/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220302.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, March 2, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 38

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to PFAS, Oberbroeckling Suit Says
3M COMPANY: Farr Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Irizarry Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
3M COMPANY: Kidder Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Knox Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams

3M COMPANY: Miller Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Nelson Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
ACUTUS MEDICAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of April 18 Deadline
ACUTUS MEDICAL: Gainey McKenna Reminds of April 18 Deadline
ACUTUS MEDICAL: Robbins Geller Reminds of April 18 Deadline

ACUTUS MEDICAL: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of April 18 Deadline
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Covid-19 Screenings
BAKETIVITY CORP: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BARTON & ASSOCIATES: Anderson Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
BAYER AG: Faces Kharaeva Suit over Mislabeled Prenatal Vitamins

BLUE CROSS OF LOUISIANA: Faces Class Action Over BlueCard Program
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Green Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
BURLINGTON STORES: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
BUTTERFLY NETWORK: Pomerantz Law Reminds of April 18 Deadline
CANADA: Class Action Seeks Removal of Sex Work-Related Records

CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in OT Class Action
CAPTURERX: May File Bankruptcy if Breach Settlement Not Approved
CENGAGE LEARNING: Kleiner Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
CGH TECHNOLOGIES: Pennington Appeals Damages Ruling to 11th Cir.
CLEARFLO POOLS: Giron Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

CRICUT INC: Golson Sues Over Unapproved Autorenewal of Subscription
CVS PHARMACY: Faces Class Action Over Baby Formula False Ads
D'S NATURALS: Lesh Files Suit Over Deceptive Trade Practices
DECICCO AND SONS: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Dep't to Cancel Student Loans Due to Fraud Claims

DIASPORA TEA & HERB: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FASTENAL CO: Class Settlement in Jackson Suit Wins Prelim. Approval
FLINT, MI: Bids to Review Final Approval of Class Settlement Denied
GATE GOURMET: Diaz Wage-and-Hour Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. Cal.
GOLD EAGLE CO: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

GOLDEN STATE FC: Guerrero Suit Removed to N.D. California
GOYA FOODS: N.J. Court Narrows Claims in Mejias' 2nd Amended Suit
GRKSTL TRANSPORTATION: Pike Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas
HEALTH CAROUSEL: Faces Class Action Over Coercive Practices
HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Class Cert. Hearing Continued to March 31

HIPPY TREE: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HIREVUE INC: Paul Hastings Attorney Discusses BIPA Class Action
HUGGER MUGGER: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
INVITATION HOMES: Rivera's Class Cert. Bid Denied; Suit Dismissed
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Long Sues Over Commissioned Employees' Unpaid OT

JUSTANSWER LLC: Subscription Suit Can Proceed, May 6 Hearing Set
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Indian River Suit Claims
JUUL LABS: General McLane Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Crisis
KOLE IMPORTS: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Crandell Suit Moved From S.D. Iowa to W.D. Pa.

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Pittman Files Suit in D. Montana
KSE SPORTSMAN: Must Face Subscribers' Class Action Suit
LEATHERMAN TOOL: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Denial of Insurance Class Certification Affirmed
LIBERTY PUZZLES: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Herrera Files Suit in C.D. California
LOUISIANA HEALTH CARE: Davis Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana
LUME DEODORANT: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MADISON REED: Faces Class Action Over Hair Coloring Products
MANHATTAN GOLD & SILVER: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

MARC J. GOLD LAW: Charles Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
MIDLAND CREDIT: Zeev Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
MILOS HY INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Markovic Suit Alleges
MINGHIA MEXICO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Amaral Suit Alleges
MORGAN AND MORGAN: Lebovits Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey

NATION COMPANY: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court Grants Browne's Bid to Alter Judgment
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Hires Ex-AG to Defend Flores Discrimination Suit
NATIONWIDE INSURANCE: Drawdy Sues Over Failure to Refund Premiums
NEW ORIENTAL: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of April 5 Deadline

OMG ACCESSORIES: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PANDA PLATES: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PANKOW OPERATING: Sach PAGA Suit to Remain in C.D. California
PAULA'S CHOICE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PERRIGO CO: $10.6M in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Securities Suit

PERRIGO CO: Settlement Allocation Plan in Securities Suit Approved
PNC BANK: Court Enters Final Judgment and Dismisses Corona Suit
POA RECOVERY: Duane Morris Discusses Investment Scheme Lawsuit
RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT: Klein Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
RICE DRILLING: Wins Leave to File Docs Under Seal in J&R Class Suit

ROOMMATES.COM LLC: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SAGINAW, MI: Tire Chalking Suit May Have Implications for Drivers
SANT AND ABEL: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SCWORX CORP: Hearing on Class Settlement Approval Set for March 21
SEA LIMITED: TPFRS Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.

SLATE GROUP: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SOCLEAN INC: Koumantakis Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
SONY INTERACTIVE: PlayStation Prices May Prompt Class Action
SOUND SEAL: Avalos Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
SOUTH SHORE: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Wages for All Hours Worked

TARGET CORP: Faces Koenig Suit Over Mislabeled Prenatal Vitamins
TYSON FOODS: Bojangles DAPs Can't Compel Deposition of Cheney
VERO BEACH, FL: Averts Police Video Monitoring Class Action
WARNER BROS: Keebaugh Sues Over In-Game Purchases' False Discounts
WENTZVILLE R-IV: Faces Class Action for Banning Eight Books

XPO LOGISTICS: Final Order & Judgment Entered in Alvarez Class Suit
[*] Consumers Eligible for U.S. Class Action Rebates Discussed
[*] Morgan Lewis Discusses Bill on Sexual Misconduct Arbitration
[*] Morrison Foerster Attorney Discusses H.R. 445 Requirements
[*] Netherlands Became EU Jurisdiction of Choice for Class Actions

[*] U.S. Securities Class Action Filings Down in 2021

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to PFAS, Oberbroeckling Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
KARL OBERBROECKLING, 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-00573-RMG
(D.S.C., February 24, 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 Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of serious medical conditions and complications
sustained as a direct result of the Plaintiff's exposure to the
Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing
synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively
known as PFAS at various locations during the course of his
training and firefighting activities. 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. Further, the
Defendants failed to warn public entities and firefighter trainees,
including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into
contact with their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by
either civilian and/or military employers that use of and/or
exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or
its precursors would pose a danger to human health. Due to
inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the Defendants'
PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner, without
significant change in the products' condition, alleges 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: Farr Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deryl Monroe Farr, 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-00446-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: Irizarry Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
------------------------------------------------------
Edward Anthony Irizarry, 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-00451-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: Kidder Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
--------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Kidder, 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-00452-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
testicular 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: Knox Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline T. Knox, as Personal Representative/Administrator/Executor
of the Estate of HAROLD WAYNE BANKS, deceased, 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-00448-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 is the duly-appointed personal
representative/administrator/executor of the Estate of Harold Wayne
Banks. Harold Wayne Banks ("Decedent") was diagnosed with kidney
cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.
Decedent's diagnosis caused and/or contributed to his death..

