton, Pennsylvania 18042; and

   3. Counsel are encouraged to inform the court if at any time
      they determine that a settlement conference may be
      helpful. The court will schedule a settlement conference
      upon agreement of all counsel.

MCMC LLC operates as a managed care services company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t0vMQZ at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 2036: Approval of Dasher Deal With PNC in Overdraft Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In Re: 1:09-md-02036-JLK CHECKING ACCOUNT OVERDRAFT
LITIGATION, MICHAEL DASHER, 1:10-cv-22190-JLK Plaintiff-Appellee,
STEPHANIE AVERY, Interested Party-Appellant v. RBC BANK (USA),
d.b.a. RBC Bank, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20-13367 (11th Cir.),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the
district court's certification of a class and the approval of a
settlement with PNC Bank.

I. Background

Stephanie Avery appeals the district court's certification of a
class and the approval of a settlement with PNC Bank. Avery
contends that the court abused its discretion by finding that the
settlement class' representative, Michael Dasher, adequately
represented her (and her proposed subclass') interests and that the
settlement class' claims were typical of hers (and her proposed
subclass').

The matter is the latest appeal spurred from RBC Bank's alleged
improper assessment and collection of overdraft fees. This
practice, known as "high-to-low posting," occurs when financial
institutions restructure their customers' debit transactions by
placing more costly transactions on their accounts before less
costly ones. Restructuring transactions this way makes it more
likely that a customer's account balance will drop below $0 so that
the financial institution can charge overdraft fees against every
transaction posted after the account balance drops to nothing.
Avery is one of several thousand customers allegedly harmed by
RBC's scheme.

Mr. Dasher and Avery's consolidated class actions are before the
Court following settlement and class certification in the District
Court for the Southern District of Florida. Dasher filed his action
in that court on July 2, 2010. Avery filed in North Carolina state
court one week later. The cases were consolidated into MDL 2036 in
the Southern District of Florida in 2010 and 2011, respectively.

The Eleventh Circuit has twice decided matters concerning Dasher's
class action due to its factual peculiarities. The matter is now
before it a third time. Back in 2008, Dasher was simply an RBC
customer. His account agreement with RBC -- at that time --
contained an arbitration clause that covered overdraft fee
disputes. However, when RBC merged with PNC Bank in 2012 -- and
after Dasher had filed suit against RBC -- PNC issued Dasher a new
account agreement that didn't contain an arbitration clause.

PNC moved to compel Dasher to arbitrate his claims after it merged
with RBC. The district court denied that motion in 2013. Almost
immediately after the district court issued that ruling, PNC issued
its customers an amended agreement that contained an arbitration
provision. Those provisions took effect on Feb. 1, 2013. That
agreement also provided that account holders accepted the new terms
if they failed to optout and continued using their accounts.

In February 2014, the Court held that the 2012 PNC agreement
without an arbitration clause superseded the 2008 RBC agreement
that had required Dasher and plaintiffs like him to arbitrate his
claims. Nine months after that decision, PNC moved to compel Dasher
to arbitrate his claims based on the February 2013 amended
agreement. The district court denied that motion. In February of
2018, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial
concluding there was no meeting of the minds between Dasher and PNC
on the February 2013 amended customer agreement. This was because
PNC communicated the amendment directly to Dasher while he was
represented by counsel and actively engaged in litigation against
PNC "forcefully and consistently resisting arbitration."

By 2014, the class counsel recognized that some plaintiffs would
likely be subject to the February 2013 arbitration clause and
class-action waiver. Customers who held RBC accounts that were
converted into PNC accounts but closed their accounts before Feb.
1, 2013, likely couldn't be compelled to arbitrate given Dasher I's
reasoning. Customers who kept their accounts after Feb. 1, 2013,
likely could be compelled to arbitrate. So, the Plaintiffs' amended
complaint proposed subclasses based on the likelihood that members
of each subclass could be compelled to arbitrate.

The proposed "Avery National Class" would include RBC customers who
incurred allegedly improper overdraft fees, became PNC customers,
and closed their accounts before Feb. 1, 2013. The proposed "Dasher
National Class" would include the customers whose accounts remained
open after Feb. 1, 2013. According to the Plaintiffs' expert, the
"Avery class" would include about 17,412 class members, while the
"Dasher class" would include the remainder of the 152,000 accounts
that were affected by RBC's overdraft practices.

Settlement discussions began in 2018; Dasher's counsel was lead
counsel. The district court preliminarily approved a settlement
agreement certifying a single settlement class. The court granted
conditional certification in accordance with Rule 23(b), finding
that "based on the record before it, the predominance requirement
was satisfied for settlement purposes because common questions
presented a significant aspect of the case and could be resolved
for all Settlement Class members in a single common judgment."

The class would include "all holders of an RBC Account who, from
Oct. 10, 2007 through March 1, 2012, incurred one or more overdraft
fees as a result of RBC's High-to-Low Posting." PNC would pay $7.5
million in exchange for the Plaintiffs' release of all claims. The
class members would receive a pro rata distribution based on the
number of overdraft fees charged due to high-to-low posting. Dasher
was the proposed class representative. Avery was not a party to the
settlement agreement.

Ms. Avery objected to the settlement and class certification in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). She argued
that (1) the putative Avery subclass hadn't been "adequately and
fairly represented as required by Rule 23(a)(4)" because their
interests, as plaintiffs not subject to arbitration or a
class-action waiver, were opposed to the Dasher subclass's
interests; and (2) Dasher did not meet Rule 23(a)(3)'s typicality
requirement.

The district court overruled Avery's objections, certified a Rule
23(b)(3) class, and granted final approval to the settlement. The
court reasoned that no typicality or adequacy problem existed after
RBC "waived its arbitration defense for settlement purposes." On
typicality, the court found that "everyone was subjected to the
same practice and suffered the same type of injury," and typicality
"does not require identical claims or defenses." On adequacy, it
found that Dasher's interests were "coextensive with" the
settlement class's interests, and that only a "fundamental
conflict" between the "economic interests and objectives" of the
class representatives and the unnamed class members would defeat
adequacy.

II. Discussion

A. RBC's arbitration waiver didn't cure the adequacy or typicality
issues presented.

The district court found, and Dasher contends, that Rule 23's
adequacy and typicality requirements were met because RBC waived
its right to arbitrate. The argument is that because RBC didn't
assert an arbitration defense to settle the case, the differences
among the plaintiffs concerning the applicability of that defense
are moot.

The Eleventh Circuit is unpersuaded. It finds that RBC's waiver of
its arbitration defense for settlement purposes didn't cure the
conflicts that may have existed among class members before they sat
down to negotiate. As noted throughout the Opinion, the Avery
subclass contended-regardless of that conditional waiver -- that a
fundamental conflict remained due to the valuations of their
respective claims as opposed to the Dasher subclasses' claims.

B. The district court didn't abuse its discretion: it's not clear
that the proposed subclasses have a fundamental conflict related to
the specific issues in controversy.

Ms. Avery and her subclass contend that a fundamental conflict
existed between the Dasher and Avery subclasses because the Avery
subclass's claims were worth more as they weren't subject to an
arbitration defense and class-action waiver, while Dasher's were.
Two cases seem to support Avery's inadequate representation
position.

In sum, the Eleventh Circuit holds that the district court didn't
abuse its discretion by finding that single-class representation
was fair and adequate. There's enough uncertainty about the
difference in the value of the plaintiffs' claims that the district
court could find dispositive the fact that the plaintiffs were all
injured in the same way by the same conduct and had an overriding
shared interest in obtaining the largest cash settlement possible.

C. The district court didn't abuse its discretion by finding
Dasher's claims were typical of those of the class.

Ms. Avery contends that Dasher lacks the typicality needed for Rule
23(a)(3) because he has a unique defense to arbitration: He's not
subject to PNC's 2013 amended agreement, so he can't be compelled
to arbitrate and lacks standing to assert defenses to arbitration
on behalf of class members who'd be subject to the 2013 amendment.

The Eleventh Circuit disagrees. It opines that it broadly construes
Rule 23(a)(3)'s typicality requirement. And, in accordance with
that broad construction, it can't conclude that the district court
abused its discretion. Dasher, like all class members, was
"subjected to the same practice and suffered the same type of
injury": RBC's high-to-low posting resulting in excessive overdraft
fees. Thus, Dasher's claims arise from the same "pattern or
practice" and are based on the same legal theory as the rest of the
class. Even if an arbitration defense would be dispositive as to
most class members if they attempted to sue individually, the
Eleventh Circuit finds that there is still a "sufficient nexus"
under Kornberg between Dasher's claims and the class's claims to
render Dasher typical under Rule 23(a)(3).

III. Disposition

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p8hsn4v from Leagle.com.


MDL 2406: Court Dismisses Claims of Love Providers With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
(MDL No. 2406), Master No. 2:13-CV-20000-RDP (N.D. Ala.), Judge R.
David Proctor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama, Southern Division, granted Certain Defendants' Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment.

The Motion sought to dismiss with prejudice the claims of the Love
Providers, who were also members of the settlement classes in Love
v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, et al., No.
1:03-cv-21296-FAM (S.D. Fla.).

I. Introduction

There were four separate settlement agreements encompassing
different Defendants in the Love case: The Blues Settlement
Agreement; the WellPoint Settlement Agreement; the Highmark
Settlement Agreement; and the Capital Settlement Agreement. The
motion at issue is based exclusively on the WellPoint and Capital
Settlement Agreements. As the Certain Defendants explain, "The
WellPoint and Capital Agreements contain no BlueCard Exception, and
they therefore release the second category of claims preserved by
the Blue Agreement that does contain the BlueCard Exception (claims
arising from services provided to the settling Defendants' members
through BlueCard)."

II. Background

In May 2003, a group of medical providers filed an action in the
Southern District of Florida against numerous Blue entities,
alleging that several managed care companies had engaged in a
scheme to systematically deny, delay, and diminish payments to
healthcare providers. The Love case was consolidated into the In re
Managed Care Litigation MDL, Case No. 1:00-mdl-1334 (S.D. Fla.).
The litigation was assigned to Judge Frederico A. Moreno, a
distinguished judge sitting in the Southern District of Florida.

Judge Moreno described the litigation this way: "This MDL case
concerned, inter alia, reimbursement for health care services by
managed care companies and was divided into two tracks: one
involving broad claims by health care providers and the other
involving broad claims by subscribers to health care plans. The
provider track litigation, namely Love, was a class action brought
on behalf of all providers who submitted claims to health care
companies, including the defendants in Conway v. Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Alabama, Case No. 2:12-cv-02532 (N.D. Ala.), for the
provision of medical services."

Between 2005 and 2008, certain Blue defendants in Love entered into
settlement agreements with the provider plaintiffs. Under each
agreement, the Defendants agreed to make substantial payments to
the class members and their counsel and to implement numerous
business practice initiatives. Pursuant to these agreements, the
Defendants paid cthe lass members and their counsel more than $384
million in cash and spent more than $535 million making business
practice changes that the Love plaintiffs stated had a value to the
settlement class of more than $3.4 billion."

A. The WellPoint Settlement

On July 11, 2005, the "Representative Plaintiffs" in Love, Rick
Love, M.D., Joe Frank Smith, M.D., Scott Elledge, M.D. and Andreas
Melendez-Desos, M.D., "on behalf of themselves and each of the
Class Members," entered into a class settlement with WellPoint,
Inc. and its affiliates (the "WellPoint Settlement Agreement" or
"WSA"), which was granted final approval by the Love court in
December 2005.

The Love court certified the following WellPoint settlement class:
Any and all Physicians, Physician Groups and Physician
Organizations who provided Covered Services to any Plan Member or
any other individual enrolled in or covered by a plan offered or
administered by any Person named as a defendant in the [Love]
Complaints or by any of their respective current or former
Subsidiaries or Affiliates, in each case from Aug. 4, 1990 through
the Preliminary Approval Date [Dec. 31, 2005].

Under the WellPoint Settlement Agreement, the "Released Parties"
include WellPoint entities that were defendants in Love (the
"WellPoint Released Parties"). On Dec. 27, 2005, the Love court
entered a final judgment dismissing the WellPoint Released Parties
with prejudice. Many of the WellPoint Released Parties are
defendants in this MDL, and through corporate changes now operate
under the Anthem name.

Despite the broad language of the release, the only Blue licensees
who were dismissed in Love as a result of the WellPoint Settlement
Agreement were WellPoint-related entities (the "Released
Parties").

B. The Capital Settlement

On Feb. 1, 2008, the "Representative Plaintiffs" in Love, Rick
Love, M.D., Joe Frank Smith, M.D., Scott Elledge, M.D. and Andreas
Melendez-Desos, M.D., "on behalf of themselves and Class Members,"
entered into a class settlement with Capital BlueCross, Capital
Advantage Insurance Company and Keystone Health Plan Central (the
"Capital Settlement Agreement" or "CSA"), which was granted final
approval by the Love court in June 2008.

The Love court certified the following Capital settlement class:
Any and all Physicians, Physician Groups and Physician
Organizations who provided Covered Services to any Plan Member or
to any individual enrolled in or covered by a Plan offered or
administered by any Person named as a defendant in the Love
Complaint or by any other primary licensee of the BCBSA or by any
of their respective current or former subsidiaries or Affiliates,
from Jan. 1, 1996 through March 12, 2008.

A review of the Capital Settlement Agreement shows that "Released
Parties" include Capital BlueCross, Capital Advantage Insurance
Company, and Keystone Health Plan Central (the "WellPoint Released
Parties"). On June 23, 2008, the Love court entered a final
judgment dismissing these entities with prejudice.

The four Love settlement agreements all generally contain similar
release language. Notably, however, the WellPoint and Capital
agreements do not contain the first sentence of Section 13.1(b)
contained in the Blues Settlement Agreement, which has become known
as the "BlueCard Exception."

C. Litigation Over the Love Release Language

On April 27, 2007, after the WellPoint Settlement in 2005 and
before the Capital Settlement in 2008, the Love physician
plaintiffs entered into a class settlement with BCBSA, BCBS-AL, and
additional Blue Plans (the "Blue Settlement Agreement" or "BSA"),
which was granted final approval by the Love court on April 19,
2008. The second sentence of Section 13.1(b) of the Blue Settlement
Agreement contains language almost identical to that found in
Section 13.1(b) of the Capital Settlement Agreement.

On July 28, 2008, BCBSA moved to enforce the Blues Settlement
Agreement on the grounds that Section 13.1(b) of that Agreement
barred the claims in the Love Sixth Amended Complaint, even against
Non-Settling Defendants, because those claims were alleged to
"arise from, or are based on" conduct of BCBSA.

Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres issued a report and recommendation
on BCBSA's motion to enforce in which he noted that "the language
of the Court's Final Approval Order and the Settlement Agreement
clearly prohibits Class members from initiating claims against any
party, both 'Released' and 'Non-Released,' which 'arise from, or
are based on, conduct by any of the 'Released Parties.'"
Nonetheless, Judge Torres recommended that BCBSA's motion be denied
because the Love Sixth Amended Complaint's claims fell within the
BlueCard Exception. Judge Moreno "affirmed and adopted" Judge
Torres's Report and Recommendation.

On April 18, 2017, the Provider Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint in this MDL, which states that the Love Providers bring
claims against only the Non-Settling Love Defendants. On April 25,
2018, the Provider Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment against Certain Defendants That Were Not Signatories to
Settlement Agreements in Love v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Association. On Oct. 17, 2018, the Court denied the Provider
Plaintiffs' motion "for two reasons. First, the Providers' claims
in this MDL fall squarely within the scope of the Love releases
because they arise from, or are based on, conduct by the Released
Parties. Second, not all of the Providers' claims" fall within the
BlueCard Exception.

D. Love Providers Who Are Named Plaintiffs in Conway

The operative Conway Complaint in this MDL alleges that "certain of
the named Provider Plaintiffs were members of the Settlement
classes in class settlements with some of the Defendants
consummated in" Love. That is, the Love Providers are members of
the WellPoint and Capital settlement classes.

In Conway, the Love Providers and the other Provider Plaintiffs
allege that the Non-Settling Love Defendants are liable for alleged
participation in two purported nationwide conspiracies involving
all defendants and resulting in alleged unlawful agreements among
all defendants to restrict competition: (1) the "Market Allocation
Conspiracy" and (2) the "Price Fixing and Boycott Conspiracy." They
further allege that both conspiracies were carried out through the
conduct of all defendants, including Anthem and Capital

The Love Providers and the other Provider Plaintiffs do not dispute
that their Market Allocation Conspiracy claims are based on the
Defendants' alleged agreement to allocate geographic markets among
themselves. They state that their monopsonization claims are not
based "solely" on the Defendants' alleged agreement to allocate
geographic markets among themselves, yet they do not dispute that
the claims are based in part on the Defendants' alleged agreement.

The matter is before the Court on Certain Defendants' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment. That Motion seeks to dismiss with
prejudice the claims of the Love Providers, who were also members
of the settlement classes in Love.

III. Analysis

In their Consolidated Fourth Amended Provider Complaint, the
Provider Plaintiffs have offered the following brief description of
their claims in this MDL: In the claims related to the Market
Allocation Conspiracy, the Plaintiff healthcare providers challenge
the explicit agreement reached by the Defendants to divide the
United States into what the Defendants term Service Areas and then
to allocate those geographic areas among the Blues, free of
competition. In the claims related to the Price Fixing and Boycott
Conspiracy, the Plaintiffs also challenge the agreement reached by
the Defendants to fix prices for goods, services and facilities
rendered by healthcare providers such as the Plaintiffs and to
boycott the healthcare providers outside of their Service Areas.
Count One of that pleading is a "Claim for Injunctive Relief, 15
U.S.C. Section 26." The Provider Plaintiffs' remaining claims,
asserted in Counts II through X, all seek treble damages.

A. The Love Providers' Claims Fall Within the Scope of the
WellPoint and Capital Releases

Based on this broad release language in the WellPoint and Capital
Settlement Agreements, Judge Proctor rejects the Providers'
contention that "the scope of any potential bar for non-released
parties is necessarily limited to services provided to the insureds
of Released Parties." He understands quite clearly that its prior
analysis related to the Blues Settlement Agreement. However, the
language contained in the WellPoint and Capital Settlement
Agreements is similarly broad. Thus, consistent with the Court's
previous opinion regarding the scope of the Blues Settlement
Agreement in Love, and the opinions of Judges Moreno and Torres,
Judge Proctor concludes that the Love Providers' claims in this MDL
fall squarely within the scope of the WellPoint and Capital
Settlement Agreements because they arise from, or are based on,
conduct by the Released Parties.

As the Love Providers' claims in this MDL are within the scope of
the WellPoint and Capital Settlement Agreement releases (as they
arise from, or are based on, conduct by the Released Parties) they
are foreclosed.

B. The WellPoint and Capital Settlement Agreements Do Not Contain
the BlueCard Exception

Judge Proctor finds that the WellPoint and Capital Settlement
Agreements do not contain the "BlueCard Exception." Therefore,
under the release provisions of the WellPoint and Capital
Settlement Agreements, there is no exception to save certain of the
Love Providers' damages claims. The Certain Defendants' Motion
seeks summary judgment only under the WellPoint and Capital
Settlement Agreements, and neither of those Agreements contains the
BlueCard Exception. Therefore, the Love Providers' damages claims,
like their injunctive relief claim, are barred by the release
provisions of the WellPoint and Capital Settlement Agreements, and
there is no Blue Card Exception to save them.

C. Claim Preclusion Also Bars The Love Providers' Claims

The Love Providers do dispute that the res judicata effect of the
WellPoint and Capital Final Judgments extends to the claims at
issue in this MDL. More specifically, they argue that the
Defendants rely on a res judicata standard that does not apply in
the settlement context.

But, that argument misses the mark. Judge Proctor has set forth the
correct standard. That is, the determining factor in whether a
consent-based judgment is given preclusive effect is "the expressed
intent of the parties," the "best evidence" of which is "the
settlement agreement itself." The Love Providers' argument that it
would violate the class members' due process rights to apply res
judicata to their claims is also without merit. But, that simply is
not so. Again, as noted, "all material facts were available to
class members because a full copy of the settlement agreement, and
the release, were available on a website referenced in the Notice.

IV. Conclusion

For all the reasons he discussed, Judge Proctor holds that the
Certain Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the claims
asserted by the Love Providers and is due to be granted. A separate
order will be entered in this MDL, and in Conway v. Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Alabama et al, Case No. 2:12-cv-02532-RDP.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3aexaad3 from Leagle.com.


MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Nair Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled DEJA NAIR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, INC.; MEDLINE INDUSTRIES
HOLDINGS, L.P.; MEDLINE INDUSTRIES, LP; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2021-0011669, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Joaquin, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on
February 18, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-at-00193 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay all wages earned, failure to provide
meal periods, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to provide
accurate wage statement, waiting time penalties, and unfair
competition.

Medline Industries, Inc. is an American healthcare company based in
Northfield, Illinois.

Medline Industries Holdings, L.P. is an American healthcare company
based in Illinois.

Medline Industries, LP is an American healthcare company based in
Northfield, Illinois. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Steven A. Groode, Esq.
         Jannine E. Kranz, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
         Telephone: (310) 553-0308
         Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
         E-mail: sgroode@littler.com
                 jkranz@littler.com

MIGHTY BUILDINGS: Brister Sues Over Unpaid Regular, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
William Brister, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. MIGHTY BUILDINGS, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
22CV006708 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Feb. 8, 2022), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the California
Labor Code for unpaid regular and/or overtime wages.

The Plaintiff worked over 8 hours in a day, and/or 40 hours in a
week during their employment with the Defendants. The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of
wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within
the State of California. This pattern and practice involved, inter
alia, failing to pay them for all regular and/or overtime wages
earned and for missed meal periods and rest breaks in violation of
California law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants, jointly and severally, as
an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee, from July 2021 to August
2021.

Mighty Buildings, Inc. is an employer whose employees are engaged
throughout the State of California, including the County of
Alameda.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden A venue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: (818) 265-1020
          Fax: (818) 265-1021


MINOS DINER: Rodriguez Seeks to Unpaid OT for Restaurant Staff
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARGARITO RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself, Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, v. MINOS DINER, INC.
d/b/a WOODROW DINER, ANNADALE TERRACE CORP. d/b/a ANNADALE TERRACE,
813 ANNADALE CORP. d/b/a PRIVE, MAGDY KHEIR and STAVROS BAKOUSSIS,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00998 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2022) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation due to a fixed salary, liquidated
damages, and attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action
pursuant to FLSA Section 16(b), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf
of all current and former non-exempt employees, including but not
limited to cooks, food preparers, bartenders, waiters, bussers,
food runners, delivery persons, cashiers, dishwashers, housekeeping
persons and porters, employed by Defendants on or after the date
that is six years before the filing of the Complaint.

In June 2000, the Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a
dishwasher and salad preparer at Woodrow Diner located at 655
Rossville Avenue, Staten Island, New York. The Plaintiff's
employment with the Defendants was terminated on October 2, 2021.

Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, he was paid in
cash at a fixed salary rate of $100 per day, regardless of his
actual hours worked, and there was never any understanding that the
fixed salary was intended to cover any overtime hours over 40
hours. Class members were paid at a similar rate. The Plaintiff did
not receive any overtime compensation, despite working over 40
hours each week. Class members similarly did not receive any
overtime compensation, the lawsuit says.

Individual Defendants own and operate three restaurants in Staten
Island, New York under the following trade names Woodrow Diner,
Annadale Terrace and Prive. The Defendants own and operate the
Restaurants as a single integrated enterprise.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1180
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

MONMOUTH REAL ESTATE: Faces Amended Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Monmouth Real Estate Investment Corporation disclosed in its
Current Report on Form 8-K dated February 7, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2022, that the
company and its board of directors were named as defendants
alleging that they violated fiduciary duties by misrepresenting or
omitting allegedly material information in the Definitive Proxy
Statement.

Monmouth and members of Monmouth's board of directors are
defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed on August 4,
2021, and amended on January 14, 2022, by a purported shareholder
of Monmouth (Ross v. Conway et al., No. 24-C-21-003425CN, Md. Cir.
Ct. Balt.) that alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated fiduciary duties by misrepresenting or omitting allegedly
material information in the Definitive Proxy Statement and that
plaintiff's counsel is entitled to attorneys' fees and expenses in
connection with disclosures related to Monmouth's now-terminated
merger agreement with Equity Commonwealth.

The Ross Complaint seeks relief including, among other things,
enjoining the vote on the Merger, compensatory damages, awarding
plaintiff the costs of the action, and awarding plaintiff's counsel
attorneys' fees and expenses.

Monmouth Real Estate Investment Corporation is a real estate
investment trusts based in New Jersey.


NATURELO PREMIUM: Misrepresents Magnesium Supplements, Wallin Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Wallin, on behalf of himself and all 10 similarly situated v.
Naturelo Premium Supplements LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01261 (C.D.
Cal., Feb. 24, 2022) alleges that the Defendant misrepresents that
one capsule of the Magnesium Supplement contains 200 mg of
elemental magnesium derived from magnesium glycinate chelate.

Naturelo claims that its magnesium supplements have been
"formulated to support healthy bones, heart, & stress relief."
However, Naturelo markets its products in a systematically
misleading manner, stating that its products have ingredients,
characteristics and benefits that they do not. Because the
Defendant's sales are driven by consumers seeking magnesium
supplementation, Naturelo prominently displays the total elemental
magnesium contents of its supplements -- purportedly 200 mg per
capsule -- on the front and back of each product's label, says the
suit.

But the Magnesium Supplements do not contain 200 mg of elemental
magnesium in each capsule and thus do not contain the quantity of
magnesium that is advertised, and thus warranted, on each of the
product's labels. Instead, the Supplements contain significantly
less magnesium than what is claimed and displayed, the suit
contends.