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: Miller Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVE MILLER, 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-00597-RMG
(D.S.C., February 24, 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 pancreatic
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: Nelson Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY NELSON, 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-00596-RMG
(D.S.C., February 24, 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.

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

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

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

ACUTUS MEDICAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of April 18 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Acutus Medical Inc. ("Acutus" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: AFIB) in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Acutus securities between May 13,
2021 and November 11, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until April 18, 2022 to apply to the Court
to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) their ability to grow and scale Acutus'
business; (2) Acutus' strategy regarding AcQMap system placements;
and (3) the ability of Acutus to improve commercial execution in
the United States, including through the expansion and training of
sales staff to "ensure" adequate customer account support, which
defendants claimed would be a major growth driver. Specifically,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose that: (a) a material percentage of the AcQMap
systems under evaluation had been randomly installed at sites with
little, if any, consideration given to whether the healthcare
providers at the selected locations were likely to adopt, or
desire, Acutus Medical's products; (b) a material percentage of the
AcQMap systems under evaluation had been installed in locations
where Acutus Medical did not possess the infrastructure necessary
to appropriately educate, train, and support medical service
providers on the system's operations; (c) as a result, defendants
were in the process of designing a strategic plan to terminate and
relocate approximately 20% of then-existing AcQMap systems
evaluation arrangements; (d) the Company's management discussion
and analysis was materially false and misleading and failed to
disclose that the termination and relocation of approximately 20%
of existing AcQMap systems evaluation arrangements was reasonably
likely to have a material adverse effect on Acutus Medical's 2021
financial results; and (e) Acutus Medical's risk factor discussions
were materially false and misleading and made reference to
potential risks without disclosing that such risks were
then-existing or adequately describing the specific nature of the
risks then facing the Company.

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

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

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

Contacts

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]

ACUTUS MEDICAL: Gainey McKenna Reminds of April 18 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Feb. 16 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Acutus Medical, Inc. ("Acutus" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: AFIB) in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California on behalf of investors who
purchased the securities of Acutus between May 13, 2021 and
November 11, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) a material
percentage of the AcQMap systems under evaluation had been randomly
installed at sites with little, if any, consideration given to
whether the healthcare providers at the selected locations were
likely to adopt, or desire, Acutus Medical's products; (2) a
material percentage of the AcQMap systems under evaluation had been
installed in locations where Acutus Medical did not possess the
infrastructure necessary to appropriately educate, train, and
support medical service providers on the system's operations; (3)
as a result, Acutus Medical was in the process of designing a
strategic plan to terminate and relocate approximately 20% of
then-existing AcQMap systems evaluation arrangements; (4) Acutus
Medical's management discussion and analysis was materially false
and misleading and failed to disclose that the termination and
relocation of approximately 20% of existing AcQMap systems
evaluation arrangements was reasonably likely to have a material
adverse effect on Acutus Medical's 2021 financial results; and (5)
Acutus Medical's risk factor discussions were materially false and
misleading and made reference to potential risks without disclosing
that such risks were then-existing or adequately describing the
specific nature of the risks then facing Acutus Medical. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Acutus
should contact the Firm prior to the April 18, 2022 lead plaintiff
motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M.
Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or
via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.

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

ACUTUS MEDICAL: Robbins Geller Reminds of April 18 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Feb. 17
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit seeking to
represent purchasers of Acutus Medical, Inc. (NASDAQ: AFIB) common
stock between May 13, 2021 and November 11, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period") and charging Acutus Medical and certain of its top
executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Acutus Medical class action lawsuit was commenced on February
15, 2022 in the Southern District of California and is captioned
Brown v. Acutus Medical, Inc., No. 22-cv-00206.

The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by
clicking here.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Acutus Medical class
action lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking here.
You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead
plaintiff motions for the Acutus Medical class action lawsuit must
be filed with the court no later than April 18, 2022.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Acutus Medical is an arrhythmia management
company focused on improving the diagnosis and treatment of cardiac
arrhythmias. Acutus Medical's primary product is its AcQMap imaging
and mapping system, which consists of a console, workstation,
proprietary software algorithms, and a single-use catheter that
contains ultrasound transducers and electrodes which collect the
data required to create a comprehensive map of a patient's cardiac
anatomy and electrical propagation pathways and patterns. To gain a
market foothold, Acutus Medical initially lent its first-generation
AcQMap console and workstation to users free of charge to
facilitate the sale of its disposable products. In late 2019,
Acutus Medical began to install its second generation AcQMap
console and workstation products with potential purchasers under
evaluation arrangements.

The Acutus Medical class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout
the Class Period, Acutus Medical made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (i) a material percentage
of the AcQMap systems under evaluation had been randomly installed
at sites with little, if any, consideration given to whether the
healthcare providers at the selected locations were likely to
adopt, or desire, Acutus Medical's products; (ii) a material
percentage of the AcQMap systems under evaluation had been
installed in locations where Acutus Medical did not possess the
infrastructure necessary to appropriately educate, train, and
support medical service providers on the system's operations; (iii)
as a result, Acutus Medical was in the process of designing a
strategic plan to terminate and relocate approximately 20% of
then-existing AcQMap systems evaluation arrangements; (iv) Acutus
Medical's management discussion and analysis was materially false
and misleading and failed to disclose that the termination and
relocation of approximately 20% of existing AcQMap systems
evaluation arrangements was reasonably likely to have a material
adverse effect on Acutus Medical's 2021 financial results; and (v)
Acutus Medical's risk factor discussions were materially false and
misleading and made reference to potential risks without disclosing
that such risks were then-existing or adequately describing the
specific nature of the risks then facing Acutus Medical.