In misstating the actual magnesium content of the Supplements,
Naturelo allegedly violates federal law and regulations designed to
prevent  deceptive supplement labeling and breaches the express
warranty created by its labeling.

The Plaintiff has purchased Naturelo's Magnesium Supplements
withinthe last four years. The Plaintiff most recently purchased
Defendant's Naturelo Supplements from Amazon in or around February
2022, and previously purchased the Magnesium Supplements from a
local pharmacy.

Naturelo Premium formulates, manufactures and advertises and sells
magnesium dietary supplements throughout the United States,
including in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trinette G. Kent, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, LLC
          1333 Stradella Road
          Los Angeles, CA 90077
          Telephone: (480) 247-9644
          Facsimile: (480) 717-4781
          E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com

NAVIENT CORP: Faces Multiple Suits in State, Federal Courts
-----------------------------------------------------------
SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1 disclosed in its Distribution Report
on Form 10-D for the distribution period from December 1, 2021 to
December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 7, 2022, that its fund administrator,
Navient Corp., has been named as defendant in a number of putative
class action cases alleging violations of various state and federal
consumer protection laws including the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), the Consumer Financial Protection Act of
2010, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCRA) and various other state consumer
protection laws.

SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1 is in to backed securities based in
Virginia.


NAVIENT CORP: Securities Suit Consolidated in D. Del.
-----------------------------------------------------
SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1 disclosed in its Distribution Report
on Form 10-D for the distribution period from December 1, 2021 to
December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 7, 2022, that putative securities class
action lawsuits filed in the District Court for the District of
Delaware were consolidated against Navient as the administrator of
the Trust.

During the first quarter of 2016, Navient Corporation, certain
Navient officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain
Navient securities offerings (including certain of the initial
purchasers) were sued in three putative securities class action
lawsuits filed on behalf of certain investors in Navient stock or
Navient unsecured debt.

These three cases, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware, were consolidated by the District Court,
with Lord Abbett Funds appointed as Lead Plaintiff. The caption of
the consolidated case is "Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund, Inc., et al.
v. Navient Corporation, et al."

SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1 is in to backed securities based in
Virginia.


NAVIENT CORP: Settlement in Securities Suits Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1 disclosed in its Distribution Report
on Form 10-D for the distribution period from December 1, 2021 to
December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 7, 2022, that settlements of the
consolidated class action law suits against Navient, as
administrator of said fund, have been preliminary approved by the
Courts but still subject to final approval.

Two putative class actions have been filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey captioned "Eli Pope v. Navient
Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian
Lown," and "Melvin Gross v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi,
Somsak Chivavibul and Christian M. Lown", both of which allege
violations of the federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The cases were consolidated by the Court in February 2018 under the
caption In Re Navient Corporation Securities Litigation and the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in April 2018. In
September 2021, Navient reached agreements to settle both cases.
The settlements, in which Navient and the other defendants
expressly deny any admission or concession of wrongdoing or fault,
have been preliminarily approved by the Courts but are still
subject to final approval after notice and hearing. Navient expects
the settlements to be covered by insurance and can give no
assurance whether or when the settlements will receive final
approvals.

SLM Student Loan Trust 2010-1 is in to backed securities based in
Virginia.


NCR CORP: Harris Sues Over Sales Representatives' Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NCR CORPORATION, a foreign for profit
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00714-SDG (N.D. Ga., Feb.
20, 2022) alleges that Plaintiff and the putative class of
similarly situated employees were not compensated for all hours
worked over 40 in each and every work week, and were permitted by
the Defendant to knowingly suffer to work off the clock in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Harris was first hired to work for Defendant as an inside sales
representative in April 2019 to work in Defendant's corporate
office and principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia until he
was laid off due to financial changes by NCR on or about February
11, 2022.

NCR Corporation is an American software, managed and professional
services, consulting and technology company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
          1201 N. Peachtree Street, NE 2nd Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30361
          Telephone: (877) 946-8293
          Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
          E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com

NEW YORK: Court Tosses Street Suit v. City, Transportation Dep't
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN THE MATTER OF MONROE STREET, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Petitioner
Appellant-Respondent v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., Defendants
Respondents-Appellants, Index No. 158466/19, Appeal No. 15319, Case
No. 2020-04817 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the
Supreme Court of New York, First Department, unanimously:

   (i) modified the Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen
       A. Rakower, J.), entered Aug. 13, 2020, which denied the
       Respondents' motion to dismiss the hybrid complaint/CPLR
       article 78 petition, denied the Petitioner's motion for
       class certification, and granted the petition to the
       extent of vacating a notice of liability issued to
       petitioner on March 18, 2019, to grant the motion to
       dismiss, deny the petition, and dismiss the proceeding;
       and

  (ii) otherwise affirmed, without costs.

In the putative class action, Supreme Court denied the Respondents'
motion to dismiss on the ground that photographs demonstrating that
the Petitioner's car ran a red light were not accompanied by a
notarized statement from a Department of Transportation employee.
For over half a century, the legislature has consistently provided
for prima facie liability for minor traffic offenses to be
established by a simple, nonnotarized affirmation under penalty of
perjury, using the same "sworn to or affirmed" language.
Legislative history establishes the plain intent and meaning of the
"sworn to or affirmed" language of Vehicle and Traffic Law Section
1111-a(d): That the reviewing technician merely affirm, under
penalty of perjury, the veracity of his statement. No notarization
is necessary.

In the instant administrative proceeding, the notice of liability
was supported by the requisite affirmation. The video images
authenticated by the technician show petitioner's car running a red
light. This constitutes, as per the statute, "prima facie evidence"
of the traffic violation (Vehicle and Traffic Law Section
1111-a[d]). The Petitioner does not contest this evidence; instead,
he contests only the validity of the technician's certificate. The
Petitioner has thus failed to overcome the City's prima facie
establishment of liability, the Appellate Division holds.

The Petitioner's reliance on CPLR 2106 and 2309, which provide that
only the professionals designated in CPLR 2106 can execute a sworn
statement without notarization, is unavailing, the Appellate
Division adds. It finds tha the CPLR applies only in "civil
judicial proceedings." A "civil judicial proceeding" is "a
prosecution, other than a criminal action, of an independent
application to a court for relief." Hence, absent some other
statutory directive, CPLR 2106 and 2309 will not apply in
administrative proceedings. The Appellate Division declines to
follow the decision of the Appellate Term, Second Department, in
People v Eisenstadt (48 Misc.3d 56, 58 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th &
10th Jud Dists 2015]).

Since the Petitioner's substantive claims are without merit, the
Appellate Division determines that there is no basis for
certification of a class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 15, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4v7dcd2v from Leagle.com.

Pardalis & Nohavicka, LLP, in New York City (Israel Klein --
israel@pnlawyers.com -- of counsel), for the Appellant-Respondent.

Georgia M. Pestana, Corporation Counsel, in New York City
(Mackenzie Fillow of counsel), for the Respondent-Appellant.


NEWARK, NJ: Consent Order for Class Cert. Entered in Ramsahai
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUDAN RAMSAHAI, RONNIE
CRUZ and MALIKUL AZIZ v. CITY OF NEWARK, Case No. 2:20-cv-10309
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge John Michael Vazquez entered a consent
order for class certification as follows:

   -- No later than February 24, 2022, the Plaintiffs shall
      provide a letter on the docket setting forth the legal
      basis for proceeding under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
      23(b)(2). The proposed order also indicates that the Court
      directs appropriate notice to the class pursuant to
      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2).

   -- No later than February 24, 2022, the Plaintiffs shall also
      provide a separate letter on the docket describing the
      proposed notice in this matter. The Defendant may, but is
      not required to, submit letters as to these issues.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Newark is a New Jersey city, home to Newark Liberty International
Airport. The New Jersey Performing Arts Center (NJPAC) hosts
big-name concerts, dance performances and other shows.[CC]

NEWREZ LLC: Ricci Suit Seeks Proper Wages
-----------------------------------------
ANDREW RICCI, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. NEWREZ LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-00650 (E.D.
Penn., Feb. 21, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged failure
to include all remuneration paid to Plaintiff and other collective
members in determining the regular rate for purposes of calculating
overtime compensation owed for hours worked over 40 in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant fails to include all
additional remuneration paid to the employees, such as commissions
and non-discretionary bonuses, in the "regular rate" when
calculating the time-and-one-half overtime premium pay owed during
weeks in which Plaintiff and similar employees are credited with
working over 40 hours.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately
August 2020 until approximately November 2021.

NewRez LLC is a corporate entity that provides financing to
consumers for home mortgage loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          Michelle Tolodziecki, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          E-mail: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com

NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL: Hale Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Timothy Hale, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. North Broward Hospital District doing
business as: Broward Health, Case No. CACE-22-000582 was removed
from the 17th Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for
Southern District of Florida on Feb. 17, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:22-cv-60362-DPG to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

North Broward Hospital District doing business as Broward Health --
http://www.browardhealth.org/-- operates as a non-profit health
care organization. The Hospital offers cardiology, pediatrics,
oncology, emergency care, orthopedic surgery, rehabilitation, pain
management, behavioral health, cardiovascular medicine, transplant,
and digestive health services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dorothy P. Antullis, Esq.
          Maxwell Harrison Sawyer, Esq.
          Stuart Andrew Davidson, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN AND DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: (561) 750-3000
          Email: dantullis@rgrdlaw.com
                 msawyer@rgrdlaw.com
                 sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          135 Chestnut Ridge Road Suite 200
          Montavle, NJ 07645
          Phone: (845) 356-2570
          Fax: 356-4335
          Email: Ggraifman@kgglaw.com
                 memert@kgglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Danna Khawam, Esq.
          Nina Christine Welch, Esq.
          Peter Ronai Goldman, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS BROAD AND CASSEL
          100 S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2700
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
          Phone: (954) 745-5244
          Email: danna.khawam@nelsonmullins.com
                 nina.welch@nelsonmullins.com
                 peter.goldman@nelsonmullins.com

               - and -

          Mark L. Krotoski, Esq.
          Phillip J. Wiese, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1400 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: (650) 843-4000
          Email: mark.krotoski@morganlewis.com
                 phillip.wiese@morganlewis.com


NOVA SOUTHEASTERN: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Ferretti Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LEO FERRETTI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 20-CIV-61431-RAR (S.D. Fla.), Judge
Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida denied the Defendant's Motion for Dispositive
Relief Under Florida Statute Section 768.39.

The motion seeks to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims with prejudice
pursuant to the Immunity Statute.

I. Background

Nearly every segment of society has been impacted, in one way or
another, by the COVID-19 pandemic. Higher education is no
exception. Throughout the state of Florida, many colleges and
universities took measures to promote the health and safety of
their students, faculty, and staff in the early days of the
pandemic. These efforts -- which often involved the online delivery
of educational services and limited access to campus facilities --
have been met with increased litigation. To stem this tide of
COVID-related litigation, the Florida Legislature and the Governor
responded by immunizing colleges and universities from liability
via the passage of section 768.39 -- the Florida Immunity Statute
for Educational Institutions for Actions Related to the COVID-19
Pandemic ("Immunity Statute").

The action joins a flurry of cases brought by disgruntled college
students against their schools for moving classes online in
response to a global pandemic. In 2020, Plaintiff Ferretti was
enrolled at Defendant Nova Southeastern University as a full-time
undergraduate student during the winter academic term. The
Defendant is a private, for-profit educational institution based in
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, that offers a variety of course delivery
options to its approximately 25,000 students.

The Defendant's undergraduate tuition for the 2019-20 academic year
was $15,575 per semester. In addition to the tuition, it charges
fees for explicitly delineated purposes, including a Student
Services Fee of $250 per semester for students taking one to three
credits or $500 per semester for students taking four or more
credits. It describes the Student Services Fee as used "to help
offset university expenses for classroom technology, labs,
facilities, curriculum enhancement, parking technology, and other
student services." For the 2019-20 academic year, the Defendant
offered 242 degree programs. Students can apply to degree programs
offered at one of Defendant's eight regional campuses in a "variety
of formats including traditional day, evening, online, or
off-campus." Sixty-six of the Defendant's degree programs are
offered entirely online.

The Defendant differentiates between "face-to-face" and "online"
instruction. Face-to-face classes may include some online
instruction but principally comprise "regular classroom
instruction." Online students, by contrast, make use of "email,
bulletin boards, chat rooms, electronic journals, synchronous
conferencing tools, content-sharing tools, video lectures, and
other digital and web-based tools and resources" without any
"classroom instruction." Some courses are "hybrid," which the
Student Catalog describes as those in which students complete "a
portion of activities in the on-ground classroom" and a portion
online.

In response to official guidance on the global COVID-19 pandemic,
on March 13, 2020, the Defendant suspended all in-person classes
and announced it would resume instruction on March 23, 2020,
exclusively online. All athletic events were canceled, dining and
recreational facilities were closed, on-campus transportation was
suspended, tutoring and testing services were unavailable, and no
gatherings of more than fifty people were permitted at any
university location. The Defendant did not reopen access to its
on-campus, in-person facilities, events, or services, nor did it
provide in-person instruction, through the end of the winter 2020
term.

Shortly after the winter term, the Plaintiff filed his class action
Complaint on July 15, 2020, followed by his FAC on Sept. 25, 2020.
The FAC alleges two counts: (1) breach of contract for unilaterally
changing the terms of the parties' agreement by transitioning the
Plaintiff from an on-campus program to an online program, and (2)
unjust enrichment for retaining the full benefit of the Plaintiff's
tuition, which was charged at the rate for full on-campus
instruction. On Oct. 16, 2020, the Defendant filed a motion to
dismiss, which was fully briefed.

While the Defendant's motion to dismiss was pending, the Florida
Legislature passed and the Governor signed the Immunity Statute,
which became effective on July 1, 2021. The statute defines
"educational institution" to include both public and nonpublic
postsecondary institutions.

On July 15, 2021, the parties jointly moved to file briefs
regarding the Immunity Statute. The Court granted leave for
supplemental filing and removed the case from the trial calendar on
July 19, 2021. The Defendant filed the instant Motion on Aug. 16,
2021.

II. Analysis

The Defendant contends that subsection (3)(a) of the Immunity
Statute immunizes it, as an educational institution, from the
Plaintiffs' claims. The Defendant further argues that, even without
that provision, the Plaintiffs' claims are fatally undermined by
other parts of the statute, including the evidentiary provision and
the provision establishing a heightened burden of proof.

The Plaintiff counters that the Immunity Statute does not apply
retroactively to actions pending when it became effective. They
alternatively challenges the constitutionality of the Immunity
Statute, arguing that it impermissibly impairs the obligations of
contract in violation of the United States and Florida
Constitutions and violates the Access to Courts provision of the
Florida Constitution.

A. The Immunity Statute Is Substantive

The Defendant argues that the Immunity Statute is remedial because
it "is expressly designed to redress an existing grievance and
introduce legislation conducive to the public good" and it
"operates to further remedies and/or confirm rights already in
existence." It further contends that the statute was "passed mere
months after, and in response to, Salerno v. Florida S. Coll., 488
F.Supp.3d 1211 (M.D. Fla. 2020), wherein the court recognized the
'current wave of class action lawsuits that seek tuition
reimbursement related to forced online tutelage.'" Finally, it
argues that the statute is procedural because it "relates to
evidence."

Be that as it may, Judge Ruiz holds that these arguments fail
because the Immunity Statute is clearly substantive in other
critical respects. First, the immunity provision in subsection 3(a)
is substantive because it attaches new legal consequences to the
Defendant's actions taken in response to COVID-19-actions that
touch on a pre-existing contractual relationship. Second, and
similarly, subsections 3(b) and (c) are substantive because they
confer on educational institutions the affirmative defenses of
impossibility and justification, respectively. Finally, subsection
4 substantively changes Florida law as to the documents governing
the relationship between a student and a university.

For all these reasons, there is no question that the Immunity
Statute, taken as a whole, is substantive rather than merely
remedial or procedural.

B. The Immunity Statute Is Intended to Apply Retroactively

In determining whether to apply a substantive statute retroactively
under Florida law, the Court must first examine its text to see if
"there is clear evidence of legislative intent to apply the statute
retrospectively." The relevant terms of the Immunity Statute must
be construed in a manner consistent with their plain meaning and
context. Judge Ruiz therefore turns to the provisions of the
statute at issue in the case.

Judge Ruiz holds that two possibilities remain: Either the Immunity
Statute is to apply retroactively in all cases, or the statute is
to apply to past conduct so long as no action had been filed at the
time the law became effective. Subsection (1) suggests that the
statute was passed in reaction to the "current wave" of class
action litigation and in doing so quotes one such case that was
decided prior to enactment. Thus, the statute applies
retroactively, with no carve-out for pending cases.

C. Retroactive Application of the Immunity Statute Is
Unconstitutional

Judge Ruiz finds that if the Plaintiff's causes of action accrued
before the Immunity Statute became effective, they are vested
property interests subject to constitutional protection. Regarding
his breach-of-contract claim, the Plaintiff's cause of action
accrued when the Defendant allegedly breached their contract --
more than one year before the statute was passed -- by ceasing to
provide in-person instruction and campus access. Judge Ruiz does
not hold that the Immunity Statute does not impair a vested right
in a breach-of-contract claim because the Immunity Statute ties the
Plaintiff's hands in establishing the terms governing that very
claim. And because the parties' contract violated no public policy
or law at the time it was formed, this argument has no bearing on
the Court's analysis as to whether or when the Plaintiff's cause of
action vested.

As to his unjust enrichment claim, the Plaintiff's cause of action
also accrued more than one year before the statute was passed when
the Defendant retained the benefit -- tuition -- the Plaintiff
conferred after ceasing to provide in-person instruction and campus
access. Judge Ruiz finds that Florida law recognizes an important
distinction between inchoate causes of action under the common law
-- i.e., those that have not yet accrued -- and those that have
accrued and thus become vested rights. When a common-law cause of
action accrues, it transcends "a mere expectation based on an
anticipation of the continuance of an existing law." It becomes a
vested right.

Finally, if given retroactive effect, the immunity provision in
subsection (3)(a), in concert with the evidentiary provision in
subsection 4, would indeed "adversely affect" and even "destroy"
the Plaintiff's "vested right" in his ability to recover on claims
that were available before the statute was enacted. It "would
abolish actions that have accrued under the common law" and thus
"would offend due process." Therefore, Judge Ruiz finds that it
cannot be retroactively applied to bar the Plaintiff's claims for
breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

III. Conclusion

Because retroactive application of the Immunity Statute would
violate due process by impairing the Plaintiff's vested rights in
his causes of action, the statute cannot bar his claims.
Accordingly, Judge Ruiz denied the Defendant's Motion without
prejudice to the parties to file any further dispositive motions.
The case will be reset for trial by separate Order.

As a final note, Judge Ruiz is aware that the case has been pending
for some time. In the interest of judicial economy, the parties are
reminded that the Court was constrained by the scope of the instant
Motion. Thus, the Court could not sua sponte address any
affirmative defenses or other issues raised in prior pleadings,
many of which the Immunity Statute attempted to codify, and many of
which are best decided at the summary judgment stage.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4psy5ukb from Leagle.com.


OVERSTOCK.COM: Love Seeks Overtime Wages for Call Center Agents
---------------------------------------------------------------
TAUNJA LOVE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. OVERSTOCK.COM, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00118-JCB  (D.
Utah, Feb. 22, 2022) seeks to recover compensation, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the Washington Minimum Wage Act, the
Washington Wage Payment Act, and the Washington Wage Rebate Act.

The Plaintiff, Taunja Love, brings this action individually and on
behalf of all current and former hourly call-center employees who
worked for Overstock.com, Inc., at any time during the relevant
statutes of limitation through the final disposition of this
matter.

The Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members are those similarly
situated persons who worked for Overstock in call centers
throughout the United States, at any time during the relevant time
period(s), and have not been paid for all hours worked, nor the
correct amount of overtime in violation of state and federal law.

Allegedly, Overstock has enforced a uniform company-wide policy
wherein it improperly required its non-exempt hourly call-center
employees -- Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members -- to perform
work "off-the clock" and without pay in violation of state and
federal law.

Overstock's illegal company-wide policy has caused Plaintiff and
the Putative Class Members to have hours worked that were not
compensated and further created a miscalculation of their regular
rate(s) of pay for purposes of calculating their overtime
compensation each workweek, the lawsuit says.

Plaintiff Love was employed by Overstock in Washington during the
relevant time period. She did not receive compensation for all
hours worked or the correct amount of overtime compensation for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the lawsuit adds.

Overstock describes itself as a "customer-focused online retailer"
that "provide[s] high-quality merchandise, great value, and
exceptional customer service." To provide its services, Overstock
employs numerous hourly call-center employees -- Plaintiff and the
Putative Class Members -- who assist Overstock's customers and
clients throughout the United States (and the world).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jesse S. Brar, Esq.
          PRESTON BRAR, LLC
          670 East 3900 South, Suite 101
          Salt Lake City, UT 84107
          Telephone: (801) 269-9541
          Facsimile: (801) 577-1988
          E-mail: jesse@prestonbrar.com

PABST BREWING: Bid to Strike Nationwide Class Allegations Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDAN PEACOCK v. PABST
BREWING COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00568-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion to
      strike affirmative defenses; and

   2. denying the Defendant's motion to strike nationwide class
      allegations.

The Defendant shall file an amended answer within 21 days of the
electronic filing date of this Order.

The Court said, "the Defendant argues the Court should strike the
nationwide class allegations from Plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint (SAC) because they are barred by the choice of law
analysis articulated in Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 666
F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 2012). In opposition, the Plaintiff argues the
Defendant's motion is: (1) untimely; (2) unauthorized by the
Court's scheduling order; and (3) fails to carry its heavy burden
to demonstrate why a nationwide class is inappropriate. The
Defendant replies by asserting the Court has the authority to
strike the requested portions of Plaintiff's SAC before the class
certification stage and Plaintiff wholly fails to respond to
Defendant's analysis under Mazza. Because Defendant has not shown
Plaintiff can achieve class certification as either a Rule 12(b)(1)
or (2) class, the Court does not reach Plaintiff's procedural
arguments."

This case arises out of a dispute over Defendant's marketing of its
"Olympia" brand beer. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant deceives
consumers by marketing Olympia Beer in a way that "falsely suggests
to consumers that the water in the beer is from the Olympia area of
Washington State."

The Plaintiff filed a putative class action on March 15, 2018,
claiming he was injured when induced by Defendant's misleading
marketing to pay a "premium" price for the beer in violation of
California Business and Professions Code section  17200.

The Plaintiff filed the operative SAC on September 19, 2019. The
Defendant answered on October 21, 2020. The Plaintiff filed his
instant motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule")
12(f) on November 12, 2020. On January 29, 2021, Defendant filed
its instant motion pursuant to Rules 12(f), 23(c)(1)(A), 12 and
23(d)(1)(D).

Pabst Brewing Company is a holding company contracting for the
brewing of many different brands of beer and malt liquor.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sduS4E at no extra charge.[CC]

PATAGONIA INC: Aleisa Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
Manal Aleisa, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated persons v. PATAGONIA, INC.; and LOST COAST OUTFITTERS,
LLC; Case No. 2021-01238022-CU-BT-CXC was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on Feb. 7, 2022, and assigned Case No. 8:22-cv-00195.

The Complaint asserts the following claims against Patagonia
arising from Lost Coast's marketing and sale of Patagonia clothing
offering ultraviolet ray protection during the limitations period:
violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act; violation of the
Unfair Competition Law; violation of the False Advertising Law;
Negligent Misrepresentation; Intentional Misrepresentation; and
Unjust Enrichment.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          P. Craig Cardon, Esq.
          Alyssa Sones, Esq.
          Chloe G. Chung, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055
          Phone: 310.228.3700
          Facsimile: 310.228.3701
          Email: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com
                 asones@sheppardmullin.com
                 cchung@sheppardmullin.com


PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Moves to Dismiss Wilson Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Peloton Interactive, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2022, that it filed a motion
to dismiss an amended consolidated class action complaint over a
securities dispute. Motion is due March 7, 2022.

Additionally on April 29, 2021, Ashley Wilson filed a putative
securities class action lawsuit against the Company and certain of
its officers, captioned Wilson v. Peloton Interactive, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02369-CBA-PK, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, purportedly on behalf
of a class consisting of those individuals who purchased or
otherwise acquired our common stock between September 11, 2020 and
April 16, 2021. Wilson amended her lawsuit on May 6, 2021 to expand
the purported class to those who purchased or acquired our common
stock between September 11, 2020 and May 5, 2021.

On May 24, 2021, Leigh Drori filed a related putative securities
class action lawsuit, captioned "Drori v. Peloton Interactive,
Inc., et al.," Case No. 1:21-cv-02925-CBA-PK, also in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On
November 16, 2021, the district judge consolidated the Wilson and
Drori Actions under the caption In re Peloton Interactive, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21-cv-02369-CBA-PK, and
appointed Richard Neswick as lead plaintiff.

On January 21, 2022, lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated
complaint in the action purportedly on behalf of a class consisting
of those individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired our common
stock between September 11, 2020 and May 5, 2021. Lead plaintiff
alleges that the Company and certain of its officers made false or
misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act of 1934 regarding the company's Tread and Tread
Plus products and the safety of those products. Defendants' motion
to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint is due March 7,
2022.

Peloton is an interactive fitness platform based in New York.


PELOTON INTERACTIVE: Shareholders Seeks Consolidation of Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peloton Interactive, Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2022, that
purported shareholders filed motions to consolidate "City of
Hialeah Employees' Retirement System v. Peloton Interactive, Inc."
and "Deulina v. Peloton Interactive, Inc." class action suits.

On November 18, 2021, the City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement
System filed a putative securities class action lawsuit against the
Company and certain of its officers in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf
of a class consisting of those individuals who purchased or
otherwise acquired our common stock between December 9, 2020 and
November 4, 2021, captioned "City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement
System v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.,: Case No. 21-cv-09582-ALC.

On December 2, 2021, Anastasia Deulina filed a related putative
securities class action against the same defendants also in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
captioned "Deulina v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.," Case No.
21-cv-10266-ALC (the Deulina Action). The Hialeah and Deulina
Actions allege that Defendants made false and misleading statements
in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
regarding demand for, and supply of, the Company’s products.

On January 18, 2022, several purported shareholders filed motions
to consolidate the Hialeah and Deulina Actions and to be appointed
lead plaintiff. The Court has not yet ruled on those motions.

Peloton is an interactive fitness platform based in New York.


PEREGRINE ENTERPRISES: Faces Brown Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA BROWN, RAINA BIGHAM, NATASHA BRADBURY, LAUREN FARANO, TERESA
LEJA, GISELLE LUZA, KAYLA URENA, KAYLE RODRIGUEZ, LESLIE TEJEDA,
YANA TOYBER, SUSANA VARGAS, ASHLEY VENECIA, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PEREGRINE
ENTERPRISES, INC. dba RICK'S CABARET NEW YORK; RCI ENTERTAINMENT
(NEW YORK) INC.; RCI HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS, INC. fka RICK'S CABARET
INTERNATIONAL, INC.; RCI MANAGEMENT SERVICES; ERIC LANGAN; ED
ANAKAR; DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES 4-10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01455 (S.D.N.Y., February 22, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay
minimum wage, unlawful taking of tips, illegal kickbacks, and
forced tip sharing.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as dancers at Rick's
Cabaret located at 50 West 33rd Street, New York, New York in the
past six years.

Peregrine Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Rick's Cabaret New
York, is an owner and operator of an adult-oriented entertainment
facility located at 50 West 33rd Street, New York, New York.

RCI Entertainment (New York) Inc. is an owner and operator of an
adult-oriented entertainment facility located at 50 West 33rd
Street, New York, New York.

RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., formerly known as Rick's Cabaret
International, Inc., is an owner and operator of an adult-oriented
entertainment facility located at 10959 Cutten Road, Houston,
Texas.

RCI Management Services is an owner and operator of an
adult-oriented entertainment facility located at 10959 Cutten Road,
Houston, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Peter Cho, Esq.
         John P. Kristensen, Esq.
         Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
         CARPENTER & ZUCKERMAN
         8827 W. Olympic Boulevard
         Beverly Hills, CA 90211
         Telephone: (310) 273-1230
         E-mail: pcho@cz.law
                 kristensen@cz.law
                 jmartinez@cz.law

PFIZER INC: Abreu Consumer Suit Moved From S.D. Fla. to S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JUAN ABREU, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PFIZER, INC., Case No. 0:21-cv-62122,
was transferred from the Southern District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on February
22, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-01433-DLC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of express
warranties, breach of implied warranties, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation and omission, unjust enrichment, negligence,
negligence per se, medical monitoring, and violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and state consumer protection laws by
illegally manufacturing and distributing generic
varenicline-containing drugs.

Pfizer, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company, with its principal place
of business in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Yitzhak S. Levin, Esq.
         LEVIN LITIGATION PLLC
         3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 311
         Hollywood, FL 33021
         Telephone: (954) 678-5155
         Facsimile: (954) 678-5156
         E-mail: ylevin@levinlitigation.com

                   - and –

         Ruben Honik, Esq.
         David J. Stanoch, Esq.
         HONIK LLC
         1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
         Philadelphia, PA 19102
         Telephone: (267) 435-1300
         E-mail: ruben@honiklaw.com
                 david@honiklaw.com

PFIZER INC: New York Court Dismisses Harris' Amended Consumer Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROSLYN HARRIS and MARY ALLEN, Plaintiffs, v. PFIZER
INC., Defendant, Case No. 21cv6789 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Denise
Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted Pfizer's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' first
amended complaint.

I. Background

Roslyn Harris and Mary Allen bring the putative class action
against Pfizer after its voluntary recall of the drug Chantix,
which was found to be contaminated with excess levels of a
N-nitroso-varenicline.

Pfizer is a New York corporation, with its principal place of
business in New York. It manufactures and distributes Chantix, a
prescription drug used to help consumers quit smoking. Chantix's
medication guide recommends that most people take the medication
for up to 12 weeks, with the possibility of another 12-week course
afterward if necessary. The active ingredient in Chantix is
varenicline.

The Plaintiffs' claims arise out of Pfizer's recall of Chantix due
to the presence of N-nitroso-varenicline. N-nitroso-varenicline is
a nitrosamine, a chemical compound classified as possibly
carcinogenic. On July 2, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") announced Pfizer's recall of nine lots of Chantix to the
warehouse level due to contamination from N-nitroso-varenicline
above the FDA's acceptable intake level of 37 nanograms per day. To
abate a shortage of the medication, the FDA increased its
acceptable intake level to an interim level of 185 nanograms per
day. Nevertheless, Pfizer expanded its recall to twelve lots of
Chantix on July 19, 2021, and then to all lots of Chantix to the
consumer level on Sept. 16, 2021, due to the presence of
N-nitroso-varenicline exceeding the interim acceptable intake
level.

Plaintiff Roslyn Harris is a citizen of New Jersey. She purchased
four one-month boxes of Chantix in New Jersey between 2019 and
2021, each of which was subject to recall. Plaintiff Mary Allen is
a citizen of New York. She purchased three one-month boxes of
Chantix in New York between 2020 and 2021, each of which was
subject to recall.

Both Plaintiffs paid a co-pay for Chantix, and consumed at least
some of the medication they purchased. Neither Plaintiff, however,
alleges that they have suffered any detriment to their health as a
result. Instead, the Plaintiffs allege that they did not know that
Chantix contained N-nitroso-varenicline, that they did not see it
listed as an ingredient on the medication's box or labeling, and
that they would not have purchased the medication if they had known
it was contaminated. They complain that the presence of
N-nitroso-varenicline rendered the product they paid for worthless.
They seek damages solely for their economic injury.

Plaintiff Rosalyn Harris brought the action against Pfizer on Aug.
12, 2021. Pfizer moved to dismiss the complaint on October 21. The
complaint was then amended on November 10, adding Mary Allen as a
Plaintiff. Pfizer moved to dismiss the amended complaint on
December 1, and the Plaintiffs opposed the motion on December 22.
The motion became fully submitted on Jan. 12, 2022.

The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness
Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). CAFA confers federal jurisdiction over
"certain class actions where: (1) the proposed class contains at
least 100 members; (2) minimal diversity exists between the
parties; and (3) the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5
million." The FAC alleges that there are over 100 class members,
and that the aggregate amount of the class members' claims exceeds
$5 million. Additionally, Harris is a resident of New Jersey, while
Pfizer is a New York corporation headquartered in New York. CAFA's
diversity, numerosity, and amount-in-controversy requirements have
therefore been satisfied.

II. Discussion

The FAC brings causes of action against Pfizer for breach of
express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, violation of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act,
unjust enrichment, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and
violation of New York General Business Law Sections 349, 350.
Pfizer has moved to dismiss the case for lack of standing pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Judge Cote opines that it is worth noting at the outset what claims
the Plaintiffs do not bring. The Plaintiffs' claims arise out of
Pfizer's recall of Chantix due to contamination from
N-nitroso-varenicline exceeding the legal limit. But the Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act does not create a private cause of action.
The Plaintiffs therefore disclaim any attempt to privately enforce
the FDA's limits on nitrosamine contamination. Instead, when a
consumer is injured by a defective pharmaceutical, the consumer
typically brings a state-based tort action for products liability.
But the Plaintiffs do not bring a products liability claim either;
they do not allege that they have suffered any emotional or
physical injury from taking Chantix.

The Plaintiffs instead bring claims grounded in contract and fraud.
Such claims have the advantage (for the Plaintiffs) that they do
not require a showing of personal injury. They do, however, require
the Plaintiffs to plausibly allege that Pfizer represented or
warranted that their product was free of nitrosamines -- or at
least that Pfizer had a duty to disclose any nitrosamine
contamination. The plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient
facts to meet this requirement. Accordingly, their claims are
dismissed.

A. Standing

Judge Cote holds that the FAC plausibly alleges that the Plaintiffs
have suffered an economic injury sufficient to confer standing.
Whether the Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to recover
damages is a distinct question from whether they have standing to
seek those damages in the first instance. A court must therefore
assume the merit of a claim when deciding whether a plaintiff has
standing.

B. Failure to State a Claim

Judge Cote opines that (i) the allegations are insufficient to give
rise to a "strong inference" that the Pfizer had "knowledge of
their misstatements' falsity and an intent to induce reliance; (ii)
the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged a duty to disclose nor or
does the FAC identify a partial statement by Pfizer that was
rendered false or misleading by any omission; (iii) Harris' NJCFA
claim fails for largely the same reasons as her fraud claim; (iv)
the FAC has therefore failed to plausibly allege that Pfizer
breached any duty to disclose; (v) neither the allegation, nor the
Plaintiffs' conclusory assertions, are sufficient to plausibly
establish that Pfizer knew about any nitrosamine contamination in
the medication that the Plaintiffs purchased at the time they
purchased it; (vi) the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that
Pfizer breached any express warranty; (vii) the Plaintiffs have
failed to plausibly allege that Chantix was unfit to help consumers
quit smoking; and (viii) the Plaintiffs do not explain why their
unjust enrichment claim is distinct from their other claims, or
distinct from a conventional tort or contract action.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons she discussed, Judge Cote granted Pfizer's motion
to dismiss the complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4kj5j8vs from Leagle.com.

Andrew Obergfell -- aobergfell@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A.,
in New York City, for the Plaintiffs.

Colleen Gulliver -- colleen.gulliver@dlapiper.com -- Loren H. Brown
-- loren.brown@dlapiper.com -- Jessica Carol Wilson --
jessica.wilson@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper US LLP (NY), in New York
City, for the Defendant.


PFIZER INC: Wins Bid to Change Venue; Abreu Suit Moved to New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUAN ABREU, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PFIZER, INC., Defendant, Case No.
21-62122-CIV-MORENO/GOODMAN (S.D. Fla.), Judge Jonathan Goodman of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Ft.
Lauderdale Division, granted the Defendant's Motion to Change Venue
and transferred the case to the Southern District of New York.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Abreu filed the putative class-action lawsuit against
Defendant Pfizer based on claims surrounding the Defendant's
production and voluntary recall of Chantix, a drug developed to
assist individuals with combatting nicotine addiction. Within a
month of the Plaintiff's Complaint being filed, the Defendant filed
a Motion to Change Venue, seeking to transfer the matter to the
Southern District of New York, where it contends an earlier-filed
class-action lawsuit is pending. The Plaintiff filed a response to
the Defendant's Motion to Change Venue.

Shortly thereafter, MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC and MSP
Recovery Claims, Series LLC (collectively, "MSP") filed a Motion to
Intervene to Oppose Defendant's Motion to Change Venue. The
Defendant filed a response to MSP's motion and MSP filed a reply.

Judge Federico A. Moreno referred to Judge Goodman rulings on all
pretrial, non-dispositive matters and a Report and Recommendations
on all dispositive matters.

II. Background

The case is one of a series of putative class-action cases filed
nationwide after the Defendant recalled "Chantix," a drug it had
developed to assist users quit smoking. Based on the Plaintiff's
and the Defendant's filings, Judge Goodman has identified the
following cases filed by end-user plaintiffs since the Defendant's
recall of Chantix: Harris v. Pfizer, Inc., 1:21-cv-06789 (S.D.N.Y.)
(filed Aug. 12, 2021); Edwards v. Pfizer, Inc., 2:21-CV-4275 (E.D.
Pa.) (filed Sept. 29, 2021); Jacobson v. Pfizer, Inc., 2:21-CV-7961
(C.D. Cal.) (filed Oct. 5, 2021); Webb v. Pfizer, Inc.,
1:21-CV-8244 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed Oct. 6, 2021); Seeley v. Pfizer,
Inc., 3:21-CV-7892 (N.D. Cal.) (filed Oct. 7, 2021); Duff v.
Pfizer, Inc., 2:21-CV-1350 (W.D. Pa.) (filed Oct. 8, 2021); Abreu
v. Pfizer, Inc., 0:21-CV-62122 (S.D. Fla.) (filed Oct. 12, 2021);
Evans v. Pfizer, Inc., 3:21-CV-1263 (S.D. Ill.) (filed Oct. 15,
2021); and Houghton v. Pfizer, Inc., 1:21-CV-23987 (S.D. Fla.)
(filed Nov. 12, 2021).

In addition to these nine class action cases, MSP also filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the Defendant, seeking to
represent itself and similarly situated third-party payors. MSP's
lawsuit is currently pending in the Southern District of Florida
with Judge Roy K. Altman: MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC v.
Pfizer Inc., No. 1:21-CV-23676 (S.D. Fla.) (filed Oct. 19, 2021).
Based on the representations of the Plaintiff and MSP, this is the
only third-party payor lawsuit against Pfizer currently pending.

The majority of these cases have been stayed pending the resolution
of the Defendant's motion to transfer. Collectively, the universe
of plaintiffs are represented by three law firms:

     (i) Bursor and Fisher, P.A. - Harris v. Pfizer, Inc.,
1:21-cv-06789 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed Aug. 12, 2021) and Houghton v.
Pfizer, Inc., 1:21-CV-23987 (S.D. Fla.) (filed Nov. 12, 2021)
(stayed [1:21-CV-23987 (S.D. Fla.);

     (ii) Honik LLC - Edwards v. Pfizer, Inc., 2:21-CV-4275 (E.D.
Pa.) (filed Sept. 29, 2021) (stayed [2:21-CV-4275 (E.D. Pa.);
Jacobson v. Pfizer, Inc., 2:21-CV-7961 (C.D. Cal.) (filed Oct. 5,
2021) (voluntarily dismissed after stay denied [2:21-CV-7961 (C.D.
Cal.)); Webb v. Pfizer, Inc., 1:21-CV-8244 (S.D.N.Y.) (filed Oct.
6, 2021) (stayed [1:21-CV-8244 (S.D.N.Y.)); Seeley v. Pfizer, Inc.,
3:21-CV-7892 (N.D. Cal.) (filed Oct. 7, 2021) (stayed [3:21-CV-7892
(N.D. Cal.)); Duff v. Pfizer, Inc., 2:21-CV-1350 (W.D. Pa.) (filed
Oct. 8, 2021) (stayed [2:21-CV-1350 (W.D. Pa.)); Abreu v. Pfizer,
Inc., 0:21-CV-62122 (S.D. Fla.) (filed Oct. 12, 2021); and Evans v.
Pfizer, Inc., 3:21-CV-1263 (S.D. Ill.) (filed Oct. 15, 2021)
(stayed [3:21-CV-1263 (S.D. Ill.)); and

     (iii) Rivero Mestre - MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC v.
Pfizer Inc., No. 1:21-CV-23676 (S.D. Fla.) (filed Oct. 19, 2021).

Two of the three firms each represent a separate Southern District
of New York plaintiff and a separate Southern District of Florida
plaintiff. These two firms, along with MSP's law firm, have filed a
motion to consolidate their three Southern District of Florida
cases and appoint all three firms as the class counsel. According
to the Plaintiff, all the class counsel and the plaintiffs
throughout the nation have been informally coordinating and jointly
agreed that this jurisdiction and the case is the appropriate forum
within which to prosecute their claims against Pfizer. Currently,
however, all three Southern District of Florida cases are assigned
to different judges.

Pfizer, on the other hand, desires for the case to move forward in
the Southern District of New York, where Harris was filed more than
a month and a half before Evans (the next earliest-filed case) and
two months before the case was filed. In Harris, the plaintiff has
filed a complaint and amended complaint, Pfizer has filed an
Answer, and there is a fully briefed motion to dismiss.

Unlike the other end-user plaintiffs, MSP is the outlier plaintiff
in that it seeks to represent "a class of similarly situated
third-party payers." It represents the interests of various
Medicare Advantage plans and healthcare benefit providers
(collectively, "insurance carriers") through assignment, including
the right to recover. A sample of the insurance carriers who have
assigned their rights to MSP includes: Blue Cross & Blue Shield of
Rhode Island; Health First Health Plans, a central Florida
insurance carrier; EmblemHealth, a New York insurance carrier;
Summacare, an Ohio-based insurance carrier; and Connecticare, a
Connecticut based insurance carrier.

In MSP's case, Judge Roy K. Altman denied MSP's request to transfer
its case to Judge Federico A. Moreno, the presiding judge in the
instant case.

The various submissions filed by Pfizer and the three Plaintiff's
firms driving the litigation indicate that the parties agree that
these cases should be litigated in the same forum, but they
disagree on which forum is the proper one.

III. Analysis

The Defendant seeks to transfer the case under either the
first-to-file rule or under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404. In its view,
not only is the Southern District of New York the location of the
first-filed Chantix case -- and the only jurisdiction in which
every plaintiff could transfer their case -- it is also the most
well-situated jurisdiction to handle these cases. According to the
Plaintiff, neither of these transfer principles apply and Defendant
is attempting to subvert informal coordination efforts by the three
plaintiff's counsel to make the Southern District of Florida the
operative jurisdiction.

Judge Goodman is not persuaded by the Plaintiff's position and
concludes that transfer to the Southern District of New York is
appropriate. He explains that the first-filed rule provides that
when parties have instituted competing or parallel litigation in
separate courts, the court initially seized of the controversy
should hear the case."

The first-to-file rule "not only determines which court may decide
the merits of substantially similar cases, but also generally
establishes which court may decide whether the second filed suit
must be dismissed, stayed, or transferred and consolidated." The
rule was developed because "competing lawsuits involving the same
parties and the same issues in separate jurisdictions waste
judicial resources and can lead to conflicting results."

The Court must consider three factors when evaluating the
first-to-file rule: "(1) the chronology of the two actions; (2) the
similarity of the parties; and (3) the similarity of the issues."
The rule does not require rigid or inflexible application but
should, instead, be applied in a manner that best serves the
interests of justice. Thus, although the forum where the
first-filed case resides is typically given priority, it is
appropriate to depart from the rule "when there is a showing that
the balance of convenience tips in favor of the second forum or
that there are special circumstances which justify giving priority
to the second action."

Among other things, Judge Goodman finds that (i) the proper venue
in which to file a motion to transfer (or a motion to stop an
extra-judicial transfer) is the venue from which the party wants to
transfer away; (ii) the Defendant has met its burden to establish
each of the factors entitling it to the "strong presumption that
favors the forum of the first-filed suit under the first-filed
rule; (iii) although the Plaintiff and MSP may prefer for their
cases to remain in the Southern District of Florida, there is no
evidence that anything unique about this preference rebuts the
strong presumption that the jurisdiction of the first-filed case is
the appropriate jurisdiction; and (iv) the interests of justice do
not militate against transfer.

IV. Conclusion

Judge Goodman concludes that the Defendant has established all the
necessary criteria under the first-to-file rule. The Plaintiff's
arguments against the Defendant's request are unconvincing.
Therefore, Judge Goodman finds that there is no compelling
circumstance rebutting the application of the first-to file rule.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Goodman granted the Defendant's
motion to transfer.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/b62uazuk from Leagle.com.


PKS BAGELS: Martinez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SANTOS MARTINEZ and ISIDRO CASTRO GUERRA, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PKS BAGELS, INC.
d/b/a BAGEL BOSS, HONG R. SEO, STEVEN BERGEN and "MR. BOX" (an
individual whose full name is currently unknown but is expected to
become known in the course of discovery, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-00975 (E.D.N.Y., February 23, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
spread-of-hours premium, and failure to provide accurate wage
notice.

Mr. Martinez and Mr. Guerra were employed at the Defendants' Bagel
Boss restaurant as a bagel baker and a dishwasher from October 2009
until March 2021 and from June 16, 2019 until June 1, 2021,
respectively.

PKS Bagels, Inc., doing business as Bagel Boss, is a restaurant
owner and operator, with its principal place of business at 43 Old
Country Rd., Carle Place, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Michael Samuel, Esq.
         SAMUEL & STEIN
         1441 Broadway, Suite 6085
         New York, NY 10018
         Telephone: (212) 563-9884
         E-mail: michael@samuelandstein.com

PRECIOUS METALS: Miller Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Precious Metals
Group Inc. The case is styled as Kimberly Miller, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. The Precious
Metals Group Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01416 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18,
2022).

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

The Precious Metals Group -- https://thepreciousmetalsgroup.com/ --
is a jewelry buyer in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PROGRESSIVE UNIVERSAL: Holmes Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Universal
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Normanda Holmes,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Progressive Universal Insurance Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-00894
(N.D. Ill., Feb. 18, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.

Progressive Universal Insurance Company --
https://www.progressive.com/ -- operates as an insurance firm. The
Company provides property and casualty insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com


PSA COMMUNITY: Court Denies Bid for Injunction in 1199SEIU Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, 1199SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS EAST, Petitioner v.
PSA COMMUNITY SERVICES, ET AL., Respondents, Case No. 20-cv-3611
(JGK) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge John G. Koeltl of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York denied Movants Family Home
Care of Brooklyn and Queens, Inc. and Care at Home's motion for a
preliminary and/or permanent injunction.

The injunction seeks to enjoin two former members of the Union,
Maktumma Teshabaeva and Jin Hua Deng, from further prosecuting a
putative class action (Teshabaeva v. Family Home Care Servs. of
Brooklyn and Queens, Inc., No. 158949/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) against
the Movants in the New York State Supreme Court.

I. Background

In the action, 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East (the
"Union") filed a petition to confirm an arbitration award under
Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (the
"LMRA"). The award, issued on April 17, 2020 was rendered pursuant
to collective bargaining agreements (the "CBAs") between the Union
and the Respondents, a group of home care agencies. In an Opinion
and Order dated Feb. 19, 2021, the Court confirmed the Award and
denied motions of former employees of certain respondents to
intervene and to dismiss the Union's petition or stay the action.

The Union is a labor union that serves as the sole and exclusive
representative for the Movants' home health aide employees,
including for purposes of collective bargaining over the terms and
conditions of their employment. The Movants are licensed home care
agencies. At all relevant times, the Union was a party to CBAs with
all the respondents, including the Movants.

Teshabaeva and Deng are former employees of the Movants and both
ceased their employment before the Union signed the 2015 MOA. On
Oct. 6, 2017, Teshabaeva filed the State Court Action as a putative
class action and asserted various causes of action against the
Movants, including claims for violations of certain Covered
Statutes. On Jan. 2, 2019, the Union filed a class action grievance
against the Movants and the other respondents on behalf of the
Union's home care members "concerning violations of the CBAs
regarding wage and hour claims arising under the Covered Statutes."
Certain parties then participated in a mediation pursuant to the
2015 MOA.

On Dec. 24, 2019, the arbitrator declared that the mediation had
concluded and directed the parties to submit briefs addressing the
issues of (1) whether the claims of former and current Union
members were arbitrable; and (2) whether the arbitrator had
jurisdiction to adjudicate those claims "irrespective of whether
employees' employment terminated prior to the effective date of
the" 2015 MOA.

On Jan. 14, 2020, Teshabaeva and Deng moved the New York State
Supreme Court to enjoin arbitration of the claims in the State
Court Action. On Jan. 24, 2020, the Movants cross-moved to compel
arbitration of Teshabaeva's and Deng's claims. While these motions
were pending, the arbitrator issued the Award on April 17, 2020.

In an order dated July 16, 2020, the New York State Supreme Court
granted Teshabaeva and Deng's motion, denied the Movants'
cross-motion, and permanently enjoined the claims asserted in the
State Court Action from being arbitrated. The Movants then appealed
the Injunction Order to the Appellate Division of the New York
State Supreme Court. Neither Teshabaeva and Deng nor any party that
appeared in the action apprised the Court of the Injunction Order
until the Movants filed the present motion.

On Feb. 19, 2021, while the appeal of the Injunction Order before
the Appellate Division was pending, the Court issued the
Confirmation Order, which confirmed the Award in whole over the
objections of several former employees of certain respondents, most
of whom appeared in the action as proposed intervenors.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Injunction Order in a decision
dated Oct. 14, 2021. The Movants then renewed their motion to
compel arbitration before the state trial court. The court denied
the renewed motion on Dec. 10, 2021.

The Movants now move for a preliminary and/or permanent injunction
enjoining Teshabaeva and Deng from further prosecuting the State
Court Action. Teshabaeva and Deng contend that an injunction is
unwarranted because (1) the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over this motion under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; (2) the
Anti-Injunction Act ("AIA") and related doctrines prohibit the
Court from issuing an injunction; and (3) the Movants have
otherwise failed to satisfy their burden of demonstrating that an
injunction should issue.

II. Discussion

A threshold matter is whether the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over this dispute. Judge Koeltl opines that the
dispute is effectively an appeal from state court decisions that
was initiated by the state court losers after they received those
adverse rulings and this motion seeks to relieve the Movants of the
alleged injuries caused by the state court rulings. This is
precisely the sort of situation in which the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine applies. Accordingly, the Movants' motion for a
preliminary and/or permanent injunction is dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

Next, Teshabeava and Deng argue alternatively that the motion
should be denied under the AIA, the Full Faith and Credit Act
("FFCA"), and related preclusion doctrines. The Movants invoke the
so-called "relitigation exception" to the ATA, which empowers a
federal court "to issue an injunction to protect its judgments from
further litigation in state courts."

Judge Koeltl opines that because the state trial and appellate
courts have already considered the effect of the Confirmation Order
and decided unambiguously that it does not preclude the State Court
Action, the interests of equity, comity, and federalism would be
undermined if the Court were to review those decisions. To the
extent that "further state court proceedings would undermine" the
Confirmation Order, those concerns are best addressed by arguments
before other courts. Accordingly, he says, regardless of whether
this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the motion, he
declines to enjoin the State Court Action.