On November 11, 2021, Acutus Medical announced that it had slashed
its 2021 revenue guidance due, in part, to a strategic decision by
Acutus Medical during the third quarter of 2021 to relocate
approximately 20% of AcQMap systems installations under
then-existing evaluation arrangements to address meaningfully
lower-than-expected product adoption. Further, contrary to Acutus
Medical's representations during the Class Period, Acutus Medical
revealed that Acutus Medical needed to relocate AcQMap systems that
had been placed in improper locations, thereby negatively impacting
customer uptake. On this news, the price of Acutus Medical common
stock plummeted more than 45% in a single day, damaging investors.

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

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

Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.

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

ACUTUS MEDICAL: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of April 18 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 16
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Acutus Medical, Inc. (NASDAQ: AFIB)
between May 13, 2021 and November 11, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than April 18, 2022.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Acutus Medical class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case—id=3255 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 18, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) a material percentage of the
AcQMap systems under evaluation had been randomly installed at
sites with little, if any, consideration given to whether the
healthcare providers at the selected locations were likely to
adopt, or desire, Acutus Medical's products; (2) a material
percentage of the AcQMap systems under evaluation had been
installed in locations where Acutus Medical did not possess the
infrastructure necessary to appropriately educate, train, and
support medical service providers on the system's operations; (3)
as a result, Acutus Medical was in the process of designing a
strategic plan to terminate and relocate approximately 20% of
then-existing AcQMap systems evaluation arrangements; (4) Acutus
Medical's management discussion and analysis was materially false
and misleading and failed to disclose that the termination and
relocation of approximately 20% of existing AcQMap systems
evaluation arrangements was reasonably likely to have a material
adverse effect on Acutus Medical's 2021 financial results; and (5)
Acutus Medical's risk factor discussions were materially false and
misleading and made reference to potential risks without disclosing
that such risks were then-existing or adequately describing the
specific nature of the risks then facing Acutus Medical. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

To join the Acutus Medical class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case—id=3255 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

View source version on
businesswire.com:https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220216005922/en/

CONTACT:

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

AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Covid-19 Screenings
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Dailey, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Amazon.com
allegedly violated Nevada wage rules by failing to pay thousands of
warehouse workers across the state for time spent undergoing
mandatory Covid-19 screenings before their shifts, according to a
new lawsuit filed in federal court.

The proposed class action was brought by Dwight Malloy, who worked
as an fulfillment center associate at an Amazon warehouse in North
Las Vegas, on behalf of similarly situated employees in
Nevada.[GN]


BAKETIVITY CORP: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baketivity, Corp. The
case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Baketivity, Corp., Case No.
1:22-cv-01553 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2022).

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

Baketivity -- https://baketivity.com/ -- is a kid baking
subscription boxes with colorful lessons and playing educational
games.[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


BARTON & ASSOCIATES: Anderson Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Anderson, an individual, on behalf of himself, all other
aggrieved employees, and the general public v. Barton & Associates,
Inc.; Safety Management Systems, LLC; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 22STCV05355 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
Feb. 14, 2022), is brought seeking to recover unpaid wages,
attorney's fees, other civil penalties, costs and expenses all
recoverable under California law.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants misclassified the
Plaintiff as an independent contractor and violated several
portions of the California Labor Code as a result. The Defendants
have underpaid and taken advantage of the Plaintiff by classifying
him, as well as other, non-exempt employees who were paid by the
hour for work performed, as independent contractors. This allowed
the Defendants to employ the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated to him, while skirting obligations related to overtime,
meal and rest breaks, and the provision of workers compensation
insurance.

The Defendants have engaged in the following illegal conduct,
listed without limitation: Defendants have failed to pay the
Plaintiff, and others, earned wages, including minimum wages and
overtime wages, in violation of California law; the Defendants have
knowingly and intentionally failed to provide the Plaintiff, and
others, with timely and accurate wage statements, in violation of
Labor Code Section 226 and Wage Order 4-2001; the Defendants have
willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff, and others, their earned
wages in a timely manner upon separation, in violation of Labor
Code Section 203; the Defendants have failed to make proper
deductions from the wages paid to the Plaintiff and others; the
Defendants have misclassified Plaintiff (and others) as an
independent contractor; the Defendants have failed to properly
provide the Plaintiff and others with meal and rest periods, as
mandated by California law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked as part of the Defendants' "Border Crisis"
COVID-19 emergency response team, in the city of Pomona,
California.

Barton & Associates, Inc. is a medical staffing company, and began
providing services for Safety Management Systems, LLC, an entity
that provides emergency response services and personnel, across the
country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex Hartounian, Esq.
          HARTOUNIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          234 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 800
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Phone: 818-794-9675
          Facsimile: 818-459-6997
          Email: alex@h-lf.com


BAYER AG: Faces Kharaeva Suit over Mislabeled Prenatal Vitamins
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANNA KHARAEVA; and ZSAIAHNA HUFF, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAYER AG; BAYER
CORPORATION; and BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-00640 (E.D. Pa., Feb. 18, 2022) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to disclose the presence, or risk, of
dangerous substances in their Prenatal Vitamins, including heavy
metals.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants'
Prenatal Vitamins contain, or have a risk of containing, dangerous
substances in the form of Heavy Metals and contain, or have the
risk of containing, less Folic Acid than the amount represented on
the Product label.

The Defendants' Prenatal Vitamins do not have a disclaimer
regarding the presence of Heavy Metals that would inform consumers
that the foods contain, or risk containing, Heavy Metals and that
Heavy Metals can accumulate over time in a developing child's body
to the point where negative health outcomes can occur.

The Plaintiffs read and relied upon the labels and packaging of the
Prenatal Vitamins when making their purchasing decisions. Had the
Plaintiffs known the Defendants did not disclose the presence or
risk of Heavy Metals in their packaging, they would not have
purchased them, says the suit.