For similar reasons, the Movants have also failed to satisfy their
burden of demonstrating that they are entitled to an injunction.
Judge Koeltl holds. The Movants contend that the loss of their
right to arbitrate Teshabaeva's and Deng's claims constitute an
irreparable harm. Judge Koeltl opines that that the Movants "failed
to seek injunctive relief until after they received an unfavorable
decision in state court further undercuts the sense of urgency that
ordinarily accompanies a motion for preliminary relief and suggests
that there is, in fact, no irreparable injury." The Movants also
cannot demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.

Finally, the requested injunction is not in the public interest.
There is a strong public interest, as expressed in the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine, AIA, and FFCA, in ensuring that lower
federal courts do not preside over appeals lodged by state court
losers seeking to overturn adverse state court decisions.

Accordingly, the Movants have failed to demonstrate their
entitlement to a preliminary and/or injunction.

III. Conclusion

The foregoing constitutes the Court's findings of fact and
conclusions of law. Judge Koeltl has considered all of the
arguments of the parties. To the extent not discussed, the
arguments are either moot or without merit. For the foregoing
reasons, the Movant's motion for preliminary and/or permanent
injunction is denied.

The Clerk is directed to close Docket No. 169.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y523pnpb from
Leagle.com.


PTC INC: Initial Approval of Settlement Sought in ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
PTC Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report on for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 7, 2022, that a motion for
preliminary approval of a settlement was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts over violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

On September 17, 2020, three individual plaintiffs filed a putative
class action lawsuit against PTC, the Investment Committee for the
PTC Inc. 401(k) Plan, and the Board of Directors in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging claims
regarding the Plan. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties under ERISA in the oversight of the Plan,
principally by allegedly selecting and retaining certain investment
options despite their higher fees and costs than other available
investment options, causing participants in the Plan to pay
excessive recordkeeping fees and suffer lower returns on their
investments, and by allegedly failing to monitor other
fiduciaries.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of
Plan participants from September 17, 2014 through the date of any
judgment. The plaintiffs and the PTC Defendants reached an
agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit on September 22, 2021
and filed a motion for preliminary approval on December 17, 2021.

PTC Inc. is a global software and services company.


PURALWALA INC: Faces Pettigrew Suit Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA PETTIGREW, on behalf of herself and all other employees or
former employees of PURALWALA, INC., similarly-situated, Plaintiffs
v. PURALWALA, INC. d/b/a BAMA INN, MARK PATEL, Defendants, Case No.
5:22-cv-00225-LCB (N.D. Ala., Feb. 21, 2022) arises from the
Defendants' alleged failure to pay Plaintiff both overtime pay and
minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Pettigrew began working for Puralwala in August of 2018 as a
front desk receptionist. In December 2019, Pettigrew became the
front desk manager.

Puralwala, Inc., d/b/a Bama Inn, is a motel based in Alabama.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Teri Ryder Mastando, Esq.
          Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
          MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC
          301 Washington St., Suite 302
          Huntsville, AL 35801
          Telephone: (256) 532-2222
          Facsimile: (256) 513-7489
          E-mail: teri@mastandoartrip.com
                  artrip@mastandoartrip.com

R.C. BIGELOW: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Banks Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY BANKS and CAROL
CANTWELL, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. R.C. BIGELOW, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-06208-DDP-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Dean D. Pregerson entered an amended scheduling order as
follows:

              Event           Original Date       New Date

-- Last day to file            May 3, 2022      June 17, 2022
   Plaintiffs' Motion for
   Class Certification:

-- The Plaintiffs' Initial     May 3, 2022      June 17, 2022
   Expert Disclosures and
   Reports Due:

-- Last day to file            July 1, 2022     August 15, 2022
   Defendant's Opposition
   to Plaintiffs' Motion
   for Class Certification:

-- The Defendant's Expert      July 1, 2022     August 15, 2022
   Disclosures and Reports
   due:

-- Close of Class              April 12, 2022   August 15, 2022
   Certification Fact
   Discovery:

-- Last day to file            August 15, 2022  Sept. 29, 2022
   Plaintiffs' Reply in
   Support of Motion for
   Class Certification:

-- Plaintiffs' Rebuttal        August 15, 2022  Sept. 29, 2022
   Expert Reports Due

-- Last Date to Conduct        Aug. 22, 2022    Oct. 6, 2022
   Settlement Conference
   or Mediation:

-- Hearing on Motion for       Sept. 5, 2022    Oct. 24, 2022
   Class Certification:

The Defendant is an American manufacturer of dried teas based in
Fairfield, Connecticut.

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

RAFAEL INC: Gannon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rafael, Inc. The case
is styled as Stephen Gannon, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Rafael, Inc., Black Iron Burger LLC,
John Doe 1-X, persons yet unknown; Limited Liability Companies,
Partnerships, Corporations 1-X, entities yet unknown; Case No.
1:22-cv-01140-CM (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 9, 2022).

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

Rafael Inc. -- https://rafaelinc.com/ -- is a highly reputed
residential contractor in Jacksonville, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Douglas Ford, Esq.
          FORD & HUFF LC
          228 Park Avenue South
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 287-5913
          Email: adam.ford@fordcranelaw.com


RANDALL ASSOCIATES: Nationwide Seeks to Certify Defendant Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATIONWIDE MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, v. DAVID RANDALL ASSOCIATES, INC. AND CITY
SELECT AUTO SALES, INC. individually and on behalf of identified
class members, Case No. 2:20-cv-04972-JMY (E.D. Pa.), Nationwide
moves for certification of the proposed class of defendants in this
declaratory judgment action to be comprised of:

   "those members of the class previously certified in the civil
   action, City Select Auto Sales, Inc. v. David Randall
   Associates, Inc., No. 11-cv-2658 (D.N.J.) ("the Underlying
   Action") in which a judgment in favor of the class was
   entered by the court."

On February 20, 2012, City Select, as a putative class
representative, moved for class certification in the Underlying
Action.

On December 20, 2013, the court in the Underlying Action granted
the motion for class certification and defined the class to consist
of:

   "All persons or entities, with whom David Randall Associates
   did not have an established business relationship, who were
   successfully sent one or more unsolicited faxes during the
   period March 29, 2006, through May 16, 2006, stating, "ROOF
   LEAKS??? REPAIRS AVAILABLE Just give us a call and let our
   professional service technicians make the repairs!" and "CALL
   David/Randall Associates, Inc. TODAY."

The court appointed City Select Auto Sales, Inc. as the class
representative. The court appointed Sherman, Silverstein, Kohl,
Rose & Podolosky, PA as class counsel.

On October 7, 2020, Nationwide instituted this declaratory judgment
action against David Randall Associates, Inc. ("DRA") and against
City Select Auto Sales, Inc., individually and on behalf of
identified class members.

In this declaratory judgment action, Nationwide seeks a declaratory
judgment that the commercial liability insurance policy issued by
Nationwide's predecessor in interest, Harleysville Mutual Insurance
Company, to the insured DRA, affords no liability insurance
coverage for the judgment secured by the class in the Underlying
Action.

In the Underlying Action, City Select, as class representative,
sought damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. section 227, against DRA for sending
unsolicited fax advertisements to City Select and the class
plaintiffs.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William T. Salzer, Esq.
          SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC
          One Liberty Place - 38 th Floor
          1650 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 299-4346
          E-mail: wsalzer@swartzcampbell.com

RED WING BRANDS: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Red Wing Brands of
America, Inc. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Red Wing Brands of
America, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00929 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2022).

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

Red Wing Brands of America, Inc. -- https://www.redwingshoes.com/
-- provides footwear and accessories online. The Company offers
shoes, gloves, leather belts, coasters, socks, and footbeds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


REDDEN FUNERAL: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Redden Funeral Home,
Inc. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Redden Funeral Home, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01070-RA (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 8, 2022).

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

Redden Funeral Home -- https://www.reddenfuneralhome.net/ -- is an
independent funeral home providing funeral and cremation services
to all New Yorkers throughout the city since 1919.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (917) 796-7437
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 danalgottlieb@aol.com



RICOH USA: Breaches Fiduciary Duty, Kruchten ERISA Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH K. KRUCHTEN, ANGEL D. MURATALLA and WILLIAM BEGANI,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
RICOH USA, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF RICOH USA, INC., THE
RICOH RETIREMENT PLANS COMMITTEEE and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No.
2:22-cv-00678 (E.D. Pa., Feb. 22, 2022) is a class action brought
pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
against the Ricoh USA, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan's fiduciaries,
which include Ricoh and the Board of Directors of Ricoh and its
members during the Class Period and the Ricoh Retirement Plans
Committee and its members during the Class Period.

At all times during the Class Period, the Plan had at least $1.9
billion dollars in assets under management. At the Plan's fiscal
year end in 2020 and 2019, the Plan had over $2.1 billion dollars
and $2 billion dollars, respectively, in assets under management
that were/are entrusted to the care of the Plan's fiduciaries. The
December 31, 2020 Report of Independent Auditor of the Ricoh USA,
Inc. Retirement Savings Plan ("2020 Auditor Report").

The Plaintiffs have standing to bring this action on behalf of the
Plan because they participated in the Plan and were injured by
Defendants' unlawful conduct. Plaintiffs are entitled to receive
benefits in the amount of the difference between the value of their
account currently, or as of the time their accounts were
distributed, and what their accounts are or would have been worth,
but for Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty, the lawsuit says.

Ricoh is the Plan sponsor and a named fiduciary with a principal
place of business being 300 Eagleview Boulevard, Suite 200, Exton,
Pennsylvania. The December 31, 2020 Form 5500 of the Ricoh USA,
Inc. Retirement Savings Plan filed with the United States
Department of Labor ("2020 Form 5500").

Ricoh describes itself as "an information management and digital
services company connecting technology, processes, and people. As
part of a global leader, we create competitive advantage for over
1.4 million businesses and solve problems for companies large and
small. Every day our more than 90,000 global employees serve a vast
array of industries designing and optimizing end-to-end business
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          Gabrielle P. Kelerchian, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          2933 North Front Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17110
          Telephone: (717) 233-4101
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
          E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com
                  markg@capozziadler.com
                  gabriellek@capozziadler.com

RIEDELL SHOES: Murphy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Riedell Shoes, Inc.
The case is styled as James Murphy, for himself and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Riedell Shoes, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-01362-MKV (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 17, 2022).

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

Riedell Roller -- https://riedellskates.com/ -- creates skate
designs for all styles of skating, including roller derby,
artistic, rhythm, jam, speed, and outdoor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RISE SERVICES: Anthony Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Wrongful Termination
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Deion Anthony, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Rise Services, Inc. dba Rise Inc., an
Arizona corporation; and Rise Services Inc., a Utah corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00268-SPL (D. Ariz., Feb. 18, 2022)
arises from the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arizona
Wage Statute and for unlawful retaliation over Plaintiff's
complaints relating to unpaid wages.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a direct support
professional from September 2, 2021, until January 23, 2022.

Rise Services, Inc. operates numerous caregiving facilities
throughout Arizona.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ty D. Frankel, Esq.
          YEN PILCH ROBAINA & KRESIN PLC
          6017 N. 15th Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85014
          Telephone: (602) 682-6450
          E-mail: tdf@yprklaw.com

               - and -

          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          YEN PILCH ROBAINA & KRESIN PLC
          9655 Granite Ridge Drive, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92123
          E-mail: pms@yprklaw.com

ROBERT D. SMITH: Faces Rombough Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Caitlin Rombough, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Robert D. Smith Insurance Agency, Inc., and
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00015 (N.D. Iowa, Feb. 21, 2022) arises from the
Defendants' alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants routinely violate TCPA
by delivering more than one advertisement or marketing voice
message and/or text message to residential telephone numbers
registered with the National Do-Not-Call Registry, including
Plaintiff, without prior express invitation or permission.

Robert D. Smith Insurance Agency, Inc. is a full service insurance
office located in Waukee, Iowa.

State Farm is an insurance company located in Bloomington,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric D. Puryear, Esq.
          PURYEAR LAW, P.C.
          3719 Bridge Ave # 6
          Davenport, IA 52807
          Telephone: (563) 265-8344
          Facsimile: (866) 415-5032
          E-mail: eric@puryearlaw.com

               - and -

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 803-1578
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com

RUANE CUNIFF: DuCharme Appeals Stay Bid Ruling in ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Intervenor Arbitration Claimants James DuCharme, et al., filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled MICHAEL
L. FERGUSON, MYRL C. JEFFCOAT AND DEBORAH SMITH, on behalf of the
DST SYSTEMS, INC. 401(K) PROFIT SHARING PLAN, Plaintiffs v. RUANE
CUNNIFF & GOLDFARB INC., DST SYSTEMS, INC., THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
OF THE DST SYSTEMS, INC. 401(K) PROFIT SHARING PLAN, and THE
COMPENSATION COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF DST SYSTEMS,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06685-ALC-BCM, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Michael L. Ferguson, Myrl C. Jeffcoat and Deborah Smith,
individually and on behalf of the DST Systems, Inc. 401(k) Profit
Sharing Plan, bring the action under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132 against
Ruane Cuniff & Goldfarb Inc. ("RCG"); DST Systems, Inc.; The Plan's
Advisory Committee; and the Compensation Committee of the Board of
Directors of DST Systems, Inc. for breach of fiduciary duties and
other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001, et seq.

Intervenor Arbitration Claimants DuCharme, et al. and Intervenors
Robert Canfield, Bonnie Kartz, Latrecia Onunkwor, Diana Weaver,
David Ostermeyer, Mark Mendon and Jill Pehlman, previously sought a
review from the Order of the district court enjoining "all members
of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) class certified by
this Court on August 17, 2021" from "instituting new actions or
litigating in arbitration or other proceedings against the DST
Defendants matters arising out of or relating to the facts or
transactions alleged in the Ferguson amended complaint," entered on
November 18, 2021.

The Intervenor Arbitration Claimants file anew a petition for a
review of the Court's February 3, 2022 order denying their motion
to stay.  The order also granted DST's motion to file under seal an
exhibit to their brief regarding the awards that have been entered
against DST.

The appellate case is captioned as Ferguson v. Ruane Cuniff &
Goldfarb Inc., Case No. 22-275, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on Feb. 8, 2022.[BN]

Intervenor Arbitration Claimants-Appellants James DuCharme, et al.,
are represented by:

          Andrew Schermerhorn, Esq.
          THE KLAMANN LAW FIRM
          4435 Main Street, Suite 150
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 421-2626
          E-mail: ajs@klamannlaw.com

               - and -

          Joshua Katz, Esq.
          KENT, BEATTY & GORDON, LLP
          11 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 421-4300

Plaintiffs-Appellees Michael L. Ferguson, Myrl C. Jeffcoat, and
Deborah Smith, on behalf of the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit
Sharing Plan, are represented by:

          Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
          James E. Miller, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Telephone: (860) 526-1100
          E-mail: lrubinow@sfmslaw.com
                  jmiller@sfmslaw.com  

Defendants-Appellees DST Systems, Inc., The Advisory Committee of
the DST Systems, Inc. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan, and The
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of DST Systems,
Inc. are represented by:

          Lewis R. Clayton, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 373-3215

RYDER SYSTEM: Fails to Provide COBRA Notice, Thompson Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES THOMPSON, III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. RYDER SYSTEM, INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-20552-CMA (S.D. Fla., Feb. 24, 2022) is class action
complaint alleging Ryder System violated the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 by failing to provide him and the
putative class members with a COBRA notice that complies with the
law.

Despite having access to the Department of Labor's Model COBRA
form, Ryder chose not to use the model form -- presumably to save
Ryder money by pushing terminated employees away from electing
COBRA.

COBRA is a remedial statute that should be interpreted in favor of
the employee. Indeed, the legislative history shows that Congress
enacted COBRA in 1986 as a result of the reports of the growing
number of Americans without any health insurance coverage and the
decreasing willingness of our Nation's hospitals to provide care to
those who cannot afford to pay.

The Defendant has repeatedly violated ERISA by failing to provide
participants and beneficiaries in the Plan with adequate notice, as
prescribed by COBRA, of their right to continue their health
coverage upon the occurrence of a "qualifying event" as defined by
the statute. The Defendant's COBRA notice and process violates the
law, the lawsuit says.

Ryder is an American transportation and logistics company. It is
especially known for its fleet of commercial rental trucks. Ryder
specializes in fleet management, supply chain management, and
dedicated transportation management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          LUIS A. CABASSA, P.A.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 337-7992
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com

S&P GLOBAL: Faces Suits Over Investment Losses in Australia
-----------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Inc. disclosed in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 8, 2022, that a class action
lawsuit was filed in Australia on August 7, 2020 against it and a
subsidiary of the company. A separate lawsuit was filed against the
company and a subsidiary of the company in Australia on February 2,
2021 by two entities within the Basis Capital investment group. The
lawsuits both relate to alleged investment losses in collateralized
debt obligations rated prior to the financial crisis.

S&P Global Inc. is a provider of independent ratings, benchmarks,
analytics and data to the capital and commodity markets based in
New York.


SAFEMOON LLC: Merewhuader Files Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SafeMoon LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Bill Merewhuader, Christopher Polite, Tim
Viane, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. SafeMoon LLC, SafeMoon US, LLC, SafeMoon Connect, LLC, SafeMoon
LTD, SafeMoon Protocol LTD, SafeMoon Media Group LTD, Braden John
Karony, Jack Haines-Davies, Ryan Arriaga, Shaun Witriol, Henry
Wyatt, Jake Paul, Nick Carter, DeAndre Cortez Way, Ben Phillips,
Miles Parks McCollum, Case No. 2:22-cv-01108 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 17,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

SafeMoon -- https://safemoon.net/ -- is a cryptocurrency token
created in March 2021 on the Binance Smart Chain blockchain.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
          SCOTT AND SCOTT LLP
          600 West Broadway Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 233-4565
          Fax: (619) 233-0508
          Email: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com


SAFEWAY INC: Reynolds Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Seth Reynolds, a Safeway online delivery
customer, and all others similarly situated throughout Washington
State and the United States of America v. Safeway Inc., Albertson's
LLC, Case No. 22-00002-02227-2 was removed from the King County
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for Western District of
Washington on Feb. 18, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00197 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Safeway -- https://www.safeway.com/ -- is an American supermarket
chain founded by Marion Barton Skaggs in April 1915 in American
Falls, Idaho.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:
          James F Williams, Esq.
          Madeline Dover Swan, Esq.
          Mallory Gitt Webster, Esq.
          David A. Perez, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE (SEA)
          1201 3RD AVE STE 4900
          SEATTLE, WA 98101-3099
          Phone: (206) 583-8888
          Fax: (206) 583-8500
          Email: Jwilliams@perkinscoie.com
                 mswan@perkinscoie.com
                 mwebster@perkinscoie.com
                 dperez@perkinscoie.com


SAN MATEO, CA: Bid to File Supplemental Complaint Nixed as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCEL E. CHAPMAN, v. SAN
MATEO COUNTY, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-09038-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order denying as moot
the Plaintiff's request to file a supplemental complaint.

The Court dismisses the complaint with leave to amend. Within 28
days of the date of this order, the Plaintiff shall file an amended
complaint that addresses the identified deficiencies. The amended
complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in
this order, Case No. C 21-09038 HSG (PR) and the words "amended
complaint" on the first page. If using the court form complaint,
the Plaintiff must answer all the questions on the form in order
for the action to proceed. An amended complaint completely replaces
the previous complaints.

The Plaintiff must include in his amended complaint all the claims
he wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to sue,
and may not incorporate material from the prior complaint by
reference. Failure to file an amended complaint in accordance with
this order in the time provided will result in dismissal of this
action without further notice to Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff may raise all his claims in his amended complaint,
says Judge Gilliman.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3H4VybZ at no extra charge.[CC]

SCRATCH SERVICES: Dicks Sues Over Unlawful PPP Loan Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
MORAIS A. DICKS and PROGRESSIVE HOMES & DEVELOPMENT INC., on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
SCRATCH SERVICES, LLC and CROSS RIVER BANK, Defendants, Case No.
602306/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., February 23, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the
New York State's General Business Law, and the Coronavirus Aid,
Relief, and Economic Security Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged refusal to provide
loan forgiveness to the Plaintiffs regarding one Paycheck
Protection Program (PPP) loan that the Plaintiffs obtained with the
Defendants. The Plaintiffs received several collections letters
from Defendant Scratch Services alleging that they were in default
with Defendant Cross River Bank and that they needed to repay two
loans to the Defendants. The Plaintiffs notified each Defendant
that they were victims of identity theft and that the debt and
information was fraudulently obtained and submitted without their
permission or knowledge. Despite being notified, the Defendants
continued to seek collections against the Plaintiffs for the
fraudulently obtained loans in violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the suit
contends.

Progressive Homes & Development Inc. is a real estate firm in New
York.

Scratch Services, LLC is a debt collection company doing business
in New York.

Cross River Bank is a banking firm based in Fort Lee, New Jersey.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Gregory Goodman, Esq.
         The Law Office of Gregory A. Goodman, P.C.
         Jericho, NY 11753
         Telephone: (516) 597-5840
         Facsimile: (631) 656-8180
         E-mail: ggoodman@gganylaw.com

SCWORX CORP: Hearing on Yannes' Class Deal Approval on March 21
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL YANNES, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SCWORX CORPORATION and
MARC S. SCHESSEL, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-3349 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y.)
Judge John G. Koeltl of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York will hold a hearing on the Lead Plaintiff's
Motion for Preliminary Approval of a Class Action Settlement, by
telephone, on March 21, 2022, at 11:00 a.m., dial-in: (888)
363-4749, with access code 8140049.

Any responses should be filed by Feb. 28, 2022. Any replies should
be filed by March 11, 2022.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 15, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3cftap58 from Leagle.com.


SHREVEPORT, LA: Goodwin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN GOODWIN, MARK SHARBANO, BRIAN MONETTE, BRIAN WINN, KEITH
GRANT, JOSEPH BARTLET, DAVID PERKINS, AND STEVE PFENDER,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated captains of the
Shreveport Police Department v. THE CITY OF SHREVEPORT, Case No.
5:22-cv-00498 (W.D. La., Feb. 18, 2022) arises from the Defendant's
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay
Plaintiffs and other Shreveport Police Department captains time and
a half for overtime hours worked.

The Plaintiffs, except Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP)
Bartlet, are currently captains employed by Shreveport Police
Department. ACP Bartlet was a captain during most of the relevant
time periods but was promoted to ACP April 19, 2021. ACP Bartlet
asserts these claims for the time period he was a captain.

City of Shreveport is a political subdivision of the State of
Louisiana located in Caddo Parish. The Shreveport Police Department
is a division of the City.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Pamela N. Breedlove, Esq.
          BREEDLOVE LAW FIRM
          216 Rolling Meadow Lane
          Bossier City, LA 71112
          Telephone: (318) 423-0845
          Facsimile: (318) 553-5176

SOCLEAN INC: Hill Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Eric Hill, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. SoClean, Inc., Case No. 4:21-cv-00460 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Oklahoma, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania on Feb. 17, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00301-JFC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

SoClean, Inc. -- https://www.soclean.com/ -- manufactures cleaning
devices. The Company produces automated continuous positive airway
pressure (CPAP) cleaners and sanitizers which improves health
outcomes and quality of life for those suffering from obstructive
sleep apnea and other sleeping disorders.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darrell Wayne Downs, Esq.
          R. Stratton Taylor, Esq.
          Logan Joseph Hathcoat, Esq.
          TAYLOR FOSTER MALLETT DOWNS RAMSEY & RUSSELL
          P.O. Box 309
          Claremore, OK 74018
          Phone: (918) 343-4100
          Fax: (918) 343-4900
          Email: ddowns@soonerlaw.com
                 carabb@soonerlaw.com
                 lhathcoat@soonerlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          R. Richard Love, III, Esq.
          CONNER & WINTERS LLP
          4100 First Place Tower
          15 E. Fifth Street
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Phone: (918) 586-5711
          Email: rlove@cwlaw.com


SONOCO PRODUCTS: Illegally Collects Biometrics, Campos Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR CAMPOS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SONOCO PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
2022LA000190 (Ill. Cir. Ct., DuPage Cty., February 22, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting, storing and using
the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' biometric
identifiers and biometric information without obtaining informed
written consent or providing the requisite data retention and
destruction policies.

The Plaintiff worked at the Defendant's facility in Illinois from
May 2015 until December 2020.

Sonoco Products Company is an owner and operator of packaging
facilities, with its principal place of business in Hartsville,
South Carolina. [BN]

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

                 - and –

         Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
         Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         888 Seventh Avenue
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (646) 837-7150
         Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
         E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
                 pfraietta@bursor.com

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Contests Breach of Contract Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. disclosed in its Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2022, that the
company filed a multi-faceted motion challenging a breach of
contract of carriage that is facing the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas in Waco. That motion was
fully briefed by both parties as of December 22, 2021, and is now
awaiting determination by the court.

On August 26, 2021, a complaint alleging breach of contract and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against the
company. The complaint alleges that the company breached its
Contract of Carriage and other alleged agreements in connection
with its use of the allegedly defective 737 MAX aircraft
manufactured by The Boeing Company.

The complaint seeks damages on behalf of putative classes of
customers who provided valuable consideration, whether in money or
other form (e.g., voucher, miles/points, etc.), in exchange for a
ticket for air transportation with the company, which
transportation took place between August 29, 2017, and March 13,
2019. The complaint generally seeks money damages, declaratory
relief, and attorneys' fees and other costs.

On October 27, 2021, the company filed a multi-faceted motion
challenging the complaint, including seeking a stay or transfer of
the case based upon prior pending litigation, dismissal of the
Complaint based upon lack of subject matter jurisdiction, improper
venue, and failure to state a claim, and seeking to have the
complaint's class contentions stricken.