Bayer AG produces and markets healthcare and agricultural products.
The Company manufactures products that include aspirin,
antibiotics, anti-infectives, cardiovascular, oncology, central
nervous system drugs, over-the-counter medications, diagnostics,
and animal health products, as well as crop protection products,
plastics, and polyurethanes. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harris L. Pogust, Esq
          Joshua M. Neuman, Esq.
          Jordyn N. Mitzman, Esq.
          PGMBM, LLC
          161 Washington Street, Suite 250
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 941-4204
          Facsimile: (610) 941-4245

               -and-

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          Alexandra C. Warren, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          Email: charles@cuneolaw.com
                 awarren@cuneolaw.com

               -and-

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (866) 540-5055
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          Email: jcshah@millershah.com

               -and-

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          Megan S. Van Dyke, Esq.
          Catherine A. Peterson, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                  rapeterson@locklaw.com
                  msvandyke@locklaw.com
                  capeterson@locklaw.com

BLUE CROSS OF LOUISIANA: Faces Class Action Over BlueCard Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nona Tepper, writing for Modern Healthcare, reports that Blue Cross
of Louisiana may faces a class-action lawsuit over a national
program that requires providers contracted with Blue Cross Blue
Shield Association members to accept rates negotiated by Blues
plans from other states. [GN]

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Green Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Andy Green, Jr., Tina Culclager, Tangie Sims,
Golbenaz Bakhtiar, Richard Obrien, Virginia Aragon, Jeffrey Pisano,
Angel Cordero, Lt. Angel Vega, Clifton McKinnon, Gustavo Velasquez,
Jeannie Black, Joshua Winans, Marva Mccall, Michael Tomlinson,
Ricardo Moron, Roy Armstrong, Sharon Tweg, Sonia Diaz, Kathy
Jeffries, Earlene Green, Denise Guy, Heather Re, Vickie Anderson,
Rebecca Sizemore, Teresa Dowler, Charles Longfield, Janet Asbury,
Alberta Griffin, Ida Adams, Jerry Hunt, Jody Beal, Lakisha Wilson,
Brad Hoag, Donald Northrup, John Scholl, Beverly Crosby, John
Rachal, Antrenise Campbell, Lorie Kendall-Songer, Gaylord Stauffer,
Cesar Pinon, Lynn White, Mary McMillan, Mary Moronski, Sayed
Eldomiaty, Ernesto Sanchez, George Tapia, Benny Fazio, Francis
Neary, Joseph Mcpheter, Mary Mccullen, Migdalia Kinney, Richard
Froehlich, Dennis Robbins, Patricia Frazier, Teresa Lee, Chris
Troyan, Michael Galloway, Patricia Hess, Demarco Grayson, Kristi
Ledbetter, Nicholas Hazlett, Gloria Colon, Dale Hunter, Kenneth
Hix, Agapito It Aleman, Gina Martinez, Lilian Del Valle, Maria
Eames, Sylvia Yoshida, Ronda Lockett, Marianella Villanueva, Teresa
Waters, Cheryl Banks, Karen Foster, Dan Zhovtis, Dave Garber,
Jonathan Ferguson, Wendy Quezaire, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals
Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Corporation, Boehringer Ingelheim USA
Corporation, Boehringer Ingelheim International (GmbH), Boehringer
Ingelheim Promeco, S.A. de C.V., Case No. 3:22-cv-00125 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida on Feb. 24, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:22-cv-80289-RLR to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability.

Boehringer Ingelheim -- http://www.boehringer-ingelheim.com/-- is
one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies, and the
largest private one.[BN]


BURLINGTON STORES: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Burlington Stores,
Inc. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Burlington Stores, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-01018 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2022).

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

Burlington -- https://www.burlington.com/ -- formerly known as
Burlington Coat Factory, is an American national off-price
department store retailer, and a division of Burlington Coat
Factory Warehouse Corporation with 740 stores in 40 states and
Puerto Rico, with its corporate headquarters located in Burlington
Township, New Jersey.[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



BUTTERFLY NETWORK: Pomerantz Law Reminds of April 18 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 16 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Butterfly Network, Inc. ("Butterfly" or the
"Company") f/k/a Longview Acquisition Corp. ("Longview") (NYSE:
BFLY) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and
docketed under 22-cv-00854, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Butterfly securities between February 16, 2021
and November 15, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
and/or (b) all holders of Butterfly common stock as of the record
date for the special meeting of shareholders held on February 12,
2021 to consider approval of the merger between Longview and
Butterfly (the "Merger") and entitled to vote on the Merger;
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder,
against Defendants, and arising from the materially false or
misleading statements or omissions issued during the Class Period
and in the proxy statement issued in connection with the Merger
(the "Proxy").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Butterfly securities during
the Class Period, and/or (b) all holders of Butterfly common stock
as of the record date for the special meeting of shareholders held
on February 12, 2021 to consider approval of the Merger you have
until April 18, 2022 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead
Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Longview was a special purpose acquisition company formed for the
purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset
acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization, or similar business
combination with one or more businesses.

Butterfly, a digital health company, develops, manufactures, and
commercializes ultrasound imaging solutions in the United States
and internationally. The Company offers Butterfly iQ, a handheld
and single-probe whole body ultrasound system; and Butterfly iQ+, a
point-of-care ultrasound imaging device that connects with a smart
phone or tablet.

Between late 2019 and early 2020, a novel strain of the coronavirus
disease, commonly referred to as COVID-19, became an ongoing global
pandemic, with the outbreak first identified in Wuhan, China, in
December 2019. The virus quickly spread to other countries,
including the U.S., prompting state, federal, and private parties
to enact various health and safety measures to halt the spread of
the disease, which has since claimed millions of lives.

On November 20, 2020, almost one year into the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic, Butterfly issued a press release announcing that it had
entered into a merger agreement with Longview. On the basis of the
defective Proxy, on February 12, 2021, Longview shareholders voted
to approve the Merger at a special shareholder meeting. Following
the consummation of the Merger on February 16, 2021, Longview
changed its name to "Butterfly Network, Inc." and Butterfly stock
began trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

The complaint alleges that, The Proxy was negligently prepared and,
as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or
omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made
not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules
and regulations governing its preparation. Additionally, throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and
compliance policies. Specifically, the Proxy and Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Butterfly had overstated its post-Merger business and financial
prospects; (ii) notwithstanding the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic,
Butterfly's financial projections failed to take into account the
pandemic's broad consequences, which included healthcare logistical
challenges, and medical personnel fatigue; (iii) accordingly,
Butterfly's gross margin levels and revenue projections were less
sustainable than the Company had represented; (iv) all the
foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact
on Butterfly's business and financial condition; and (v) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On November 15, 2021, Butterfly announced its financial results for
the third quarter of 2021. In a press release, Butterfly advised,
among other things, that the Company's total gross margin for the
quarter was negative 35% and that the Company expected its revenue
for 2021 to be $60 million to $62 million this year, significantly
below the guidance it gave out in Q1 of $76 million to $80 million.
That same day, on an earnings call with investors and analysts to
discuss the Company's financial results for the third quarter,
Butterfly's CEO, Todd Fruchterman, stated that the Company's
results were impacted by "healthcare logistical challenges, and
doctor, nurse, and medical technician fatigue concurrent with COVID
conditions and it's broad consequences."