Southwest Airlines Co. is a passenger airline based in Texas.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Court Dismisses Appeal Over Settlement Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. disclosed in its Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2022, that with
regards to a settlement of a consumer action over collusion in
ticketing pricing, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit dismissed an appeal by certain
objectors over the court's decision.

Further, on July 1, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of putative classes of consumers alleging collusion among
Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United
Airlines to limit capacity and maintain higher fares in violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Since then, a number of similar
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Courts for the Central District of California, the Northern
District of California, the District of Columbia, the Middle
District of Florida, the Southern District of Florida, the Northern
District of Georgia, the Northern District of Illinois, the
Southern District of Indiana, the Eastern District of Louisiana,
the District of Minnesota, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern
District of New York, the Southern District of New York, the Middle
District of North Carolina, the District of Oklahoma, the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, the Northern District of Texas, the
District of Vermont, and the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

On October 13, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation centralized the cases to the United States District
Court in the District of Columbia. On March 25, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the
consolidated cases alleging that the defendants conspired to
restrict capacity from 2009 to present. The plaintiffs seek to
bring their claims on behalf of a class of persons who purchased
tickets for domestic airline travel on the defendants' airlines
from July 1, 2011 to present. They seek treble damages, injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees and expenses. On May 11, 2016, the
defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint,
which the Court denied on October 28, 2016.

On December 20, 2017, the company reached an agreement to settle
these cases with a proposed class of all persons who purchased
domestic airline transportation services from July 1, 2011, to the
date of the settlement. Southwest Airlines agreed to pay $15
million and to provide certain cooperation with the plaintiffs as
set forth in the settlement agreement. After notice was provided to
the proposed settlement class and the Court held a fairness
hearing, the Court issued an order granting final approval of the
settlement on May 9, 2019.

On June 10, 2019, certain objectors filed notices of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, which the Court dismissed on July 9, 2021, for lack of
jurisdiction because the district court's order approving the
settlements was not a final appealable order.

Southwest Airlines Co. is a passenger airline based in Texas.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Securities Suit in N.D. Tex.
------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. disclosed in its Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2022, that is
facing a securities action in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas in Dallas and is seeking to dismiss
said case. Plaintiff in the action filed a response in opposition
to the motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

On February 19, 2020, a complaint alleging violations of federal
securities laws and seeking certification as a class action was
filed against the company and certain of its officers. A lead
plaintiff has been appointed in the case, and an amended complaint
was filed on July 2, 2020.

The amended complaint seeks damages on behalf of a putative class
of persons who purchased the company's common stock between
February 7, 2017, and January 29, 2020. The amended complaint
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities
Exchange Act and alleges that the company made material
misstatements to investors regarding the company's safety and
maintenance practices and its compliance with federal regulations
and requirements. The amended complaint generally seeks money
damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and other costs.

On August 17, 2020, the company and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss. On October 1, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a
response in opposition to the motion to dismiss. The company filed
a reply on or about October 21, 2020, such that the motion is now
fully briefed, although the parties have each supplemented their
prior briefing with regard to more recent case holdings in other
matters.

Southwest Airlines Co. is a passenger airline based in Texas.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Suit Over RICO Violations
---------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. disclosed in its Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2022, that it is
facing alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act (RICO) and appealed a class certification in the
Fifth Circuit.

On July 11, 2019, a complaint alleging violations of federal and
state laws and seeking certification as a class action was filed
against Boeing and the company in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas in Sherman. The complaint alleges
that Boeing and the company colluded to conceal defects with the
Boeing 737 MAX aircraft in violation of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) and also asserts related state
law claims based upon the same alleged facts.

The complaint seeks damages on behalf of putative classes of
customers who purchased tickets for air travel from either the
company or American Airlines between August 29, 2017, and March 13,
2019. The complaint generally seeks money damages, equitable
monetary relief, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and
attorneys' fees and other costs.

On September 13, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint and to strike certain class allegations. Boeing also
moved to dismiss. On February 14, 2020, the trial court issued a
ruling that granted in part and denied in part the motions to
dismiss the complaint. The trial court order, among other things:
dismissed without prejudice various state law claims that the
plaintiffs abandoned in response to the motions, dismissed with
prejudice the remaining state law claims, including fraud by
concealment, fraud by misrepresentation, and negligent
misrepresentation on the grounds that federal law preempts those
claims and found that plaintiffs lack Article III standing to
pursue one of the plaintiffs' theories of RICO injury.

The order denied the motion to dismiss with respect to two RICO
claims premised upon a second theory of RICO injury and denied the
motion to strike the class allegations at the pleadings stage. On
September 3, 2021, the trial court issued an order under Rule 23(a)
and 23(b)(3) certifying four classes of persons associated with
ticket purchases for flights during the period of August 29, 2017,
through March 13, 2019, comprised of those who purchased tickets
(without being reimbursed) for flights on Southwest Airlines during
the class period, except for those whose flights were solely on
routes where, at the time of the ticket purchase(s), a MAX plane
was not scheduled for use (or actually used) and had not previously
been used, those who reimbursed a Southwest Airlines ticket
purchaser and thus bore the economic burden for a Southwest
Airlines ticket for a flight meeting the preceding criteria set
forth in (i) above, those who purchased tickets (without being
reimbursed) for flights on American Airlines during the class
period, except for those whose flights were solely on routes where,
at the time of ticket purchase(s), a MAX plane was not scheduled
for use (or actually used) and had not previously been used and
those who reimbursed an American Airlines ticket purchaser and thus
bore the economic burden for an American Airlines ticket for a
flight meeting the preceding criteria set forth in above.

On September 17, 2021, the company filed a petition for permission
immediately to appeal the class certification ruling to the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals. Boeing also filed such a petition.
Plaintiffs filed their oppositions to the petitions on September
27, 2021. On September 30, 2021, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
granted the company (and Boeing) permission to appeal the class
certification ruling. On December 22, 2021, in response to a motion
to stay the trial court proceedings filed by the company and
Boeing, the Fifth Circuit stayed all proceedings, including the
pursuit of any discovery, in the trial court pending disposition of
the class certification appeal by the Fifth Circuit. The company
intends to pursue the appeal.

On January 7, 2022, the company and Boeing each filed briefs in
support of the appeal. The plaintiffs have a deadline of March 9,
2022, to file response briefs. The company further denies all
allegations of wrongdoing, including those in the complaint that
were not originally dismissed.

Southwest Airlines Co. is a passenger airline based in Texas.


SPORE LIFE SCIENCES: Morris Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spore Life Sciences
US Inc. The case is styled as Peter Morris, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Spore Life Sciences US
Inc., Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No.
5:22-cv-00263-JWH-SHK (C.D. Cal., Feb. 9, 2022).

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

Spore -- https://sporelifesciences.com/ -- is a direct-to-consumer
wellness brand focused on functional mushroom formulations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachel Blyumkin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RACHEL BLYUMKIN
          1001 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2236
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: (833) 952-9669
          Email: rachel@thedebtdefense.com


STANLEY INDUSTRIAL: Streedharan Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled VIJAYAN STREEDHARAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. STANLEY INDUSTRIAL & AUTOMOTIVE,
LLC (doing business as "MAC TOOLS"), and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. CIV SB 2132714, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
February 21, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-00322 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code including failure to reimburse business
expenses and failure to provide meal and rest breaks.

Stanley Industrial & Automotive, LLC, doing business as Mac Tools,
is a manufacturer of miscellaneous metal products, with its
principal place of business in Ohio. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Cory D. Catignani, Esq.
         VORYS SATER SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
         4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 700
         Newport Beach, CA 92660
         Telephone: (949) 526-7900
         Facsimile: (949) 526-7901
         E-mail: cdcatignani@vorys.com

STAPLES THE OFFICE: Corral Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JUAN CARLOS CORRAL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. STAPLES THE OFFICE SUPERSTORE LLC,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21STCV41815, was removed
from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
February 23, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-01254 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 provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to pay minimum and regular wages, failure to
pay all overtime wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to maintain accurate records, failure to timely
pay all wages due upon separation of employment, and unfair
business practices.

Staples the Office Superstore LLC is a retailer of office supplies,
headquartered in Massachusetts. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Karen J. Kubin, Esq.
         MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
         425 Market Street
         San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
         Telephone: (415) 268-7000
         Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
         E-mail: KKubin@mofo.com

                 - and –

         Tritia M. Murata, Esq.
         David P. Zins, Esq.
         Maya Harel, Esq.
         Lauren R. Leibovitch, Esq.
         MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
         707 Wilshire Boulevard
         Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543
         Telephone: (213) 892-5200
         Facsimile: (213) 892-5454
         E-mail: TMurata@mofo.com
                 DZins@mofo.com
                 MHarel@mofo.com
                 LLeibovitch@mofo.com

SWEETGREEN INC: Sued Over Failure to Supply Uniform Maintenance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mina Richardson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SWEETGREEN, INC., Case No. 151162/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Feb. 8, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for violations of
the New York State Labor Law, the New York Code of Rules and
Regulations, and The New York Wage Theft Prevention Act by failing
to supply maintenance necessary for the Plaintiff's required
uniform.

As a condition of her employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiff
was required to wear a uniform consisting of a t-shirt emblazoned
with the Defendant's logo. At her time of hire, the Plaintiff was
given only one uniform despite working five days or more per week.
The Defendant does not and has not maintained records of the number
of uniforms provided to their employees. The Plaintiff was required
by Defendant to wear the required uniform every shift.

The Defendant failed to supply sufficient articles of uniform
clothing consistent with the average number of days per week worked
by the Plaintiff. The Defendant do not, and did not offer, to,
wash, iron, dry clean, alter, repair, or perform other maintenance
necessary for the Plaintiff's required uniform. The Defendant did
not maintain the Plaintiff's required uniform under the meaning of
the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was entitled to uniform maintenance pay. The
Defendant never paid the Plaintiff any uniform maintenance pay or
reimbursement for the cost of maintaining uniforms. The Plaintiff
routinely spent time off-the-clock and money to clean and maintain
her uniform consistent with the uniform appearance standards the
Defendant requires. The Plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement or
additional pay for time spent off the clock and money spent in
laundering and maintaining the Defendant's uniform, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Fast Food Employee
as defined in the Hospitality Industry Wage Order from September
2015 through September 2017.

The Defendant operates restaurants that prepare and offer food and
beverage for customer consumption.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Gaylord, Esq.
          BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
          357 Veterans Memorial Highway
          Commack, NY 11725
          Phone: (516) 742-4949
          Email: mark@bglawny.com


TALEN ENERGY: Filing of Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due April 15
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNETTE M. DURNACK, et
al., v. RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE OF TALEN ENERGY CORPORATION, et
al., Case No. 5:20-cv-05975-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey
L. Schmehl approved the Parties stipulation as follows:

   (1) The Defendants' deadline to file their Opposition to
       the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification shall be
       continued through April 15, 2022; and

   (2) The Plaintiffs shall file their Reply, if any, by May 6,
       2022. The Parties agree that no Party will be prejudiced
       by this short continuance.

The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on
January 31, 2022. The Parties are engaged in discovery and agree
that in order to permit sufficient time for them to engage in class
discovery, including Defendants deposing Plaintiffs, the briefing
schedule for Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification shall be
revised.

Talen Energy is an independent power producer founded in 2015. It
was formed when the competitive power generation business of PPL
Corporation was spun off and immediately combined with competitive
generation businesses owned by private equity firm Riverstone
Holdings.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vhUD5o at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alan M. Sandals, Esq.
          A. Richard Feldman, Esq.
          BAZELON LESS & FELDMAN PC
          One South Broad St. Suite 1500
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          E-mail: rfeldman@bazless.com

               - and -

          Alan M. Sandals, Esq.
          SANDALS & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          4 Green Hill Road
          P.O. Box 385
          Washington Depot, CT 06794
          Telephone: (860) 868-1142
          E-mail: asandals@sandalslaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brandon J. Brigham, Esq.
          Jeremy P. Blumenfeld, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-5000
          Facsimile: (215) 963-5001
          E-mail: jeremy.blumenfeld@morganlewis.com
          brandon.brigham@morganlewis.com

TASKUS INC: Faces Lozada Suit Over 15% Decline of Stock Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
HUMBERTO LOZADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TASKUS, INC., BRYCE MADDOCK, JASPAR WEIR,
and BALAJI SEKAR, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01479 (S.D.N.Y.,
February 23, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission to trade TaskUs securities at artificially inflated
prices between June 11, 2021 and January 19, 2022. Specifically,
the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) TaskUs was
experiencing severe financial strain and business challenges,
particularly with its most important customer Facebook; (2) the
Content Security market was smaller than the Defendants represented
and the Defendants' representations were based on outdated market
data; (3) TaskUs improperly recognized revenue from certain key
contracts; (4) the Defendants overstated the size of TaskUs'
workforce as well as employee retention rates, and understated
attrition rates; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the
Defendants' positive statements about the company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

When the truth emerged, the price of TaskUs stock fell $5.46 per
share, or more than 15 percent, from $35.59 per share on January
19, 2022, to $30.13 per share at the close of trading on January
20, 2022, on unusually heavy trading volume, says the suit.

TaskUs, Inc. is a business process outsourcing company,
headquartered in New Braunfels, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Javier Bleichmar, Esq.
         Ross Shikowitz, Esq.
         BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
         7 Times Square, 27th Floor
         New York, NY 10036
         Telephone: (212) 789-1340
         Facsimile: (212) 205-3960
         E-mail: jbleichmar@bfalaw.com
                 rshikowitz@bfalaw.com

                 - and –

         John A. Kehoe, Esq.
         KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C.
         41 Madison Avenue, 31st Floor
         New York, NY 10010
         Telephone: (212) 792-6676
         E-mail: jkehoe@kehoelawfirm.com

TAURUS INTERNATIONAL: Wins Bid to Dismiss Rita Harman's Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RITA HARMAN, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAURUS INTERNATIONAL
MANUFACTURING, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Act No.
3:21cv697-ECM (M.D. Ala.), Judge Emily C. Marks of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Eastern
Division, granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss
or for more definite statement as to Chris Harman's amended
complaint and granted as to Rita Harman's amended complaint.

I. Background

Now pending before the Court are motions to dismiss or for more
definite statement, filed by Taurus Holdings, Inc. and Taurus
International Manufacturing, Inc. ("Taurus") in two cases which
have been consolidated for discovery proceedings.

Plaintiff Christopher Harman filed a complaint and an amended
complaint in this Court. He brings claims of negligence or
wantonness (count one); strict liability in tort (count two);
breach of implied warranty of merchantability (count three);
negligent failure to disclose, failure to warn, concealment, and
misrepresentation (count four); fraudulent concealment and failure
to warn (count five); and violation of the Alabama Extended
Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine ("AEMLD")(count six).

Plaintiff Rita Harman filed a putative class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and
the case was transferred to the Court. She brings claims of
violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
("FDUTPA")(count one); negligence (count two); strict liability in
tort (count three); breach of express warranty (count four); breach
of implied warranty of merchantability (count five); Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act (count six); negligent failure to disclose, failure to
warn, concealment, and misrepresentation (count seven); fraudulent
concealment and intentional failure to warn (count eight); and
declaratory relief (count nine).

Taurus seeks to dismiss counts one, two, three, four, and five of
Chris Harman's amended complaint, or to require a more definite
statement. Taurus seeks to dismiss the amended complaint of Rita
Harman in its entirety, or alternatively, moves for a more definite
statement.

Chris Harman purchased a Taurus PT 738 TCP pistol in Opelika,
Alabama, in December 2011, and gave it to his wife, Rita Harman, as
a gift. In 2020, Chris Harman was seriously injured while shooting
the PT 738 pistol when it blew apart, causing metal pieces to
strike him in the face and eye. The pistol was designed,
manufactured, assembled, and marketed by Taurus in Florida.

Chris Harman alleges that the pistol is defective and unreasonably
dangerous because its design and manufacture suffers from a defect
which renders the pistol subject to a dangerous weakening or
fracturing of the pistol's components. His amended complaint
further alleges that despite actual knowledge of the defect, Taurus
never remedied the defect, never issued an effective and complete
warning to the public, and has never recalled the pistol.

In her amended complaint, Rita Harman alleges that there is defect
in the PT 738 pistol as well as in the PT 732 TCP pistol. She
alleges that the PT 738 pistol and the PT 732 pistol have the same
defect; namely, that the slide breaks in half at the ejection port
and the pieces of the slide become dangerous projectiles which are
capable of striking the shooter or bystanders.

Chris Harman and Rita Harman both allege in their amended
complaints that in March of 2012, Brian Aunkst of Colorado was
firing a PT 738 pistol when the slide broke, injuring Aunkst.
According to the amended complaints, Taurus was provided photos of
the broken slide and given the opportunity to inspect and
investigate what caused the slides to break apart. Rita Harman
alleges that despite knowing of the defect, Taurus has failed to
acknowledge the defect in any of their marketing or advertising
materials and marketed the PT 732 and PT 738 pistols as safe
firearms. Chris Harman similarly alleges Taurus' failure to warn
and its misrepresentation regarding the PT 738 pistol.

II. Discussion

A. Chris Harman

1. Negligence and Wantonness Claims in Count One

Taurus argues that the claims in count one of Chris Harman's
amended complaint violate Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure because both claims are combined in one count. It also
argues that wantonness has not been adequately alleged.

Chris Harman argues in response that negligence and wantonness
cannot coexist, so each claim in count one is pleaded in the
alternative. He further argues that because he has alleged that
Taurus knew that the slide on the PT 738 pistol tended to explode,
the complaint has alleged the mental state for wantonness.

Upon review of the amended complaint, Judge Marks concludes that
the claims of negligence and wantonness are sufficiently alleged to
give Taurus adequate notice of the alternative claims brought
against it in count one and the grounds upon which each claim
rests. She also concludes that the facts alleged regarding Taurus'
knowledge of another incident with the PT 738 pistol are sufficient
to allege that Taurus acted with knowledge of danger or with
consciousness that the doing of some act would likely result in
injury to support a wantonness claim. The motion to dismiss is due
to be denied as to count one of Chris Harman's amended complaint.

2. Strict Products Liability Claim in Count Two

Taurus contends that because Alabama has rejected no-fault products
liability with the adoption of the AEMLD, the strict products
liability claim in count two is due to be dismissed. It also argues
that the claim in count two of Chris Harman's amended complaint
need not be construed as an AEMLD claim because Chris Harman
specifically has brought an AEMLD claim in count six. Chris Harman
responds that his claim in count two states an AEMLD claim and if
the Court concludes that it is deficiently labeled, the Court
should give him leave to rename the second count as an AEMLD
claim.

Because Chris Harman has alleged an AEMLD claim in count six, Judge
Marks agrees with Taurus that the two AEMLD counts within the
complaint based on the same facts are redundant. Therefore, the
claim in count two is due to be dismissed as duplicative of the
claim in count six.

3. Breach of Implied Warranty in Count Three

Taurus moves to dismiss the claim in count three on the grounds
that Taurus is not a seller under Alabama law and so cannot be held
liable for the implied warranty of merchantability and, even if the
claim can be brought, Chris Harman has not provided notice of
breach of warranty as required by Alabama law.

As to the first argument, as Taurus notes that some federal
district courts in the Alabama have declined to recognize an
implied warranty claim brought against a manufacturer. In Ex parte
General Motors, the Court noted in dicta that a claim could not be
brought against General Motors for a breach of an implied warranty
because that warranty only applies to sellers.

Judge Marks holds that the better-reasoned view is that the dictum
in Ex parte General Motors is not persuasive because Alabama
appellate courts have held before and after Ex parte General Motors
that privity of contract is not required where the plaintiff seeks
relief for personal injuries. Therefore, she concludes that the
implied warranty claim against Taurus is not precluded as a matter
of law merely because it is a manufacturer.

As to the argument that Chris Harman has failed to adequately plead
his claim because he has not alleged pre-suit notice, Chris Harman
argues that Alabama law only requires a buyer to give notice to the
seller, not a manufacturer. The Eleventh Circuit, however, has
examined Alabama law and has concluded that the Alabama Commercial
Code makes notice a condition precedent to any claim of breach of
warranty by a buyer. There is no distinction between implied
warranties and express warranties for purposes of the
precondition.

Therefore, affirmatively pleading notice is a requirement for a
buyer's claim for breach of warranty under Alabama law. The amended
complaint alleges that Chris Harman is a buyer and does not allege
any fact to establish notice. The express warranty claims are,
therefore, due to be dismissed, but to the extent that Chris Harman
contends that he fulfilled the notice requirement, he will be given
additional time in which to affirmatively plead facts to show
notice in a new amended complaint.

4. Negligent Failure to Disclose, Failure to Warn, Concealment, and
Misrepresentation in Count Four and Fraudulent Concealment and
Failure to Warn in Count Five

Taurus contends that count four of Chris Harman's amended complaint
contain multiple causes of action and is, therefore, due to be
dismissed as shotgun pleading. It further contends both counts fail
to include the requisite specificity for a fraud claim.

Chris Harman responds that the amended complaint alleges that
Taurus had a duty to disclose that the PT 738 pistol contained a
slide that tends to shatter and failed to disclose that fact. In
his brief, he points to paragraph 24 of the amended complaint which
describes Taurus' knowledge of a similar incident experienced by
Aunkst in 2014.

Judge Marks opines that the inclusion of multiple claims makes the
pleading unclear because the amended complaint alleges that Taurus
had knowledge of a defect when it was marketing and distributing
the weapon ostensibly at the time that Chris Harman purchased the
PT 738 pistol in 2011, but then relies on Taurus' notice from an
incident which occurred in 2014. The incident in 2014 could not
have been known to Taurus in 2011, and the facts known by Taurus
regarding the safety of the PT 738 pistol at the time of Chris
Harman's purchase are not alleged in either count four or five.
Therefore, Judge Marks finds that the motion for more definite
statement is due to be granted as to the claims in counts four and
five so that Chris Harman can appropriately separate his claims in
count four and more specifically plead the basis of his fraud
theories.

B. Rita Harman

Taurus' motion to dismiss, or for a more definite statement of,
Rita Harman's claims raises some issues common to multiple claims.
Therefore, Judge Marks addresses the issues as they apply in common
and then address individual claims.

1. Standing

Taurus contends that any claims brought concerning defects in the
PT 732 pistol should be dismissed because Rita Harman does not have
standing to bring those claims. It points to the allegations of the
complaint that Chris Harman purchased and gave Rita Harman only the
PT 738 pistol, and that there is no allegation that Rita Harman
owned a PT 732 pistol. Rita Harman argues that she has alleged that
both pistol models are substantially similar, differing only as to
caliber and weight, and suffer the same defect. At this point in
the proceedings, therefore, Judge Marks concludes that Rita Harman
has standing to assert claims regarding both pistol models.

2. Applicable State Law

The majority of Rita Harman's claims are state-law claims. Taurus
contends that these claims are governed by Alabama law because any
alleged damage to Rita Harman's pistol occurred at a firing range
in Opelika, Alabama, and any economic injury suffered was suffered
in Opelika, Alabama where the pistol was purchased.

Because Rita Harman's case was transferred to the Court from
Florida, Florida choice-of-law principles apply, Judge Marks
opines. She says, Florida's choice-of-law rule applies the doctrine
of lex loci contractus to contract actions and considers where the
contract was executed. In the case, the amended complaint alleges
that the PT 738 pistol was purchased in Opelika, Alabama.
Therefore, Alabama law applies to the contract claims.

For torts, Florida looks to the state with the most significant
relationship to the tort at issue. Rita Harman contends that
Florida law applies, but argues that it is premature to address the
conflict-of-law issue at this time.

Judge Marks opines that a true conflict exists when two or more
states have a legitimate interest in a particular set of facts in
the litigation and the laws of those states differ or would produce
a different result. She, therefore, will address the conflict of
law issue only where the laws of the states would produce a
different result for the tort claims.

3. Request for Declaratory Relief

Taurus contends that Rita Harman's request for declaratory relief
should be dismissed because all of Rita Harman's substantive claims
are due to be dismissed. Rita Harman will be given additional time
in which to replead state-law warranty claims. Her request for
declaratory relief, therefore, can also be repleaded at that time.

4. Tort Claims

Taurus contends that Rita Harman's negligence; strict liability in
tort; negligent failure to disclose, warn, and misrepresentation;
and intentional failure to warn and fraudulent concealment claims
are barred by Alabama's economic loss doctrine because the only
damages asserted are the diminished value of the pistols. Rita
Harman contends that there is an exception to the economic loss
doctrine where a product is inherently dangerous, citing Tuscumbia
City Sch. Sys., 871 F.Supp.2d 1241 (N.D. Ala. 2012).

Upon review Tuscumbia City Sch. Sys, it appears to Judge Marks that
although that non-binding decision does discuss the dangerous
nature of the product in finding that a tort claim can proceed, it
is distinguishable because the opinion also makes it clear that in
the case, "the damages are not just to the products themselves."
The Alabama economic loss doctrine bars Rita Harman's tort claims.
Rita Harman does not cite to Florida law on this issue, but it
appears that the result would be the same under that state's law.
Hence, the tort claims asserted by Rita Harman, therefore, are due
to be dismissed with prejudice.

5. Warranty Claims

Taurus moves to dismiss the express and implied warranty claims
asserted pursuant to state law and then also argues that without a
state-law warranty claim, there can be no Magnusson-Moss Warranty
Act claim.

Judge Marks begins with the state-law express warranty claims.
Among other things, she finds that (i) Rita Harman will be given
additional time in which to plead a more definite statement of her
express warranty claim and the alternative motion for more definite
statement is due to be granted; (ii) Rita Harman has not alleged
sufficient facts to support that she is a third-party beneficiary
of a contract; and (iii) because the state-law warranty claims are
due to be dismissed without prejudice to being repleaded, the
Plaintiff's Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim also will be dismissed
without prejudice to being repleaded.