On this news, Butterfly's stock price fell $1.08 per share, or
12.55%, to close at $7.52 per share on November 15, 2021.

Subsequent to, and due to, the closing of the Merger, the price of
Butterfly common stock declined precipitously as the truth about
Butterfly and the Proxy's false and misleading nature were revealed
over time.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of securities class
actions. Today, more than 85 years later, Pomerantz continues in
the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the
victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomlaw.com

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]

CANADA: Class Action Seeks Removal of Sex Work-Related Records
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit
filed in British Columbia wants the court to order criminal records
related to sex work removed from police information systems nine
years after Canada's highest court threw out the laws.

The civil suit filed in B.C. Supreme Court says members of the
class-action had convictions, charges or police interactions
related to sex work before the Supreme Court of Canada struck down
key prostitution laws in 2013.

The top court found the laws that criminalized making money from
sex work violated constitutional rights to life, liberty and
security of the person, while advertising or purchasing sexual
services remains illegal.

The lawsuit says plaintiff Susan Davis wanted to volunteer for a
community policing foundation in 2020 and the disclosure of
sex-work offences through a criminal record check deprived her of
"control over when, where and who to tell about her convictions."

The City of Vancouver and its police department say they will file
their responses in court, while other defendants, including the
federal Justice Department and the RCMP, did not immediately
respond to requests for comment.

No statements of defence have yet been filed and none of the
allegations have been proven in court.

A statement from the B.C. Ministry of Attorney General, also named
as a defendant, says the province had not yet been served with the
claim and it wouldn't comment as the matter may be before the
courts.

The notice of claim, filed on Feb. 16, says criminal record checks
are required for many employment and volunteer positions and the
disclosure of sex-work records to potential employers, schools and
other organizations can have adverse consequences.

The lawsuit asks the court for an order requiring the defendants to
permanently delete all such records in their possession and for a
declaration that the retention and use of the records infringes on
constitutional rights and freedoms.

The suit says one or more of the defendants sent sex-work records
to immigration, border and policing authorities in the United
States, Australia and the European Union. It asks the court to
direct the Canadian government to take appropriate steps to request
that the other countries expunge those records.

"Sex-work records constitute private information of a personal and
confidential nature, and are not evidence of criminality," the
lawsuit says. "There is no lawful authority to keep, maintain, use,
access or disseminate sex work records." [GN]

CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Appeal Court Upholds Ruling in OT Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Annabel Oromoni, writing for Law Times, reports that the Ontario
Court of Appeal has upheld a motion judge's ruling that the
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) breached Canada Labour
Code overtime policies in a lengthy class action involving over
31,000 members.

The case confirms the law regarding an employer's duty to pay
overtime to workers and ensure all hours are recorded. It is the
only unpaid overtime class action in the country litigated to the
merits, co-counsel for the plaintiff, Louis Century says.

Century says the decision is a resounding vindication because CIBC
went to great lengths to undermine Superior Court Justice Edward
Belobaba's decision. "Unlike other similar class actions where the
bank defendants settled, CIBC chose to fight the case, and we now
have a decision on liability on the merits, finding that the bank
violated overtime law and a unanimous decision of the Court of
Appeal firming that decision."

Steven Barrett, another co-counsel for the plaintiff, says that
ensuring that the class members get compensated for the unpaid
overtime is the next step. He says Justice Belobaba's decision
opens the possibility of the plaintiffs quantifying unpaid wages
through an expert methodology rather than coming forward
individually.

"There's a hearing on that issue scheduled for the end of
September, but we're hopeful that the bank will be willing to sit
down and work out the payment for the CIBC employees unlawfully
deprived of overtime pay rather than continuing to fight this case
tooth and nail as they've done since 2007."

Counsel for CIBC did not respond to Law Times' request for
comment.

Justice Belobaba granted summary judgement on liability and
certified aggregate damages. He also decided that the class-wide
limitations order was more appropriately handled at an individual
hearing.

CIBC appealed Justice Belobaba's decision in its entirety. The
bank's liability appeal argued that Justice Belobaba misinterpreted
s. 174 of the Canada Labour Code and, in considering overtime
policies and related practices, contravened the requirements and
regulations of the code.

CIBC claimed its policies were developed in compliance with the
Canada Labour Code to pay for required overtime and never intended
to allow uncompensated work. They argued that Justice Belobaba
ignored evidence in the labour code used to form the overtime
policies in the employment contracts.

The appeal court agreed with Justice Belobaba's analysis that while
most arbitral decisions agree that s. 174 of the labour code
imposes a positive duty on employers to prevent employees from
actively working overtime hours, it does not conflict with
employers' right to manage the workforce.

"The risk of silence in the face of actual or constructive
knowledge falls on the employer. The motion judge did not impose a
duty on employers to compensate employees for overtime hours of
which it was not aware because an employer cannot permit what it
does not know."

CIBC also argued that Justice Belobaba erred in deciding that the
bank's 1993 and 2006 overtime policies and record-keeping practices
for tracking and compensating hours were institutional impediments
to class members' overtime claims, but the appeal court disagreed.

"When considering whether an employer's policy or practice serves
as an institutional impediment, the operative question is how
employees were harmed by it. If the policy creates a systemic
hurdle to appropriate compensation, then it operates as an
institutional impediment."

The appeal court upheld Justice Belobaba's decision to certify
aggregate damages, saying it was not yet clear whether statistical
sampling was necessary to fill evidentiary gaps. "If it is used,
the bank could challenge the result based on this ruling on the
sampling methodology," the court wrote.