6. FDUPTA Claim

Taurus takes the position that the FDUTPA does not apply to the
sale of the pistols at issue here because Chris Harman did not
purchase the PT 738 pistol in Florida. Alternatively, it argues
that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations and has not
been sufficiently pleaded. Rita Harman responds that the amended
complaint alleges that the Taurus pistols were manufactured in and
marketed from Florida, so the mere fact that Chris Harman purchased
a pistol outside of Florida does not mean that the FDUTPA cannot
apply.

Judge Marks holds that the amended complaint does not allege facts
of action by Taurus, but rather uses labels such as "conceal" and
"knowing concealment." It is not sufficient to plead "labels and
conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
of action." Judge Marks will, therefore, give Rita Harman
additional time in which to plead facts supporting her FDUPTA claim
and her fraudulent concealment tolling theory, to the extent that
those facts can be pleaded consistent with the requirements of Rule
11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons she discussed, Judge Marks granted in part and
denied in part the motion to dismiss or for more definite statement
as to Chris Harman's amended complaint and granted as to Rita
Harman's amended complaint.

The motion to dismiss or for more definite statement as to Chris
Harman's amended complaint is denied as to the negligence or
alternative wantonness claim in count one and Chris Harman will
proceed on that claim.

The motion to dismiss or for more definite statement as to Chris
Harman's amended complaint is granted to the following extent:
Count two of Chris Harman's amended complaint is dismissed with
prejudice; Chris Harman's implied warranty claim in count three is
dismissed without prejudice to being repleaded; and Chris Harman's
claims in counts four and five are dismissed without prejudice to
being repleaded.

The motion to dismiss or for more definite statement as to Rita
Harman's amended complaint is granted to the following extent: The
tort claims asserted in Rita Harman's amended complaint are
dismissed with prejudice; the express, implied, and Magnuson-Moss
Act Warranty Act claims asserted in Rita Harman's amended complaint
are dismissed without prejudice to being repleaded; the FDUPTA
claim in Rita Harman's amended complaint is dismissed without
prejudice to being repleaded; and Rita Harman's request for
declaratory relief is dismissed without prejudice to being
repleaded.

Plaintiff Chris Harman and Plaintiff Rita Harman are each given
until March 18, 2022, to file a new amended complaint which is
complete unto itself, does not incorporate any previous pleadings
by reference, which repleads the claims for which Chris Harman and
Rita Harman have been given leave of Court to replead, which is
consistent with the Memorandum Opinion and Order, and which
complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly
Rules 8, 9, 10, and 11.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4kruzu3c from
Leagle.com.


TD BANK: Illegally Charges OD Fees, Amazing FishStore Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMAZING FISHSTORE LLC d/b/a KRMS FARMS and WILDER MEDIA CT, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. TD BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00958 (D.N.J.,
February 23, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for
breach of contract.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unfair and improper
assessment and collection of overdraft (OD) fees and insufficient
funds fees on the debit card transactions of its business account
customers, including the Plaintiffs. Under the Defendant's contract
with customers, it is only authorized to charge OD fees on
transactions that have insufficient funds to cover that debit card
transaction. Despite putting aside sufficient available funds for
debit card transactions at the time those transactions are
authorized, the Defendant later assesses OD fees on those same
transactions when they purportedly settle days later into a
negative balance. The Plaintiffs and Class members have sustained
damages as a result of the Defendant's breaches of the contract,
says the suit.

Amazing FishStore LLC, doing business as KRMS Farms, is a limited
liability company based in Southwest Ranches, Florida.

Wilder Media CT is a sole proprietorship based in Ridgefield,
Connecticut.

TD Bank, N.A. is an American national bank, headquartered in Cherry
Hill, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
         GOLOMB SPIRT GRUNFELD, P.C.
         1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 985-9177
         E-mail: kgrunfeld@golomblegal.com

                 - and –

         E. Adam Webb, Esq.
         WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
         1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
         Atlanta, GA 30339
         Telephone: (770) 444-9325
         E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

         Andrew Obergfell, Esq.
         Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
         Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
         Matthew A. Girardi, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         888 Seventh Ave, Third Floor
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (646) 837-7150
         E-mail: aobergfell@bursor.com
                 jmarchese@bursor.com
                 jdiamond@bursor.com
                 mgirardi@bursor.com

TEAM HEALTH: Initial OK of Class Settlement Sought in FML Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FORWARD MOMENTUM, LLC, et
al., v. TEAM HEALTH, INC., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00346-WKW (M.D.
Ala.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. preliminarily approving the proposed class settlement of
      their claims against the Defendants;

   2. finding the Settlement Class is likely to be certified at
      final approval;

   3. preliminarily approving the Plan of Distribution and
      Notice;

   4. appointing Class Counsel and Class Representatives; and

   5. setting a Final Approval Hearing.

The Plaintiffs include Forward Momentum, LLC, Argo Consulting, PC,
Lisa M. Bundy, MD, LLC, Dr. Steven Bobo, Dr. Raymond J. Maguire,
Dr. Landon E. Argo, Dr. Nima Bahraini, Dr. Dawn Donald, Dr. Roger
D. Eiland, and Dr. Lisa M. Bundy.

The Defendants include Team Health LLC f/k/a Team Health, Inc. and
Paragon Contracting Services, LLC f/k/a Paragon Contracting
Services, Inc.

Team Health is a physician practice in the U.S. founded in 1979 and
based in Knoxville, Tennessee, pursuing medical outsourcing.

A copy of the Plaintiffs'  motion dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3h0t1JP at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          D.G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq.
          Craig L. Lowell, Esq.
          WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS
          FISHER GOLDFARB LLC
          The Kress Building
          301 Nineteenth Street North
          Birmingham, Alabama 35203
          Telephone: (205) 314-0557
          E-mail: dgp@wigginschilds.com
                  clowell@wigginschilds.com

               - and -

          Floyd D. Gaines, Esq.
          Daniel B. Snyder, Esq.
          GAINES LLC
          2160 Highland Avenue South, Suite 101
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          E-mail: fgaines@gainesll.com
                  dsnyder@gainesllc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          M. Jefferson Starling, III, Esq.
          Ryan Hodinka, Esq.
          BALCH & BINGHAM LLP
          Post Office Box 306
          Birmingham, AL 35201-0306
          E-mail: jstarling@balch.com
                  rhodinka@balch.com

               - and -

          Peter R. Goldman, Esq.
          Nina C. Welch, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS BROAD AND CASSEL
          One Financial Plaza, Suite 2700
          100 S.E. Third Avenue
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394
          E-mail: Peter.goldman@nelsonmullins.com
                  Nina.welch@nelsonmullins.com


TESLA INC: Fiduciary Breach Suit Pending in Delaware Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Tesla, Inc. disclosed in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 7, 2022, that a stockholder suit
claiming breaches of fiduciary duties is pending in a Delaware
Court and trial is set for April 18-22, 2022.

On June 4, 2018, a purported Tesla stockholder filed a putative
class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against Elon Musk and the members of Tesla's board of directors as
then constituted, alleging corporate waste, unjust enrichment and
that such board members breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the stock-based compensation plan awarded to Elon Musk in
2018. The complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages and
rescission or reformation of the stock-based compensation plan.

On August 31, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint; plaintiff filed its opposition brief on November 1,
2018; and defendants filed a reply brief on December 13, 2018. The
hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on May 9, 2019. On
September 20, 2019, the court granted the motion to dismiss as to
the corporate waste claim but denied the motion as to the breach of
fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims. Defendants' answer was
filed on December 3, 2019.

On January 25, 2021, the Court conditionally certified certain
claims and a class of Tesla stockholders as a class action. On
September 30, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a
verified amended derivative complaint. On October 1, 2021,
defendants Kimbal Musk and Steve Jurvetson moved for summary
judgment as to the claims against them. Following the motion,
plaintiff agreed to voluntarily dismiss the claims against Kimbal
Musk and Steve Jurvetson. Plaintiff also moved for summary judgment
on October 1, 2021.

On October 27, 2021, the Court approved the parties' joint
stipulation that, among other things, (a) all claims against Kimbal
Musk and Steve Jurvetson in the Complaint are dismissed with
prejudice; (b) the class is decertified and the action shall
continue exclusively as a derivative action under Court of Chancery
Rule 23.1; and (c) the direct claims against the remaining
defendants are dismissed with prejudice. On November 18, 2021, the
remaining defendants (a) moved for partial summary judgment, (b)
opposed plaintiff's summary judgment motion, and (c) opposed the
plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint.

Oral argument on summary judgment and the motion to amend were set
for January 6, 2022, however, it was canceled by the Court. The
case was recently assigned to a different judge. Trial is currently
set for April 18-22, 2022.

Tesla Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, sells and leases fully
electric vehicles.


TESLA INC: Plaintiff Bid for Partial Summary Judgment Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tesla, Inc. disclosed in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 7, 2022, that the plaintiff in
several class actions filed a motion for partial summary judgment
which is currently pending before the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Between August 10, 2018 and September 6, 2018, nine purported
stockholder class actions were filed against Tesla and Elon Musk in
connection with his August 7, 2018 Twitter post that he was
considering taking Tesla private.

All of the suits are now pending in the Northern District of
California. Although the complaints vary in certain respects, they
each purport to assert claims for violations of federal securities
laws related to Musk's statement and seek unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of Tesla's securities.

Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint on January 16, 2019
and added as defendants the members of Tesla's board of directors.
The now-consolidated purported stockholder class action was stayed
while the issue of selection of lead counsel was briefed and argued
before the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit ruled regarding lead
counsel. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
November 22, 2019. The hearing on the motion was held on March 6,
2020. On April 15, 2020, the Court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss. The parties stipulated to certification of a class of
stockholders, which the court granted on November 25, 2020. On
January 11, 2022, plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary
judgment which is currently pending before the Court. Trial is set
for May 2022.

Tesla Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, sells and leases fully
electric vehicles.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: $420MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 2
------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

IN RE TEVA SECURITIES LITIGATION

No. 3:17-cv-00558 (SRU)

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO: Purchasers and acquirers in domestic transactions of Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. ("Teva") American Depositary Shares,
Teva 7.00% mandatory convertible preferred shares, and/or certain
Teva Pharmaceutical Finance Netherlands III B.V. ("Teva Finance")
U.S.-dollar-denominated senior notes during the period from
February 6, 2014 through May 10, 2019, inclusive.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED TEVA SECURITIES (DEFINED BELOW) FROM
FEBRUARY 6, 2014 THROUGH MAY 10, 2019, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY
BE AFFECTED BY A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT IN THIS LITIGATION (THE
"LITIGATION").

THIS SUMMARY NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on June 2,
2022, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Stefan R. Underhill,
United States District Judge, at the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut (the "Court"), Brien McMahon
Federal Building, 915 Lafayette Boulevard, Bridgeport, CT 06604 for
the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of
the Litigation, as set forth in the Stipulation dated January 18,
2022, consisting of Four Hundred and Twenty Million U.S. dollars
($420,000,000) in cash, should be approved as fair, reasonable, and
adequate to the Settlement Class Members; (2) whether the proposed
plan to distribute the Net Settlement Fund (the "Plan of
Allocation") is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the
applications by Class Counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses
should be approved; (4) whether Class Representatives should
receive awards pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(4) in connection
with their representation of the Settlement Class and, if so, in
what amount; and (5) whether the proposed Judgment should be
entered.

The Litigation has been certified as a class action on behalf of
all persons and entities (with certain exclusions) who purchased or
acquired Teva Securities from February 6, 2014 through May 10,
2019, inclusive. The "Teva Securities" are: Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries Ltd. ("Teva") American Depositary Shares ("ADS") (ISIN
No. US8816242098; CUSIP 881624209), Teva 7% mandatory convertible
preferred shares ("Preferred Shares") (ISIN No. IL0062905489; CUSIP
M8769Q 136), and the following Teva Pharmaceutical Finance
Netherlands III B.V. ("Teva Finance") U.S.-dollar-denominated
senior notes: 1.400% Senior Notes due July 20, 2018 (ISIN
US88167AAA97; CUSIP 88167A AA9); 1.700% Senior Notes due July 19,
2019 (ISIN US88167AAB70; CUSIP 88167A AB7); 2.200% Senior Notes due
July 21, 2021 (ISIN US88167AAC53; CUSIP 88167A AC5); 2.800% Senior
Notes due July 21, 2023 (ISIN US88167AAD37; CUSIP 88167A AD3);
3.150% Senior Notes due October 1, 2026 (ISIN US88167AAE10; CUSIP
88167A AE1); and 4.100% Senior Notes due October 1, 2046 (ISIN
US88167AAF84; CUSIP 88167A AF8) (collectively, the "Notes").

A detailed description of the Litigation, including important
information about your rights and options, is in the detailed
Long-Form Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class
Action (the "Long-Form Notice"), available at
www.TevaSecuritiesLitigation.com or by contacting the Claims
Administrator at: Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc., In re
Teva Securities Litigation, P.O. Box 3565, Portland, OR 97208-3565,
Telephone: (855) 675-3124, or 1-503-520-4435 outside the U.S. and
Canada.

To be eligible for a payment from the Net Settlement Fund you must
submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form electronically submitted
or postmarked by no later than May 17, 2022. To obtain a copy of
the Proof of Claim and Release Form, visit
www.TevaSecuritiesLitigation.com or contact the Claims
Administrator at the address above. Failure to submit your Proof of
Claim and Release Form by May 17, 2022 will subject your claim to
possible rejection and may preclude you from receiving any payment
from the settlement.

To be excluded from the settlement, you must submit a written
request for exclusion, in accordance with all of the instructions
in the Long-Form Notice, electronically submitted or postmarked no
later than May 2, 2022. If you request exclusion, you will not
receive any payment from the settlement.

If you are a Settlement Class Member and you do nothing, you will
not share in the proceeds of the settlement, but you will be bound
by the settlement and shall have fully released all of the Released
Claims against the Released Defendants.

Direct Action Plaintiffs are those plaintiffs who retained counsel
and filed with the Court one of the lawsuits listed in Appendix B
to the Long-Form Notice. The foregoing deadlines do not apply to
the Direct Action Plaintiffs. Direct Action Plaintiffs who wish to
participate in the settlement must take certain steps, specified in
the Long-Form Notice, no later than May 2, 2022.

To object to any aspect of the settlement, the Plan of Allocation,
the application for attorneys' fees and expenses, or Class
Representatives' request for awards pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec.
78u-4(a)(4), you must submit a written objection in accordance with
all of the instructions in the Long-Form Notice that is received or
filed, not simply postmarked, on or before May 12, 2022. If you
object, but also want to be eligible for a payment, you must submit
a timely Proof of Claim and Release Form.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Long-Form Notice, may be
made by emailing Class Counsel at TevaSettlement@bfalaw.com or
contacting:

         Joseph A. Fonti
         Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP
         7 Times Square, 27th Floor
         New York, New York 10036
         Telephone: (888) 879-9418

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
WITH QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS LITIGATION OR THIS NOTICE.

Dated: February 21, 2022

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut


TEXAS: Deanda Loses Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER R. DEANDA, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. XAVIER
BECERRA, in this official capacity as Secretary of Health and Human
Services, ET AL., Case No. 2:20-cv-00092-Z (N.D. Tex.), the Hon.
Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk entered an order:

   1. denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to
      certify class filed July 26, 2021;

   2. mooting pending motions for summary judgment;

   3. directing the Plaintiff and Defendants to refile their
      respective motion for summary judgment in the event the
      case proceeds under a narrower class in the future; and

   4. directing the Plaintiff to file an amended motion to
      certify class on or before March 15, 2022.

The United States Department of Health and Human Services, is a
cabinet-level executive branch department of the U.S. federal
government created to protect the health of all Americans and
providing essential human services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 15, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3h98Vgr at no extra charge.[CC]


TEXLARK EXPLORATION: Order on Pretrial & Trial Schedule Entered
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRY FABRICANT, et al.,
v. TEXLARK EXPLORATION CO., INC. et al., Case No.
2:21-cv-08403-FLA-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando L.
Aenlle-Rocha entered an order regarding schedule of pretrial and
trial dates, trial requirements, and conduct of attorneys and
parties as follows:

  -- Trial:                                 July 25, 2023

  -- Final Pretrial Conference              June 30, 2023
     (FPTC), Hearing on Motions
     in Limine:

  -- Last Date to Hear Motion to            May 27, 2022
     Amend Pleadings or Add Parties

  -- Last Date to Hear Motion for           September 2, 2022
     Class Certification:

  -- Fact Discovery Cut-Off:                March 10, 2023

  -- Expert Disclosure (Initial):           March 17, 2023

  -- Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal):          April 7, 2023

  -- Expert Discovery Cut-Off               April 21, 2023

  -- Last Date to Hear Other Motions        May 5, 2023
     (Rule 56 Motion due at least weeks
     before hearing; Opposition due 2
     weeks after Motion is filed; and
     Reply due 1 week after Opposition
     is filed)

  -- Deadline to Complete Settlement        May 26, 2023
     Conference (Court Mediation Panel)

Texlark was founded in 1979 for the purpose of discovering and
developing onshore oil and natural gas properties.

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

TFORCE FREIGHT: Tappin Labor Code Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANDREW D. TAPPIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TFORCE FREIGHT, INC., and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 34-2021-00311727, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego,
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
on February 18, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-00322-KJM-DB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, failure to pay timely wages, failure to provide
accurate itemized wages statements, failure to indemnify necessary
business expenses, and unfair business practices.

TForce Freight, Inc. is an American less than truckload freight
carrier based in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Brian D. Berry, Esq.
         J.P. Schreiber, Esq.
         MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         One Market, Spear Street Tower
         San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
         Telephone: (415) 442-1000
         Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
         E-mail: brian.berry@morganlewis.com
                 jp.schreiber@morganlewis.com

                  - and –

         Daniel N. Rojas, Esq.
         MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         300 South Grand Avenue Twenty-Second Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
         Telephone: (213) 612-2500
         Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
         E-mail: daniel.rojas@morganlewis.com

TIME WARNER: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Sydney FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY SYDNEY and STEPHEN CAPOUSIS, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TIME WARNER
ENTERTAINMENT-ADVANCE/NEWHOUSE PARTNERSHIP, Defendant, Case No.
5:13-CV-286 (FJS/TWD) (N.D.N.Y.), Judge Frederick J. Scullin of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York denied
the Plaintiffs' motions for class-certification and to
conditionally certify a collective action.

I. Background

The Plaintiffs are former Territory Sales Representatives ("TSRs")
for Defendant Time Warner, a company that provided
telecommunications services, including cable television, internet,
and phone services to the public. As TSRs, the Plaintiffs were
assigned to apartment complexes and other multiple dwelling units
where they had various responsibilities, which may have included
selling the Defendant's services, installing those services, and
connecting with leasing agents and management of the apartment
complexes to which they were assigned. The Plaintiffs allege that
the Defendant failed to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law.

After many years of litigation, the parties are proceeding to trial
on the following issues: (1) whether the Plaintiffs were exempt
from overtime wages as outside salespersons pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 213(a)(1); and (2) if the Defendant constituted a retail or
service establishment pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 207(i).

Pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on these issues, which also includes their request to
conditionally certify an FLSA collective action. In their motion,
they identify their putative class as comprising 54 individuals who
worked as TSRs for Defendant in New York State -- including in
Syracuse, Albany, Binghamton, Rochester, Buffalo, and Middletown,
and excluding those in New York City -- from March 13, 2007, to the
present.

The Court referred the Plaintiffs' motion to Magistrate Judge
Dancks for a report-recommendation in April 2020. In her report and
recommendation on the motion, Magistrate Judge Dancks recommended
that the Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion in its entirety.
Magistrate Judge Dancks ultimately concluded that the Plaintiffs
showed commonality with respect to the retail or service
establishment exception but not the outside salesperson exception.
Without commonality as to the outside salesperson exception, she
determined that multiple factual determinations would predominate
over the litigation and that a class action was not the superior
method to litigate the Plaintiffs' claims. Magistrate Judge Dancks
also recommended that the Court denies the Plaintiffs' request for
conditional certification of a collective action.

The Plaintiffs objected to Magistrate Judge Dancks's report and
recommendation on the following 16 grounds, arguing that she
erroneously:

     1. considered five TSRs' declarations that the Defendant did
not disclose during discovery;

     2. held that the Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of
showing that TSRs' misclassification as outside salespersons could
be proven on a common basis;

     3. concluded that the text of 29 C.F.R. Section 541.502 belied
the Plaintiffs' argument that TSRs were not customarily and
regularly engaged away from the Defendant's place of business;

     4. held that the Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of
showing that the putative class satisfied Rule 23's commonality
requirement;

     5. held that the Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of
showing that the putative class satisfied Rule 23's typicality
requirement;

     6. held that the Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of
showing that the putative class satisfied Rule 23's predominance
requirement because consideration of the outside salesperson
exemption would require an examination of each TSR's job duties;

     7. found that the Plaintiffs only pointed to one excerpt from
a deposition in support of their contention that TSRs were not
customarily and regularly engaged away from the Defendant's place
of business;

     8. failed to consider the Defendant's Rule 30(b)(6) corporate
deponent who did not know whether TSRs made most of their sales
door-to-door or by telephone;

     9. held that the Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of
showing that the putative class satisfied Rule 23's predominance
requirement because the outside salesperson inquiry would require
an individualized inquiry dominating common questions;

     10. held that the Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of
showing that the putative class would be a superior method to
litigate, as Rule 23 requires;

     11. denied class certification to the putative class of TSRs;

     12. used the modest plus standard of review when determining
whether to conditionally certify the Plaintiffs' collective action
brought pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b);

     13. applied the modest plus standard of review by relying on
five declarations the Defendant proffered, even though the
Plaintiffs did not have an opportunity to depose those declarants;

     14. held that the Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of
showing that other TSRs were similarly situated to them;

     15. denied conditional certification to the putative
collective of TSRs; and

     16. declined to rule on the issue of tolling.

Judge Scullin has divided these objections into three primary
categories and five sub-categories, which include three Rule 23
class certification issues, one FLSA collective action issue, and
one equitable tolling issue. He must now consider each of these
objections and determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Dancks's
report and recommendation and denies the Plaintiffs' motion.

II. Discussion

A. Whether the Court should adopt Magistrate Judge Dancks' report
and recommendation

The Plaintiffs object to Magistrate Judge Dancks' report and
recommendation on 16 grounds; however, with respect to the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, they have three general
complaints. First, the Plaintiffs argue that Magistrate Judge
Dancks erred in considering declarations from fact witnesses that
the Defendant did not disclose during discovery. Second, they
contend that Magistrate Judge Dancks erred in concluding that they
had failed to show commonality and typicality pursuant to Rule
23(a) with respect to the outside salesperson exemption. Third, the
Plaintiffs assert that Magistrate Judge Dancks erred in holding
that they had not demonstrated predominance or the superiority of
the class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3).

As to the admissibility of the five TSRs' declarations, Judge
Scullin holds that the Defendant has not offered the declarants as
witnesses at trial nor has Defendant used those statements to
dispute its liability. The Defendant merely offers the declarations
to support its position that the Plaintiffs have not sustained
their burden, by a preponderance of the evidence, of proving that
Rule 23's prerequisites are satisfied. Thus, Judge Scullin adopts
Magistrate Judge Dancks's finding that the declarations are
"axiomatically relevant to the issues the Court must consider" and
that it is appropriate for the Court to consider them in
determining the Plaintiffs' motion.

As to commonality and typicality pursuant to 23(a), from the
evidence that the Plaintiffs presented, Judge Scullin finds that it
is far from clear where the TSRs worked, what their job duties
entailed, how their relationships with customers were established,
and if those responsibilities were consistent among all TSRs.
Without this information, he concludes, as Magistrate Judge Dancks
did, that the Plaintiffs have not established commonality as to the
outside sales exemption by a preponderance of the evidence. For the
same reasons, he adopts Magistrate Judge Dancks's recommendation
that the Plaintiffs have not established typicality with respect to
this issue.

As to predominance and superiority pursuant to 23(b), agrees with
Magistrate Judge Dancks that the inquiries would lead to dozens of
mini-trials as to each TSR's activities and where they made their
sales, which would make managing a class action difficult and,
practically, useless. As such, he adopts Magistrate Judge Dancks's
recommendation finding that the individual issues with respect to
the outside salesperson exemption would predominate over any
remaining common issues and would not make a class action a
superior mode of litigation. He therefore denies the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

B. Plaintiffs' request for conditional certification of a
collective action

As discussed with respect to commonality and typicality pursuant to
Rule 23, Judge Scullin holds that the Plaintiffs' evidence does not
clearly show that the outside salespersons or other exemptions from
overtime wages did not apply. For example, even if 90% of TSRs'
sales came from incoming calls, as the Plaintiffs contend, this
does not mean that 90% of their work constituted taking phone
calls. If, as some TSRs affirmed, 80% of their workday was outside
of the office on "sales" activities -- such as holding events at
apartment complexes, knocking on doors, and meeting with apartment
managers -- then it is possible that the Plaintiffs' rights under
the FLSA were not violated because they were exempt from overtime
wages as outside salespersons. Similarly, as Magistrate Judge
Dancks concluded, the Defendant's Form 10-K may show that Defendant
operated as a retail or service establishment, but it does not show
that the Plaintiffs' primary duties were sales or that they worked
within a fixed location.

For these reasons, Judge Scullin finds that Magistrate Judge Dancks
did not clearly err in concluding that the Plaintiffs had not met
their burden, under the modest-plus standard, of showing that they
were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the FLSA.
Accordingly, he adopts Magistrate Judge Dancks's recommendation and
denies the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a
collective action.

C. Whether putative class members' claims should be tolled to the
date Plaintiffs filed this action

Since he has adopted Magistrate Judge Dancks' report and
recommendation denying Plaintiffs' motions for class certification
and conditional certification of a collective action in its
entirety, Judge Scullin need not determine whether to equitably
toll the statute of limitations for putative class or collective
members. He therefore denies the Plaintiffs' request for equitable
tolling as moot.

III. Conclusion

After carefully considering the entire file in the matter, the
parties' submissions and the applicable law, and for the stated
reasons, Judge Scullin adopted Magistrate Judge Dancks's March 30,
2021 Report and Recommendation in its entirety. He denied the
Plaintiffs' motions for class-certification and to conditionally
certify a collective action.

The matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Dancks to confer with
the parties regarding any outstanding issues that need resolution
prior to setting a date for trial.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2022 Memorandum-Decision &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4xksp8w6 from
Leagle.com.

LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC, LEWIS G. SPICER, ESQ. --
gspicer@levineblit.com -- JUSTIN S. CLARK, ESQ. --
jclark@levineblit.com -- MATTHEW J. BLIT, ESQ. --
mblit@levineblit.com -- in New York City, Attorneys for the
Plaintiffs.

KABAT, CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP, J. SCOTT CARR, ESQ. --
scarr@kcozlaw.com -- MICHAEL D. KABAT, ESQ. -- mkabat@kcozlaw.com
-- in Atlanta, Georgia, Attorneys for the Defendant.

MACKENZIE HUGHES LLP, WILLIAM B. HUNT, ESQ. --
bhunt@mackenziehughes.com -- in Syracuse, New York, Attorneys for
the Defendant.


TOYOTA MOTOR SALES: Freeman Suit Transferred to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Terry Freeman, Andrew Trout, Jamie Brown, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Toyota
Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Motor North America Inc., Toyota
Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., Case No.
4:19-cv-02550 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District Of California on Feb. 8, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00863-GW-AFM to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. -- https://www.toyota.com/usa/ -- is
the North American Toyota sales, marketing, and distribution
subsidiary devoted to the United States market.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
          ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG AND TORRIJOS LLP
          6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Phone: (310) 844-9696
          Fax: (310) 861-0168
          Email: alfredo@aswtlawyers.com

               - and -

          Daniel Scott Levy, Esq.
          Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD LLC
          1010 Market Street, Suite 1645
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Phone: (314) 241-5799
          Fax: (314) 241-5788
          Email: dlevy@cornfeldlegal.com
                 rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com

               - and -

          Kevin Paul Green, Esq.
          Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG HELLER PC
          2227 South State Route 157
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Phone: (618) 656-5150
          Fax: (618) 656-6230
          Email: kevin@ghalaw.com
                 tom@ghalaw.com

               - and -

          Mickel M. Arias, Esq.
          ARIAS SANGUINETTI LLP
          6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Phone: (310) 844-9696
          Fax: (310) 861-0168
          Email: mike@asstlawyers.com

               - and -

          Kevin M. Carnie, Esq.
          SIMON LAW FIRM PC
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Phone: (314) 241-2929
          Fax: (314) 241-2029
          Email: kcarnie@simonlawpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Bria L. Davis, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL LLP
          460 Nichols Rd., Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: (816) 714-7100
          Email: davis@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Mark D. Campbell, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY AND BACON LLP
          2049 Century Park East Suite 3000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (424) 285-8330
          Fax: (424) 204-9093
          Email: mdcampbell@shb.com

               - and -

          Molly Carella, Esq.
          SHOOK HARDY LLP - Kansas City
          2555 Grand Blvd., 19th Floor
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 474-6550
          Email: mcarella@shb.com


TRUE SELECT: Home Care Workers Get Conditional Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOYCE LARSON, individually
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. TRUE SELECT,
LLC, d/b/a FIRSTLIGHT HOME CARE, et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-00077-TTC
(W.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Thomas T. Cullen entered an order
granting Larson's motion for conditional certification with
modifications, as follows:

   1. This action is conditionally certified under 29 U.S.C.
      section 216(b) on behalf of the following:

      "All persons who are working or have performed work in the
      Commonwealth of Virginia for True Select LLC and/or
      GuardianLight of Northwestern VA Incorporated as a Home
      Care Worker (including Caregivers, Home Health Aides,
      Certified Nursing Assistants, Companion Care Assistants,
      and Personal Case Assistants) at any time within the past
      three years and who were not paid overtime compensation at
      150% of their applicable regular rates of pay in a
      workweek in which they worked in excess of 40 hours;

   2. The Defendants True Select LLC, GuardianLight of
      Northwestern Virginia, Inc., and Kendra Ghanbari will
      produce to Plaintiff’s counsel the names and last known
      addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses of all
      potential members of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
      Collective within 10 days of the date of this Order;

   3. The Plaintiff may issue notice to all potential members of
      the FLSA Class by first-class mail, electronic mail,
      and/or text message, informing them of their right to opt-
      in to this action;

   4. The opt-in period shall be 45 days, beginning from the
      date of Plaintiff's first issuance of notice;

   5. The Plaintiff is permitted to send a reminder notice by
      first-class mail, electronic mail, and/or text message to
      all potential members of the FLSA Collective who have not
      yet responded to notice within 30 days of the first
      issuance of notice;

   6. The Plaintiff’s proposed form of notice and Plaintiff's
      proposed Opt-In Consent Form are approved so long as they
      are amended to comply with this Order; and

   5. The clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Order to
      all parties and counsel of record.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3I5YpTc at no extra charge.[CC]


TUNNEL BARREL: Underpays Barrel and Drum Cleaners, Licona Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELEUTERIO LICONA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TUNNEL BARREL & DRUM CO, INC. d/b/a TUNNEL
BARREL & DRUM CO., INC. and ANTHONY PAUL URCIOLI, Defendants, Case
No. 2:22-cv-00946 (D.N.J., February 23, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage
Payment Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
timely pay earned wages, and failure to provide accurate wage
notices.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a barrel and drum
cleaner from 2004 until January 13, 2022.

Tunnel Barrel & Drum Co., Inc. is a supplier of drums products,
with its principal place of business located at 85 Triangle Blvd.,
Carlstadt, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
         225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
         New York, NY 10007
         Telephone: (212) 323-6980
         E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com

TYSON FOODS: Court OK's Dismissal of State Anti-trust Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended January 1, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2022, that the
court granted the motion to dismiss the amended complaints with
respect to certain state law claims.

On April 26, 2019, a putative class of indirect purchasers filed a
class action complaint against the company, other beef packers, and
Agri Stats in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota. The plaintiffs allege that the packer defendants
conspired to reduce slaughter capacity by closing or idling plants,
limiting their purchases of cash cattle, coordinating their
procurement of cash cattle, and reducing their slaughter numbers so
as to reduce beef output, all in order to artificially raise prices
of beef.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages under state
antitrust and consumer protection statutes and the common law of
approximately 30 states, as well as injunctive relief. The indirect
consumer purchaser litigation is styled "Peterson v. JBS USA Food
Company Holdings, et al." Additional complaints have been filed on
behalf of a putative class of direct purchasers of beef containing
allegations of violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act based on
an alleged conspiracy to artificially fix, raise, and stabilize the
wholesale price for beef, as well as on behalf of a putative class
of commercial and institutional indirect purchasers of beef
containing allegations of violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, various state antitrust laws and unjust enrichment based on an
alleged conspiracy to artificially inflate the price for beef.

On September 28, 2020, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the complaint. On December 28, 2020, the plaintiffs filed
amended complaints. On February 18, 2021, the company moved to
dismiss the amended complaints, and on September 23, 2021, the
court granted the motion with respect to certain state law claims
but denied the motion with respect to the plaintiffs' federal
antitrust claims.

Tyson Foods, Inc. is a food company based in Arkansas.


TYSON FOODS: Discovery Ongoing in Wage Rigging Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended January 1, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 7, 2022, that the
parties for class action lawsuits are now conducting discovery on
alleged conspiracies to fix wages and exchange information.

On August 30, 2019, a putative class of non-supervisory production
and maintenance employees at chicken processing plants in the
continental United States filed class action complaints against the
company and certain of its subsidiaries, as well as several other
poultry processing companies, in the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants directly and through a
wage survey and benchmarking service exchanged information
regarding labor rates in an effort to depress and fix the rates of
wages for non-supervisory production and maintenance workers in
violation of federal antitrust laws. The plaintiffs seek, among
other things, treble monetary damages, punitive damages,
restitution, and pre- and post-judgment interest, as well as
declaratory and injunctive relief. Additional lawsuits making
similar allegations were consolidated including an amended
consolidated complaint containing additional allegations concerning
turkey processing plants naming additional defendants.

The company moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. On
September 16, 2020, the court dismissed claims against the company
and certain other defendants without prejudice because the
complaint improperly grouped together corporate subsidiaries. The
court otherwise denied the defendants' motions to dismiss and
sustained claims based on alleged conspiracies to fix wages and
exchange information against five other defendants. The parties are
now conducting discovery.

Tyson Foods, Inc. is a food company based in Arkansas.


UNCLE GIUSEPPE'S: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uncle Giuseppe's
Melville, Inc. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Uncle Giuseppe's
Melville, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00925 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2022).

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

Uncle Giuseppe's -- https://uncleg.com/ -- is a full-service food
marketplace committed to selling Italian recipes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Ste. 620
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com


UNITED STATES: Althouse Files Suit in N.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States of
America, et al. The case is styled as Kevin R. Althouse, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated mentally disabled and
or special needs offenders v. United States of America, The State
of Texas, The County of Dallas Texas; Clay Jenkins, Dallas County
Judge; John Creuzot, Dallas County District Attorney; Grace E Shin,
Assistant; Cynthia R Garza, Chief, Dallas County District
Attorney's Conviction Integrity Unit; Lynn Pride Richardson, Chief,
Dallas County Public Defender's Office; Christopher Young, Chief
Attorney, Dallas County Public Defender's Actual Innocence
Exoneration Unit; Jennifer Bennett, Judge, the 265th Judicial
District Court of Dallas County; Sharon Keller, Chief Judge, Etc,
The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas; Annette Miller, Texas
Department of Criminal Justice-Parole Division; Holly Baird,
Hearing Examiners; Betty Wells, General Counsel, Etc, Texas Board
of Pardons and Paroles; Texas Department of Criminal Justice, State
Counsel for Offenders; April E Smith, Attorney (Dallas County);
Dallas County Office of Mental Health/Mental Retardation, and all
other State/County Mh/MR Offices in the United States that refuse
to acknowledge and treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
as a mental illness; Metrocare Services of Dallas; Special Needs
Offender Program Services; Case No. 3:22-cv-00388-G-BK (N.D. Tex.,
Feb. 17, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

The U.S. -- https://www.usa.gov/ -- is a country of 50 states
covering a vast swath of North America, with Alaska in the
northwest and Hawaii extending the nation's presence into the
Pacific Ocean.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


UNITED STATES: Bid to Certify Crutchfield as Class Action Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BARNEY CRUTCHFIELD, Reg. No. 25903-017, Plaintiff v.
STACEY FLEINER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-CV-515-WHA-JTA
(M.D. Ala.), Judge W. Harold Albritton of the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division, denied the
Plaintiff's motion to certify the case as a class action.

On Dec. 16, 2021, the Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation to
which no timely objections have been filed. After an independent
review of the file and upon consideration of the Recommendation,
and for good cause, Judge Albritton adopted the Recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge. He denied the Plaintiff's motion to certify
the case as a class action. The case against is referred back to
the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 15, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p833r3n from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Class Cert Briefing Schedule Modified in Kang Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KANG et al v. DEPARTMENT
OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02944 (D.D.C.), the
Hon. Judge Richard J. Leon entered an order that the briefing
schedule for plaintiffs' motion to certify class is modified as
follows to allow time for the parties to complete briefing on the
motion to stay and the Court to resolve that motion.

   -- If the Court denies motion to stay, the defendants shall
      respond to plaintiffs' motion to certify Class no later
      than 14 days from the entry of the Order resolving motion
      to stay and plaintiffs shall have 7 days thereafter to
      reply.

   -- If the Court grants motion to Stay, the briefing schedule
      for motion to certify class shall be determined, if
      necessary, once the Court resolves defendants' motion to
      dismiss.

   -- The briefing schedule for motion to stay briefing on class
      certification remains unchanged.

The nature of suit states Immigration -- Judicial Review of Agency
Actions.

The United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S.
federal executive department responsible for public security,
roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other
countries.[CC]

UNUM GROUP: Plumitallo Sues Over Unpaid OT, Wage Notice Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN PLUMITALLO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNUM GROUP, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-01391 (S.D.N.Y., February 18, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages and failure
to provide accurate wage notice and wage statements in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from 1999 until April 2021.
He held several titles over the course of his employment including
administrative assistant, client manager, and outside salesman.

Unum Group is an insurance company, with its principal place of
business located at 1 Fountain Square, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
         FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP
         225 Broadway, Suite 1700
         New York, NY 10007
         Telephone: (212) 571-0700
         Facsimile: (212) 505-2001
         E-mail: michael@fishertaubenfeld.com

VANDE CORP: Romero Suit Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JULIO RAUL SANDOVAL ROMERO, DIANA CAROLINA SUAREZ MADOLET, and all
others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) v. VANDE
CORP. d/b/a LATIN AMERICAN RESTAURANT and PASQUALE RENZI, Case No.
1:22-cv-20563-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 24, 2022) alleges that the
Defendant willfully and intentionally refused to pay each Plaintiff
overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act as the
Defendant knew of the overtime requirements of the FLSA and
recklessly failed to investigate whether Defendant's payroll
practices were in accordance with the federal law.

Plaintiff Madolet worked for the Defendants as a waitress from
January 2016 through September 2018 and then from December 2018
through on or about January 23, 2022.

During the period of about April 10, 2010 through on or about
January 23, 2022, the Plaintiff generally worked more than 40 hour
any given week.

The Defendants operate a restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71 st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM

W E K ENTERPRISES: Nelson Collective Action Gets Conditional Cert.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARL NELSON v. W.E.K.
ENTERPRISES, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00895-AJT-IDD (E.D. Va.), the
Hon. Judge Alexandria, Virginia entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's
      motion to conditionally certify this matter as a
      collective action and for a court-authorized notice to be
      issued under Section 216(B) of the Fair Labor Standards
      Act:

       -- it is granted to the extent that a class is
          conditionally certified, consisting of flaggers and
          crew chiefs from the Northern Virginia Branch, of
          which the Plaintiff Nelson was a part; and

       -- it is otherwise denied without prejudice with respect
          to expanding the class upon application of the
          Plaintiff, as stated in open court;

   2. granting part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion
      for Equitable Tolling:

      -- it is granted to the extent that it is tolled as to the
         conditionally certified class from the Northern
         Virginia Branch for a period of two months from the
         date of this Order; and

      -- it is otherwise denied without prejudice as to any
         future conditional certification of a broader class;
         and

   3. granting part and denying in part the parties' Expedited
      Joint Motion to Modify Initial Scheduling Order:

   -- it is granted to the extent that discovery be, and the
      same hereby is, extended to May 15, 2022, as to all issues
      except expert discovery on damages, and  any motion for
      Rule 23 class certification issues be filed on or before
      May 30, 2022, and it is otherwise denied.

The Defendant offers lawn and garden services.

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

WALDEN AND LAUREATE: Labor Dispute Settlement Awaits Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Adtalem Global Education Inc. disclosed in its Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2021, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2022,
that a settlement is pending approval of the Superior Court of
Alameda County over a labor dispute by faculty members of its
affiliate Walden and Laureate Education, Inc.

On July 22, 2021, plaintiffs Cheryl Burleigh and Chad Harris (both
contributing faculty members at Walden filed a class action
complaint in the Superior Court of Alameda County, California
alleging violations of California wage and hour laws.

The complaint alleges that Walden's "per assignment" pay scale
results in uncompensated work time for plaintiffs and class members
for time spent in trainings and meetings. Plaintiffs also allege
that they were not paid for meal and rest breaks, that they were
not reimbursed for necessary business expenses, that Walden did not
provide wage statements as required by California state law, and
that they were not paid wages due upon termination. Plaintiffs also
allege derivative claims under California's Unfair Competition Law.


The complaint seeks restitution including pay for uncompensated
hours of work, unreimbursed business expenses and interest,
liquidated damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief,
penalties, and attorney fees and costs. Walden and Laureate have
filed a demurrer.

On January 28, 2022, the parties agreed to settle the complaint for
$0.8 million, subject to the approval of the Superior Court of
Alameda County, California.

Adtalem Global Education Inc. is a workforce solutions provider
based in Illinois.


WC LOGISTICS: Lindsey Class & PAGA Actions Remanded to State Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, DEKEISHA LINDSEY, Plaintiff v. WC LOGISTICS, INC., et
al., Defendants; DEKEISHA LINDSEY, Plaintiff v. WC LOGISTICS, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-08400-EMC, Related Case No.
21-cv-08466-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California:

    (i) granted the Plaintiff's motions to remand the Class
        Action and PAGA Action to state court because the Court
        lacks subject matter jurisdiction; and

   (ii) denied the Defendants' motions to consolidate cases and
        to dismiss the Class Action.

I. Background

Plaintiff Lindsey filed two lawsuits in California state court
against an identical set of the Defendants, her former employers,
WC Logistics and AIT Worldwide. Each suit alleges the Defendants
violated various California labor laws, including failing to pay
overtime and compensate her and other workers for meal and rest
breaks. One case was filed as a class action (Case No. 21-8400 or
the "Class Action") while the other was filed as a representative
action under the California Private Attorney General Act (Case No.
21-8466 or the "PAGA Action"). The Defendants removed the cases to
federal court, contending that the Court has federal question and
diversity jurisdiction over each matter.

1. Class Action

The Plaintiff filed the action on Aug. 16, 2021, in the Superior
Court for the County of Alameda. The Class Action complaint
contains a nineteen causes of action for two separate classes,
alleging the following violations: violation of California Labor
Code Sections 510 and 1198 (unpaid overtime); violation of
California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512(a) (unpaid meal period
premiums); violation of California Labor Code Section 226.7 (unpaid
rest period premiums); violation of California Labor Code Sections
1194, 1197, and 1197.1 (unpaid minimum wages); violation of
California Labor Code Sections 201 and 202 (final wages not timely
paid); (violation of California Labor Code Section 204 (wages not
timely paid during employment); violation of California Labor Code
Section 226(a) (non-compliant wage statements); violation of
California Labor Code Section 1174(d) (failure to keep requisite
payroll records); violation of California Labor Code Sections 2800
and 2802 (unreimbursed business expenses); and violation of
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following classes and
subclasses:

     a. Class One: All current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt
employees who worked for any of the Defendants within the State of
California at any time during the period from four years preceding
the filing of the Complaint to final judgment.

     b. Subclass A: All class one members who received overtime
compensation at a rate lower than their respective regular rate of
pay because the Defendants failed to include all non-discretionary
bonuses or other incentive-based compensation in the calculation of
the regular rate of pay for overtime pay purposes.

     c. Class Two: All current and former salaried customer account
managers, or persons who held similar job titles and/or performed
similar job duties, misclassified as exempt who worked for the
Defendants within the State of California during the period from
four years preceding the filing of the Complaint to final
judgment.

2. PAGA Action

The Plaintiff filed a representative action on Aug. 16, 2021, in
the Superior Court for the County of Alameda, asserting a single
cause of action for violation of California Labor Code Section 2698
et seq. for enforcement under the Private Attorneys General Act of
2004 ("PAGA"). The Plaintiff's PAGA action is predicated on her
allegations that the Defendants violated California Labor Code
Sections 510 and 1198 (unpaid overtime), 226.7 and 512(a) (unpaid
meal period premiums), 226.7 (unpaid rest period premiums), 1194,
1197, and 1197.1 (unpaid minimum wages), 201 and 202 (final wages
not timely paid), 204 (wages not timely paid during employment),
226(a) (non-compliant wage statements), 1174(d) (failure to keep
requisite payroll records), and 2800 and 2802 (unreimbursed
business expenses).

3. Procedural Background

On Oct. 30, 2021, the Defendants timely filed notices removing each
action to federal court. The Plaintiff filed amended complaints in
each action. Currently pending are the Plaintiff's motions to
remand each action to state court. Additionally, the Defendants'
motion to consolidate the cases and to dismiss Plaintiff's First
Amended Class Complaint are also pending ("MTD").

Judge Chen now addresses the threshold question of its jurisdiction
over the Class and PAGA Actions.

II. Discussion

The Defendants filed a notice of removal in each case asserting two
grounds for federal court jurisdiction: (1) federal question
jurisdiction because the Plaintiff's claims are preempted by the
FMCSA; and (2) diversity jurisdiction because the parties are
diverse and the amount in controversy in each action exceeds
$75,000.

A. Federal Question Jurisdiction

The Defendants advance the same argument that the Court has federal
question jurisdiction over the Class and PAGA Actions because
Plaintiff's state law wage and hour claims are preempted by federal
law. Therefore, Judge Chen applies the same analysis to this
asserted ground for removal jurisdiction in each case.

The Defendants assert federal question jurisdiction on the basis
that the Plaintiff's wage and hour claims are preempted by a
regulation promulgated by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration. On Dec. 28, 2018, the FMSCA issued an order
concluding that California's meal and rest break laws, as applied
to commercial vehicle drivers, are preempted by the FMSCA's
regulations. The FMSCA promulgated the regulations at issue
pursuant to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Section
31141. The Ninth Circuit applied conflict preemption analysis to
determine that the FMSCA's determination that California rules were
preempted "was reasonable and supported.

The Defendants contend that the holding in Teamsters has the effect
of completely preempting the Plaintiff's wage and hour claims, thus
providing a basis for the Court to assert federal question
jurisdiction.

Judge Chen holds that the Defendants' argument is incorrect.
Nothing in the Ninth Circuit's analysis in Teamsters suggests, let
alone holds, that the FMSCA completely preempts state law with
regards to wage and hour rules. Teamsters applied an ordinary
conflict preemption analysis to reach its conclusion that
California's meal and rest break rules were preempted; such an
analysis would have been wholly unnecessary if the FMSCA completely
preempted state law. And as noted, the FMSCA does not provide for a
federal cause of action that regulations purport to find complete
preemption. It is the statute is not persuasive that matters.

Hence, Judge Chen finds that the FMCSA does not completely preempt
the Plaintiff's state law claims. Thus, the Defendants have not
established federal question jurisdiction.

B. Diversity Jurisdiction: Amount in Controversy

The Defendants assert the Court has diversity jurisdiction over
each action under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332. The Plaintiff does not
dispute that the parties are diverse, but argues that the
Defendants have failed to satisfy their burden to demonstrate in
each case that the "matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value
of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs."

Judge Chen examines whether the Defendants have satisfied their
burden in each action.

1. Class Action

In a class action brought outside of CAFA, at least one named
plaintiff in the class must satisfy the $75,000 amount in
controversy requirement. The Defendants do not proffer an estimate
of the amount in controversy, but, instead, the notice of removal
asserts the amount in controversy "associated with Plaintiff's
claims" exceeds $75,000.

Judge Chen finds that Defendants' arguments unpersuasive and holds
that the Defendants have failed to offer evidence to carry their
burden to demonstrate the amount in controversy exceeds the
jurisdictional amount by a preponderance of the evidence. Thus, the
Defendants' assertion that $37,500 is in controversy based on the
Plaintiff's allegations of meal and rest break violations lacks
support for two independent reasons: (a) the amount is calculated
based on an erroneous assumption that the Plaintiff's salary was
$75,000 when, in fact, the Defendants concede the Plaintiff's
salary was actually $66,000, and (b) the calculation is based on an
unreasonable and unsubstantiated assumption of a 100% violation
rate.

The fact that the Defendant's failed to carry their proof by a
preponderance of the evidence is meaningful here where a slight
shift in assumptions can make a material difference. For instance,
if one were to assume a period of 150 weeks, an hourly rate of
$31.30, a 20% meal and rest break violation rate, and a 50%
overtime violation rate (75 out of 150 weeks the Plaintiff worked),
the amount in controversy would be approximately $64,000. It was
incumbent on Defendants to provide evidence and alternative
calculations. They failed to do so.

In light of the Defendants failure to carry its burden to
demonstrate that the amount in controversy in the Class Action
exceeds the jurisdictional threshold, and keeping in mind that "the
removal statute is strictly construed, and any doubt about the
right of removal requires resolution in favor of remand," Judge
Chen grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand the Class Action.

2. PAGA Action

PAGA allows an "aggrieved employee" to bring an action for civil
penalties "on behalf of himself or herself and other current or
former employees." The act imposes penalties of $100 for the
initial violation as to each aggrieved employee, and $200 for each
subsequent violation.  Of the total penalties assessed, 75% will be
distributed to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and 25%
directly to the aggrieved employees.

The Defendants' notice of removal does not specify that amount in
controversy, but rather asserts the jurisdictional threshold is
exceeded by improperly grouping the claims of all employees covered
by the PAGA action, Judge Chen finds. He holds that the Defendants
fail to analyze the amount in controversy attributed to the
Plaintiff. The Defendants also incorrectly assert that the
Plaintiff alleged 19 regulatory violations when the complaint
alleged just 9 underlying labor code violations. Still, even if the
Defendants' assertions were credited, Judge Chen holds that they
fail to actually calculate the amount that they think is in
controversy, instead generally asserting that the jurisdictional
amount was exceeded.

The Defendants' conclusory assertions that the jurisdictional
amount is exceeded without evidence, calculations or explanation of
their assumptions is insufficient to satisfy their burden to prove
by the preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional
threshold is exceeded in the PAGA Action. Thus, the Defendants have
failed to demonstrate that the Court has diversity jurisdiction
over the PAGA Action. Accordingly, Judge Chen grants the
Plaintiff's motion to remand the PAGA Action.