In 2007, Dara Fresco started a class action against CIBC on behalf
of 31,000 customer service employees who worked for the bank
between 1993 and 2009. She claimed that two of the bank's policies
permitted employees to work overtime hours without appropriate
compensation, contrary to the Canada Labour Code.

The bank argued that its policies aimed to stop unnecessary
overtime from controlling costs and preventing overwork. However,
Fresco opposed, saying that the bank got the economic value of
overtime work without compensating employees.

Goldblatt Partners LLP, Roy O'Connor LLP and Sotos LLP represent
the class, and a hearing is scheduled for Sept. 28 to determine the
damages for unpaid hours. [GN]

CAPTURERX: May File Bankruptcy if Breach Settlement Not Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jill McKeon, writing for HealthITSecurity, reports that CaptureRx
CEO Chris Hotchkiss said the company would "strongly consider"
filing for bankruptcy if a $4.75 million settlement to resolve
multiple class-action lawsuits resulting from a 2021 data breach
that impacted 2.4 million individuals is not approved. The incident
was one of the largest healthcare data breaches of 2021.

Texas-based CaptureRx assists hospitals with managing their 340B
drug program, which aims to help patients get prescription drugs at
a lower cost. In February 2021, CaptureRx, also known as NEC
Networks, discovered malicious activity on its IT network that
resulted in data encryption and exfiltration.

CaptureRx first notified only 1.2 million individuals that their
protected health information (PHI) was part of the breach, but
further investigation revealed millions of additional victims. At
least 17 healthcare organizations later reported breaches tied to
CaptureRx to HHS, including MetroHealth System, Walmart, Catholic
Health, and Trinity Health System.

In the wake of the cyberattack, 10 lawsuits were brought against
CaptureRx, most of which alleged negligence, invasion of privacy,
and improper data protection measures. CaptureRx denied all
wrongdoing.

The proposed $4.75 million settlement aims to resolve all of them.
If approved, breach victims will be entitled to a payment of $25,
and California subclass members will be eligible for an additional
$75 to account for California privacy laws.

CaptureRx will also be given 90 days to "further develop,
implement, and maintain a comprehensive information security
program that is reasonably designed to protect the security,
integrity, and confidentiality of personal Information that
CaptureRx collects or obtains from patients," the document stated.

The approval hearing for the settlement has not yet been set. But
Hotchkiss stated that if litigation continues, CaptureRx may be on
the brink of bankruptcy.

"CaptureRx is not a large national or multinational company and has
limited resources," Hotchkiss said.

"CaptureRx has a wasting insurance policy related to this case. The
insurer is making a substantial contribution to the settlement but
based on its policy limits - the amount covered is less than half
of the total settlement."

Hotchkiss also revealed that CaptureRx's owners would be paying for
part of the settlement with their own money.

"CaptureRx faces demands for indemnity from numerous customers,
that were also named as Defendants in the class action cases, that
have and continue to put severe financial strain on the company,"
he continued.

"If the subject class action litigation does not settle, CaptureRx
will strongly consider filing for bankruptcy."

CaptureRx is the latest in a string of organizations that recently
settled cases stemming from healthcare data breaches.

Inmediata Health Group recently reached a $1.13 million settlement
to resolve a class-action lawsuit surrounding a 2019 data breach.
The lawsuit alleged that the healthcare clearinghouse failed to
secure PHI. The data breach impacted nearly 1.6 million patients.

Excellus and Blue Cross Blue Shield Association also recently
settled in a class-action lawsuit resulting from a 2015 data breach
that impacted 10.5 million people. If approved, Excellus will have
to pay upwards of $4 million and take steps to remedy
noncompliance. [GN]

CENGAGE LEARNING: Kleiner Files Suit in D. Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cengage Learning
Holdings II, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Fred Kleiner, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cengage
Learning Holdings II, Inc., Cengage Learning, Inc., Doe Affiliated
Entities 1-10, Case No. 1:22-cv-10245-RGS (D. Mass., Feb. 14,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for the Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Acts.

Cengage Learning Holdings II, Inc. -- https://www.cengage.com/ --
operates as a holding company. The Company, through its
subsidiaries, provides print and digital information services for
the academic, professional, and library markets worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward V. Colbert, III, Esq.
          CASNER & EDWARDS LLP
          303 Congress Street
          Boston, MA 02210
          Phone: (617) 426-5900
          Fax: (617) 426-8810
          Email: colbert@casneredwards.com


CGH TECHNOLOGIES: Pennington Appeals Damages Ruling to 11th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Matthew Pennington filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled MATTHEW PENNINGTON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CGH
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Foreign for Profit Corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 6:19-cv-02056-PGB-EJK, in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff now files anew a petition for a review of the Court's
Order dated Jan. 13, 2022, granting in part and denying in part his
motion for remittitur of damages in counts I and III and liquidated
damages after remittitur as to count I, and granting in part and
denying in part his motion to correct jury verdict and/or amend the
judgment or, in the alternative, for remittitur; Court's order
dated Jan. 26, 2022, granting Defendant's motion to correct amended
judgment; and Court's second amended judgment dated Jan. 27, 2022.

The appellate case is captioned as Matthew Pennington v. CGH
Technologies, Inc., Case No. 22-10478, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on February 10, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
before March 2, 2022 as to Appellant Matthew Pennington; and

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
before March 16, 2022 as to Appellee CGH Technologies, Inc.[BN]

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

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

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

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

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

CLEARFLO POOLS: Giron Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clearflo Pools, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Moses Giron, an individual on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Clearflo Pools,
Inc., Anderson Brandon, Does 1 Through 100, Case No. 22STCV05477
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 14, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."

Clearflo Pools -- https://www.clearflopools.com/ -- prides itself
on providing top quality pool service and construction.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sani Sam, Esq.
          SANI LAW, APC
          15720 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 405
          Encino, CA 91436-2999
          Phone: 310-935-0405
          Fax: 310-935-0409
          Email: ssani@sanilawfirm.com


CRICUT INC: Golson Sues Over Unapproved Autorenewal of Subscription
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIA GOLSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CRICUT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
CGC-22-598283 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., February 22, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendant for unfair competition,
conversion, false advertising, unjust enrichment/restitution,
negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and violation of California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in an illegal
automatic renewal scheme with respect to its subscription plans for
Cricut-branded products and services that are available exclusively
to consumers who enroll in the Defendant's auto-renewal membership
programs through its website or its mobile applications. Consumers
can sign up for the Defendant's Cricut subscriptions through either
the Cricut Website or the Cricut Apps. To do so, customers provide
the Defendant with their billing information, and the Defendant
then automatically charges its customers' payment method as
payments are due on a monthly or annual basis. The Defendant is
then able to unilaterally charge its customers renewal fees without
their consent, as it is in possession of its customers' payment
information. Thus, the Defendant has made the deliberate decision
to charge the Plaintiff and other similarly situated customers on a
monthly or yearly basis, relying on consumer confusion and inertia
to retain customers, combat consumer churn, and bolster its
revenues, says the suit.

Cricut, Inc. is a technology company, with its principal place of
business at 10855 South River Front Parkway, South Jordan, Utah.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
         Julia K. Venditti, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
         Walnut Creek, CA 94596
         Telephone: (925) 300-4455
         Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
         E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com
                 jvenditti@bursor.com

                - and –

         Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         888 Seventh Avenue
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (925) 300-4455
         Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
         E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com

CVS PHARMACY: Faces Class Action Over Baby Formula False Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
Irvin Jackson, writing for AboutLawsuits.com, reports that a class
action lawsuit filed by an Illinois woman claims that CVS baby
formula is deceptively advertised as a suitable product for older
children, which the lawsuit claims it is not.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Stephanie Surratt in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on February 5,
pursuing damages against CVS Pharmacy, Inc. for all consumers who
bought the store brand infant formula products.

According to the CVS baby formula class action, a product sold
under the generic brand "Toddler Beginnings" is labeled for use
among children between nine and 18 months of age. However, the
lawsuit claims that CVS is advertising the formula in a way that
makes it misleadingly similar to infant formula.

Surratt's claims this is intended to mislead parents into
continuing to feed their older children formula, even though it is
not nutritionally advantageous for the child. [GN]



D'S NATURALS: Lesh Files Suit Over Deceptive Trade Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
CAROL LESH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. D'S NATURALS, LLC d/b/a NO COW, Defendant,
Case No. 4:22-cv-01036-DMR (N.D. Cal., Feb. 18, 2022) brings this
class action against the Defendant to seek redress for its unlawful
and deceptive practices in labeling and marketing its consumer food
products sold under the brand name "No Cow."

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's
products are unlawfully, unfairly and deceptively misbranded. The
protein claims on the front of the package, such as such as "22g
PLANT PROTEIN" on the Lemon Meringue Pie flavor protein bars, are
unlawful and in violation of parallel state and federal
requirements because Defendant failed to provide a % daily value
for protein in the NFP calculated according to the PDCAAS
methodology.

D's Naturals, makers of the innovative "No Cow Bar", is a producer
of nutrient-rich snacks. The company is committed to producing
good-for-you healthy options without harmful ingredients. The No
Cow Bars are a line of high- protein bars with no added sugar or
artificial ingredients to deliver clean nutrition on-the-go. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

DECICCO AND SONS: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Decicco and Sons,
LLC. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Decicco and Sons, LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-01015-PKC-MMH (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2022).

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

DeCicco & Sons -- https://www.deciccoandsons.com/ -- is a food
production company based in Larchmont, New York.[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


DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Dep't to Cancel Student Loans Due to Fraud Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Cowley, writing for The New York Times, reports that the
Education Department will cancel federal student loans for at least
1,800 students who attended DeVry University, once one of the
nation's largest for-profit college chains, because it fraudulently
lured in applicants for years with vastly inflated claims about
their career prospects.

While the department has stepped up its discharges of debts for
students who were victimized by their schools, the decision
announced on Feb. 16 is its first approval of fraud claims
involving a school that is still operating.

The claims approved on Feb. 16 are just the start, officials said.
They want other students who attended DeVry during the time it was
making its false promises to apply for relief.

Between 2008 and 2015, department officials said, DeVry advertised
that 90 percent of its graduates found work in their field of study
within six months. In reality, only 58 percent did. School
officials knew of the discrepancy and ignored complaints about it
from alumni, department officials said.

Until Feb. 16, the department had taken action only against schools
that had closed down, including large chains like Corinthian
Colleges and smaller ones like the Marinello Schools of Beauty.

"We do think that it is really important to show that we are
willing to take these actions against open schools, and that there
will be liabilities for the current owners of open schools," James
Kvaal, the under secretary of education, said at a news
conference.

While noting that the claims occurred when DeVry was under
different leadership, a school spokeswoman, Donna Shaults, said
DeVry believed that the Education Department had mischaracterized
the school's statements about its graduates' outcomes.

"We do not agree with the conclusions they have reached," she
said.

Officials cast the action as one of several moves to revitalize an
Education Department enforcement arm that was eviscerated during
the Trump administration. Betsy DeVos, President Donald J. Trump's
education secretary, repeatedly stymied investigations into
for-profit schools and appointed Julian Schmoke -- a former dean at
DeVry -- to lead the agency's enforcement division.

For four years, Ms. DeVos's agency approved no new grounds for
claims from defrauded students, and rejected 130,000 in what
amounted to rubber-stamp denials. Those rejections, and other
stalled claims that sat undecided for years, are now the subject of
a class-action lawsuit involving some 200,000 borrowers.

The Education Department said in a court filing in January that it
was close to settling that case and hoped to announce a deal by
April.

The 1,800 former DeVry students approved for relief through the
student fraud claim discharge system, known as "borrower defense to
repayment," will have nearly $72 million in loans forgiven.

That means they will not have to repay loans made with taxpayer
money. The department said it would pursue DeVry's current owner,
Cogswell Capital, for compensation.

Cogswell Capital is an investment firm run by Bradley Palmer, a
venture capitalist and financier. Mr. Palmer, who had no experience
working in higher education, bought DeVry in 2018 from Adtalem
Global Education, which operated several for-profit schools.
Adtalem had called itself DeVry but changed its name in 2017 after
a series of scandals involving the school.

In 2016, DeVry agreed to pay $100 million to settle a Federal Trade
Commission lawsuit over its misleading claims about its graduates'
careers and earnings. A year later, DeVry settled similar claims
brought by New York and Massachusetts.