III. Conclusion

Judge Chen concludes that it does not have federal question
jurisdiction over either the Class Action or the PAGA Action. He
also determines that it lacks diversity jurisdiction over either
action.

Therefore, Judge Chen granted the Plaintiff's motions to remand the
Class Action and PAGA Action to state court because the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, he denied the Defendants'
motions to consolidate cases and to dismiss the Class Action.

The Order disposes of Class Action Docket Nos. 16, 19, 22 and PAGA
Action Docket No 16. Case Nos. 21-cv-8400-EMC and 21-cv-8466-EMC
are remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Alameda.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3jkn4mmc from Leagle.com.


WELLS FARGO: Brandt Sues Over Client Associates' Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID BRANDT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO CLEARING SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 6:22-cv-00397 (M.D. Fla., February 23, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendant for its failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a registered client
associate (RCA) in Orlando, Florida from 2013 to December 2021.

Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC is a financial services
provider, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
         C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
         20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
         Orlando, FL 32801
         Telephone: (407) 420-1414
         Facsimile: (407) 245-3383
         E-mail: kimd@forthepeople.com
                 rmorgan@forthepeople.com

WELLS FARGO: Disparate Impact Claims in Abdur-Rahman Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAHIRA ABDUR-RAHMAN, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO BANK
N.A., Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00207-RJC (W.D.N.C.), Judge
Robert J. Conrad, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, granted in part and
denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Strike
Plaintiff's original Complaint.

Specifically, the Motion to Dismiss is granted as to the
Plaintiff's disparate impact claims. The Motion is otherwise
denied.

I. Background

The Plaintiff is a 48-year old African-American female. Defendant
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. employed the Plaintiff for several years,
initially from 2009 to 2015, as a full-time employee in various
roles, and then from 2018 to 2021, jointly in a number of contract
positions. On Dec. 16, 2019, the Defendant offered the Plaintiff a
position as a Business Systems Consultant 4 ("BSC4"). The offer was
contingent on the Plaintiff submitting to and clearing a background
check. The next day, the Defendant ordered, through First Advantage
which the Defendant contracts with to perform Fair Credit Reporting
Act ("FCRA") tasks, a consumer report and a fingerprint check
through the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Thereafter, in January 2020, the Plaintiff received a letter from
the Defendant, dated Jan. 6, 2020, which also included a First
Advantage Background Report Summary stating the Plaintiff was
"ineligible for hire," "a statement purporting to be the summary of
rights required by the FCRA," and a letter from First Advantage
indicating the fingerprint check revealed "adverse record
information." After receiving the letter, on Jan. 13, 2020, the
Plaintiff "called First Advantage and was told that she 'passed the
background check but not the fingerprint check' but that the
representative was 'not able' to talk to her about it," and that
they would call her back within 48 hours. Eventually, after more
than 48 hours, First Advantage contacted the Plaintiff and assisted
her with ordering a full and complete copy of her consumer report,
but was unable to assist her with disputing the results.

On Jan. 23, 2020, the Plaintiff received an email from Wells Fargo
Recruiting notifying her that her BSC4 "offer of employment is
rescinded due to information found through the background screening
process." The Defendant also placed the Plaintiff on a "do not
hire" list, making her ineligible for employment with Defendant and
other banks. That same day the Plaintiff contacted a recruiter for
the Defendant who told her to call First Advantage to dispute the
results of the consumer report. When she contacted First Advantage,
the representative informed her "there was nothing they could do to
dispute her consumer report results. The representative also stated
he did not know why the Plaintiff was ineligible for employment but
that the Defendant 'has parameters set in the system that
disqualify candidates.' The representative then told her to call
the Defendant to inquire about the parameters but could not provide
her a telephone number to call."

The Plaintiff received a full and complete copy of the consumer
report after the Defendant rescinded the BSC4 offer and placed her
on the "do not hire" list, but she never received a copy of the
fingerprint check results. Thus, she could not dispute the consumer
report and fingerprint check results prior to Defendant rescinding
her employment offer. She later learned the background screening
process revealed a conviction in a domestic family-related charge
in 2007, which caused her to be ineligible for hire. According to
the Plaintiff, the Defendant gave First Advantage predetermined
parameters for consumer report results and fingerprint check
results, such that when a predetermined result is triggered, the
consumer is automatically disqualified or deemed ineligible for
employment without considering other factors such as the nature of
the offense, the length of time that passed, or the relevance of
the conviction to the position. She alleges this policy has a
disparate impact on African Americans.

After multiple calls made by the Plaintiff, on Feb. 10, 2020, the
Defendant's Background Screening Department provided her with an
email address to submit her dispute. She submitted her dispute the
next day, including a personal statement explaining the facts and a
statement from her son. Afterward, the Defendant notified the
Plaintiff she was eligible for hire and it removed her from the "do
not hire" list, but it decided not to fill the BSC4 position and
did not reoffer the position. Since February 2020, the Plaintiff
has been applying for alternative full-time employment
opportunities with the Defendant, including more than 49 full-time
positions, but has not been offered another position.

On May 4, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the instant action. The
Defendant responded with a motion to dismiss or to strike class
allegations, after which the Plaintiff filed an amended class
action Complaint. The Amended Complaint brings the following
individual and class claims (1) violation of FCRA, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i); (2) violation of FCRA, 15 U.S.C. Section
1681m et seq.; (3) violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq. ("Title VII") disparate
treatment on the basis of race; (4) violation of Title VII
disparate impact on the basis of race, which is pled in the
alternative to her Count III Title VII claim; and (5) an individual
claim for violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981.

The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts the following classes:

      a. FCRA Class: "All employees or prospective employees of
Defendant residing in the United States (including all territories
and other political subdivisions of the United States) who were the
subject of a consumer report which was used by Defendant to make an
employment decision during the FCRA statute of limitations period,
15 U.S.C. Section 1681p, next preceding the filing of this action
and during its pendency (the FCRA Class)."

      b. FCRA Sub-Class: "All employees or prospective employees of
Defendant residing in the United States (including all territories
and other political subdivisions of the United States) who were the
subject of a consumer report which was used by Defendant to make an
employment decision during the FCRA statute of limitations period,
15 U.S.C. Section  1681p, next preceding the filing of this action
and during its pendency, against whom Defendant took an adverse
action based in whole or in part on information contained in the
consumer report before providing a copy of the consumer report as
required by the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i) (the FCRA
Sub-Class)."

     c. Title VII Class: "All African American applicants for
employment to Wells Fargo Bank who were coded by Defendant as
having been rejected for adverse background screening beginning two
years from the filing of the Complaint in this action to present
(the Title VII Class)."

The Defendant again responded, in part, with a motion to dismiss or
to strike class allegations.

II. Discussion

A. Fair Credit Reporting Act Class Claims

The Plaintiff's Complaint brings two FCRA class claims alleging (1)
the Defendant failed to provide a copy of the consumer report used
to make an employment decision before taking an adverse action that
was based in whole or in part on that report; and (2) the Defendant
took an adverse action based on information provided by a consumer
reporting agency, and failed to provide a copy of the consumer
report relied upon and failed to maintain a reasonable procedure to
ensure compliance with FCRA. She pleads the two FCRA-related
classes: FCRA Class and FCRA Sub-Class.

The Defendant argues the Court should dismiss or strike both class
claims because the Plaintiff's FCRA Class does not meet the
commonality and typicality requirements and is not ascertainable
because (1) it includes individuals that have not suffered any
harm, including all employees or prospective employees without an
adverse employment action; (2) prospective members cannot be
ascertained without an individualized inquiry; and (3) it is
defined based on FCRA's statute of limitations which has two
different limitations periods and may require individualized
determinations. Additionally, it argues the Plaintiff's FCRA
Sub-Class is an impermissible fail-safe class.

Judge Conrad holds that while the classes as defined in the
Complaint are broad and may present fail-safe, commonality, or
typicality issues at the certification stage, at the motion to
dismiss stage the Court must consider whether the Plaintiff could
possibly make out a certifiable class. The Complaint sets forth
factual allegations that the Defendant rescinded the Plaintiff's
employment offer based on information in her consumer report before
she received a copy of the report, that she did not receive a copy
of the report, and that there may be others similarly situated.

These factual allegations are sufficient for the Court to conclude
at this stage, based on the FCRA-related classes as pled, the
Complaint alleges facts sufficient for class claims under 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681b(b)(3)(A) and 15 U.S.C. Section 1681m. Additionally,
the classes as defined, while broad, could plausibly meet the
certification requirements of Rule 23, albeit with some refinement.
Therefore, the Defendant's motion to dismiss or strike the
Plaintiff's FCRA-related class claims is denied.

B. Title VII Disparate Impact Individual and Class Claims

The Plaintiff brings individual and class claims for disparate
impact under Title VII, as an alternative to her Title VII
disparate treatment claims, alleging the Defendant's predetermined
background screening parameters and blanket exclusion policy have
an adverse effect on African Americans. The Defendant argues the
Plaintiff's Complaint only contains threadbare recitals of the
elements of a disparate impact claim and does not allege any facts
that African Americans were disqualified more than other races
under a specific policy or practice, or a causal connection between
the policy and disparate impact.

Judge Conrad holds that the Plaintiff's Complaint identifies a
specific policy -- a blanket exclusion background check policy --
which she alleges results in a disparate impact. However, the
Complaint sets forth only conclusory allegations that the policy
"disparately impacts" and has an "adverse effect" on African
Americans rather than any factual allegations as to the disparate
impact or how it is related to the policy. The Plaintiff in essence
attempts to amend her Complaint through her response to the
Defendant's motion to dismiss to include the information contained
in the EEOC Enforcement Guidance.

Judge Conrad will not now consider this document for purposes of
the motion to dismiss because when deciding a motion to dismiss it
may only consider the Complaint, documents attached to or
incorporated into the Complaint, or that are "integral to and
explicitly relied on in the complaint." He says, while the
Plaintiff cites to other courts that have denied motions to dismiss
based on similar blanket background check exclusion policies, he
finds these cases distinguishable because the complaints either
incorporated the relevant EEOC Enforcement Guidance or contained
other factual allegations not contained in the Plaintiff's
Complaint to support a claim for relief. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff's disparate impact claims will be dismissed.

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Judge Conrad denied as moot the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss or Strike Plaintiff's original Complaint. He
granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss or Strike Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Specifically, the
Motion to Dismiss is granted as to the Plaintiff's disparate impact
claims. The Motion is otherwise denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/24wxpxp8 from Leagle.com.


WILLIAM HYATT: Mayberry Seeks Certification of Prisoner Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Timothy Marcus Mayberry v.
William Hyatt, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00045-DRL-MGG (N.D. Ind.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion
for class certification of:

   "Approximately 100 MCF prisoners who all suffered at the
   hands of the Defedants while all being housed on the same
   unit at the same house."

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Feb. 15,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com athttps://bit.ly/3t2yghJ
at no extra charge.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC]


WOODALLS INC: Renewed Bid to Certify Mobile Homeowner Class Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martha Akers, Ray Jordan,
Dyan Matheson, Nancy Oliver, and Dawn Pease, on behalf of
themselves, the class of current, and former mobile homeowners in
the Park and all others similarly situated, v. Timothy Newby, Todd
Newby, Barry Campbell, Neil Brown, Woodalls, Inc., and Newby
Communities, Inc., d/b/a Newby Management, Case No.
8:21-cv-140-MSS-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their renewed motion for class
certification of:

   "All persons who were mobile homeowners in the Woodall's
   Mobile Home Village from 2014 to 2018 and who were required
   to pay overbilled ad valorem tax pass-ons and received either
   partial or no reimbursement in 2019."

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court that they should be permitted to
circulate a class action notice to all putative class members. The
Plaintiffs have secured the Park mobile homeowner and RV resident
directories for the years 2014 through 2019 and have checked this
data against the homeowners' association list of all homeowners.

The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint alleges the Defendants violated
Federal law by fraudulent and conspiratorial acts to illegally
manipulate the lot rental agreement in a Chapter 723, Fla. Stat.,
mobile home park requiring the mobile homeowners to pay fraudulent
overbilling of ad valorem tax pass-ons by the Defendants during
2014 through 2018, and receive partial or no reimbursement during
2019.

Woodall's is part of the lessors of real estate industry.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 15,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36CqGD1
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel W. Perry, Esq.
          DANIEL PERRY
          4767 New Broad St., No. 1007
          Orlando, FL 32814-6405
          Telephone: (407) 894-9003
          E-mail: dan@danielperry.com

WOODMAN'S FOOD: Robertson FLSA Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Terry Robertson, Ray Barnes, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Woodman's Food
Market Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-06652 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on Feb. 17,
2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00207-WED to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Woodman's Markets -- https://www.woodmans-food.com/ -- is an
employee-owned U.S. regional supermarket chain based in Janesville,
Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A Walcheske, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI LLC
          15850 W Bluemound Rd-Ste 304
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Phone: (262) 780-1953
          Fax: (262) 565-6469
          Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com


ZILLOW GROUP: Barua, Silverberg and Hillier Actions Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, issued an Order consolidating the
cases, DIBAKAR BARUA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC.; RICHARD
BARTON; ALLEN PARKER; and JEREMY WACKSMAN, Defendants. STEVEN
SILVERBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC.; RICHARD BARTON; ALLEN
PARKER; and JEREMY WACKSMAN, Defendants. AARON HILLIER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC.; RICHARD BARTON; LLOYD FRINK;
ALLEN PARKER; and JEREMY WACKSMAN, Defendants, Case Nos. C21-1551
TSZ, C21-1567 TSZ, C22-14 TSZ (W.D. Wash.).

I. Background

Zillow is a real estate services company. "Zillow Offers" is
Zillow's "home-flipping" business, through which Zillow "directly
purchases homes from sellers, makes certain repairs and updates to
these properties, and subsequently resells the homes to
purchasers."

On Nov. 16, 2021, Zillow shareholder Dibakar Barua filed a putative
class action against Zillow and individual Defendants Richard
Barton, Allen Parker, and Jeremy Wacksman, alleging claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act"), as well as Rule 10b-5, which was promulgated
by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

On Nov. 19, 2021, shareholder Steven Silverberg filed a second
putative class action against Zillow and individual defendants
Richard Barton, Allen Parker, and Jeremy Wacksman, alleging the
same claims under the Exchange Act. On Jan. 6, 2022, Zillow
shareholder Aaron Hillier filed a third putative class action
against Zillow and individual defendants Richard Barton, Allen
Parker, Lloyd Frink, and Jeremy Wacksman, also alleging the same
violations of the Exchange Act.

Multiple parties, all Zillow shareholders, now move the Court to
consolidate the Barua, Silverberg, and Hillier actions and appoint
lead plaintiff and counsel. The Movants are shareholders Lee
McCormick, Alex Ambrose, Joseph Switzer, Jeremy Jaeger, Steven
Hackbarth, Slav Danev, and Sjunde AP-Fonden ("AP7").

II. Discussion

As required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
("PSLRA"), all named plaintiffs and all movants seeking appointment
as lead plaintiff have filed the requisite certifications. In
accordance with the PSLRA, on Nov. 16, 2021, Plaintiff Barua
arranged for notice of his lawsuit to be filed. The pending motions
to appoint lead plaintiff were timely filed.

1. Consolidation of Related Cases

A district court may consolidate actions that involve common
questions of law or fact, Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). Under the PSLRA,
"if more than one action on behalf of a class asserting
substantially the same claim or claims has been filed, and any
party has sought to consolidate those actions," a court must
determine whether to consolidate the actions before appointing a
lead plaintiff.

Judge Zilly finds that the Barua, Silverberg, and Hillier actions
are almost identical. The three actions allege that the Defendants
artificially inflated the price of Zillow securities by making
materially false and/or misleading statements and by failing to
disclose material adverse facts about Zillow Offers. All the
Movants request that the Court consolidate the captioned cases. The
Defendants do not oppose consolidation.

Therefore, Judge Zilly finds that the Barua, Silverberg, and
Hillier actions share common questions of law and fact and that it
is appropriate to consolidate these matters for all purposes. The
Movants' motions to consolidate, docket nos. 17, 20, 24, 26, 31, 33
and 34, are granted.

2. Appointment of Lead Plaintiff

Having consolidated the Barua, Silverberg, and Hillier actions,
Judge Zilly now considers the various motions to appoint a lead
plaintiff. The parties do not dispute the relative losses alleged.
With $6,305,231.59 in estimated losses, Movant Jeremy Jaeger has
the largest financial interest and satisfies the requirements of
Rule 23 in that Jaeger's claims are typical of those of the class
and Jaeger can be expected to fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. The remaining Movants do not oppose
Jaeger's appointment as lead plaintiff.

Finally, the Movants have provided no reason to disturb Jaeger's
choice of counsel. Jaeger has selected Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP as lead counsel. Having reviewed the firm's resume, Judge Zilly
finds that Hagens Berman is qualified and experienced to serve as
lead counsel for the putative class. Thus, he approves Jaeger's
choice of lead counsel.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Zilly consolidated the Movants'
motions to consolidate, docket nos. 17, 20, 24, 26, 31, 33 and 34.
The captioned Barua, Silverberg, and Hillier actions are
consolidated for all purposes. All future pleadings, motions,
briefs, and other papers will be filed only in Case No. C21-1551
TSZ. The Clerk is directed to close Case Nos. C21-1567 TSZ and
C22-14 TSZ.

Switzer's motion, docket no. 24, Hackbarth's motion, docket no. 31,
Danev's motion, docket no. 33, AP7's motion, docket no. 34, and
McCormick's motion, docket no. 17, are stricken in part as moot.

Judge Zilly denied Ambrose's motion, docket no. 20, as it relates
to appointment of co-lead plaintiffs. He granted Jaeger's motion,
docket no. 26. Jaeger is appointed the Lead Plaintiff. His choice
of counsel is approved, and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is
appointed as the Lead Counsel.

Within 14 days of the date of the Order, the Lead Plaintiff and the
Defendants will meet and confer and file a Joint Status Report
proposing a schedule for the matter, including deadlines for the
filing of a consolidated complaint and any responsive pleading or
motion. The Joint Status Report will also identify one attorney
from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, and one attorney for the
Defendants who will serve as the liaison lawyer for each side; the
liaison lawyers will have responsibility for receiving and, as
appropriate, distributing to co-counsel any written or oral
communications of the Court and serving as the contact point
between the Court and all counsel to assist with scheduling and
coordinating hearings and telephonic conferences.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of the Order to all counsel of
record.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3mvyddcx from Leagle.com.


ZOOM VIDEO: N.D. California Trims Claims in Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE ZOOM SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
20-cv-02353-JD (N.D. Cal.), Judge James Donato of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.

The motion is brought under the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4, and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim.

I. Background

The lawsuit is a securities fraud class action against Zoom and its
CEO, Eric Yuan, and CFO, Kelly Steckelberg. Court-appointed lead
plaintiff Adam Butt filed a consolidated complaint on behalf of
"all who purchased or acquired Zoom securities from April 18, 2019
through April 6, 2020."

Butt alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b)
and 78t(a), and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, "by
making false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the
Company's operations; the security capabilities, including the
ability to use AES 256-bit end-to-end encryption, available in its
main product offering, Zoom Meetings; and its collection and use of
its users' personal data." The consolidated complaint challenges 15
statements and omissions identified in the Plaintiff's summary
chart attached to the complaint.

The Defendants ask to dismiss the complaint under the PSLRA and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a
claim. The parties' familiarity with the record is assumed.

II. Discussion

A. Claim Against Defendant Steckelberg

Defendant Kelly Steckelberg is barely mentioned at all in the
complaint. This means that the Plaintiff has not adequately alleged
scienter for the Section 10(b) claim against Steckelberg. The
complaint makes just one factual allegation against Steckelberg.
The Plaintiff says that "Defendant Steckelberg has served as the
Company's CFO since November 2017. Since becoming Zoom's CFO,
Steckelberg had the power to authorize or approve publicly
disseminated information about the Company, regularly spoke on
Zoom's quarterly earnings calls with Wall Street analysts and
investors, made live presentations at analyst-sponsored investor
conferences and signed or authorized filings for Zoom with the
SEC."

Judge Donato says this is little more than a generic job
description that comes nowhere close to pleading scienter with the
level of particularity required under the securities laws. The
Plaintiff's summary chart further undermines any claim against
Steckelberg by not individually naming her even once in the
"scienter" column. The Plaintiff's opposition brief contains no
discussion at all of Steckelberg's individual scienter.

Consequently, the Section 10(b) claim against Steckelberg is
dismissed. The same goes for the Section 20(a) claim, which also
lacks any allegations establishing Steckelberg's control person
liability. Judge Donato declines to reach the Defendants' other
arguments for dismissal of the claims against Steckelberg.

B. Section 10(b) Claim Against Yuan and Zoom for Statement No. 1

For plaintiff's 10(b) claim against Defendants Yuan and Zoom,
dismissal is denied for Statement No. 1 in the Plaintiff's summary
chart, Judge Donato holds. The Plaintiff challenges this statement,
which appeared in Zoom's April 18, 2019 Registration Statement and
Prospectus: "Security and disaster recovery. We offer robust
security capabilities, including end-to-end encryption, secure
login, administrative controls and role-based access controls." The
Defendants do not contest that Yuan "made" this statement by
signing the Registration Statement, and they challenge only the
elements of falsity, scienter, and loss causation.

Judge Donato holds that the Plaintiff has satisfied the falsity
element for Statement No. 1 by alleging that the Defendants
represented that Zoom offered "end-to-end encryption" when in fact
it did not. The Plaintiff has identified the Defendants' express
acknowledgement that they had "incorrectly suggested that Zoom
meetings were capable of using end-to-end encryption," and they had
used the term "end-to-end encryption" differently from "the
commonly accepted definition." The Plaintiff has adequately alleged
that the Defendants' Statement No. 1 gave an "impression of a state
of affairs that differs in a material way from the one that
actually existed."

Judge Donato further holds that scienter is also satisfied by the
Plaintiff's allegations that Yuan -- who made the statement on
April 18, 2019, that Zoom offers "end-to-end encryption" -- issued
a public statement on April 1, 2020, linking to a post that
acknowledged and apologized for Zoom's "incorrect" use of the term.
There simply is no factual basis here to believe that Yuan's
understanding of the term "end-to-end encryption" may have changed
in a relevant way from the time he made the challenged
representation in April 2019, to the time Yuan acknowledged just a
year later, on April 1, 2020, that Zoom's usage was inconsistent
with "the commonly accepted definition." The Plaintiff has
consequently pleaded facts giving rise to a strong inference that
when he made the earlier statement, Yuan acted "either
intentionally or with deliberate recklessness."

C. Loss Causation

The final challenged element of loss causation is also satisfied.
The complaint alleges that on March 31, 2020, the article in The
Intercept revealed the truth about Zoom's "end-to-end encryption"
capabilities, and "on this disclosure, Zoom's stock price fell from
a close of $150.88 on March 30, 2020 to close at $146.12 per share
on March 31, 2020." On April 1, 2020, after Yuan admitted that Zoom
had "fallen short" of "privacy and security expectations" and
linked to Gal's apology blog post admitting Zoom's "incorrect
suggestion" that Zoom Meetings provided end-to-end encryption,
Zoom's stock price fell further from the close of $146.12 on March
31, 2020, to a close of $137 on April 1, 2020.

These allegations "give the Defendant 'notice of the Plaintiffs'
loss causation theory' and provide the Court 'some assurance that
the theory has a basis in fact,'" Judge Donato holds, citing BofI
Holdings, 977 F.3d at 794 (quoting Berson, 527 F.3d at 989-90). The
Defendants argue that "industry publications from December 2019
(and before) had already disclosed that 'Zoom stores a copy of all
users' private keys on their server,'" but this is a factual
argument which Judge Donato declines to resolve at this stage.
Pleading loss causation "should not prove burdensome," and at this
stage, the Plaintiff has pleaded enough. The Plaintiff may proceed
with his Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 claim against Yuan and Zoom for
Statement No. 1.

D. Section 10(b) Claim Against Yuan and Zoom for Statement Nos.
2-15

For Statement Nos. 2-15, plaintiff vaguely identifies the speaker
only as "Zoom" (Nos. 2-12) or "Defendants" (Nos. 13-15). The
Plaintiff concedes in his opposition brief that Statement No. 1 is
the only statement that Yuan actually made. The complaint contains
no factual allegations adequately tying Yuan to any of Statement
Nos. 2 through 15. Because Yuan is not sufficiently alleged to have
made Statement Nos. 2-15, the Plaintiff's Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5
claim seeking primary liability against Yuan is dismissed for those
statements.

Defendant Zoom must also be dismissed for those statements. The
Plaintiff has not adequately alleged scienter for any individual
"responsible for actually making the statements." Because there are
no allegations suggesting that this is the exceptional case where
"a company's public statements were so important and so
dramatically false that they would create a strong inference that
at least some corporate officials knew of the falsity upon
publication," without allegations of individual scienter, there can
be no finding of corporate scienter.

E. Section 20(a) Claim Against Yuan

All of this leaves the Section 20(a) claim against Yuan for
Statement No. 1 only. To establish controlling person liability
under Section 20(a), the Plaintiff "must show that a primary
violation was committed and that the defendant directly or
indirectly controlled the violator."

For Statement No. 1, Judge Donato has already found that the
Plaintiff can pursue a primary liability claim against Yuan as a
maker of that statement. It is duplicative and nonsensical to
impose Section 20(a) secondary liability on Yuan for that statement
on the theory that he "directly or indirectly controlled" himself.
The Section 20(a) claim is dismissed on that basis.

III. Conclusion

Judge Donato granted the Plaintiff leave to amend all claims
dismissed by the Order, and if he wishes to do so, he may file an
amended complaint that is consistent with the Order by March 9,
2022. No new claims or Defendants may be added without prior
approval of the Court. The Plaintiff is advised that further
opportunities to amend are not likely to be granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ympkuaut from Leagle.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 ***