A message left at Palm Ventures, which Mr. Palmer has described as
a family office that manages his family's assets, was not
immediately returned. A representative for Adtalem did not
immediately return a message seeking comment.

The Education Department said it had also approved borrower defense
claims from former students at ITT Technical Institute's nursing
program, the Minnesota School of Business (also known as Globe
University) and Westwood College. Including DeVry, the approvals
announced on Feb. 16 will wipe out $415 million in debt for 16,000
borrowers. [GN]

DIASPORA TEA & HERB: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diaspora Tea & Herb
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Diaspora Tea & Herb
Company, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01546 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2022).

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

Diaspora Tea & Herb Company -- https://www.diasporaco.com/ -- is
building a better spice trade, equitably and deliciously.[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


FASTENAL CO: Class Settlement in Jackson Suit Wins Prelim. Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MIESHIA MARIE JACKSON, et al., Plaintiffs v. FASTENAL
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00345-NONE-SAB (E.D. Cal.),
Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California preliminarily approved the class
action settlement.

Ms. Jackson brings the action on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated against Fastenal, alleging various wage and hour
violations under California state law. On Oct. 22, 2021, the
Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for order granting preliminary
approval of class action settlement.

On Dec. 3, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and
recommendations that the class action settlement be preliminarily
approved. The parties were granted 14 days during which to file
objections to the findings and recommendation. The deadline to file
objections has passed and no objections to the findings and
recommendations were filed.

On Jan. 19, 2022, the Court ordered additional briefing on a
limited range of issues related to the objection procedures and
deadlines, and to language contained within the settlement
agreement that appeared to limit the range of advice the counsel
could provide the putative class members. On Feb. 10, 2022, the
parties submitted a stipulation addressing the Court's concerns by
amending the settlement agreement to modify the objection procedure
and objection deadline, and to remove the settlement language of
concern to the Court.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section
636(b)(1)(C), Judge Thurston has conducted a de novo review of the
case. In light of the stipulated amendments to the settlement
agreement, she finds that the findings and recommendations are
supported by the record and proper analysis.

Thus, Judge Thurston adopted the findings and recommendations
issued Dec. 3, 2021. She granted the Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement as follows:

     a. The following class is preliminarily certified for
settlement purposes only, and deemed to meet all of the
requirements for class certification: All hourly non-exempt
individuals who are or were employed by the Defendant in California
at any point from Jan. 21, 2016 through July 16, 2021.

     b. The settlement is preliminarily approved, based on the
finding that the settlement agreement, as amended, complies with
the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
23(b)(3);

     c. The proposed class notice and share form to be disseminated
to the class members, in substantially the form attached to the
amended settlement agreement, is approved;

     d. The procedure for the class members to participate in, opt
out of, and object to the amended settlement is approved as set
forth in the amended settlement agreement;

     e. The class notice and share form will be mailed by first
class U.S. Mail to the class members in accordance with the
implementation schedule;

     f. Mieshia Marie Jackson is appointed as the class
representative;

     g. Craig J. Ackerman of Ackerman & Tilajef, P.C. and Jonathan
Melmed of Melmed Law Group P.C. are appointed as the class
counsel;

     h. CPT Group, Inc. is appointed as the settlement
administrator to administer the settlement pursuant to the terms of
the amended settlement agreement;

     i. The Court will set a final approval and fairness hearing
and schedule based upon the implementation schedule set forth in
the motion for preliminary approval by separate order; and

     j. The Class counsel is directed to communicate to the Court
preferred dates for the final approval and fairness hearing by
emailing them to Courtroom Deputy Irma Munoz at
imunoz@caed.uscourts.gov.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3r2bchrf from Leagle.com.


FLINT, MI: Bids to Review Final Approval of Class Settlement Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Flint Water Cases. This Order Relates To ALL
CASES, Case 5:16-cv-10444-JEL-EAS (E.D. Mich.), Judge Judith E.
Levy of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division:

    (i) denied Dr. Reynolds' and the Chapman/Lowery Objectors'
        motions for reconsideration of the final settlement
        approval; and

   (ii) granted in part the Chapman/Lowery Objectors' motion to
        seal portions of their motion for reconsideration and an
        accompanying exhibit.

I. Background

On Nov. 10, 2021, the Court granted final approval of a partial
settlement of the Flint Water Cases. As stated in that Order, the
settlement "involves tens of thousands of Minors, Adults,
individuals and entities who owned or leased residential property,
and individuals and entities who owned or operated a business, all
of whom allege that they suffered losses and damages resulting from
the Defendants' roles in the Flint Water Crisis." The Defendants
participating in the settlement include: The State of Michigan and
its individual officials; the City of Flint, its City Emergency
Managers, and several City employees; McLaren Health Care Corp.,
McLaren Regional Medical Center, and McLaren Flint Hospital; and
Rowe Professional Services Co.

The Movants are Dr. Lawrence A. Reynolds, M.D., FAAP and the
Chapman/Lowery Objectors. Both Dr. Reynolds and the Chapman/Lowery
Objectors filed objections to the Plaintiffs' motion for Final
Approval of the settlement. The Court denied the objections. Now,
Dr. Reynolds and the Chapman/Lowery Objectors seek reconsideration
of that decision. The Chapman/Lowery Objectors moved to seal
portions of their motion for reconsideration and an accompanying
exhibit.

II. Analysis

A. The Chapman/Lowery Objectors' Motion to Seal is Granted in Part

Judge Levy must make her decision based on the following three
factors: "Why the interests in support of nondisclosure are
compelling, why the interests supporting access are less so, and
why the seal itself is no broader than necessary." The
Chapman/Lowery Objectors argue that the portions of their brief and
its accompanying exhibit "consists of documents produced by Harvard
University in response to a subpoena from Defendant Veolia North
America ("VNA") and which has been designated as 'Confidential' by
Harvard University."

The sealed exhibit to the Chapman/Lowery Objectors' motion consists
of 119 pages in total. Of these, 104 pages list names of
individuals, their dates of birth, and what appears to be results
of bone-lead level testing. Thirteen pages contain invoice and
payment information related to Dr. Aaron Specht, who is one of
Co-Liaison Counsel for the Individual Plaintiffs' expert witnesses
related to bone lead testing. Four pages contain e-mails regarding
bone lead testing equipment and one page contains e-mails related
to the use of bone lead testing. The remaining two sealed pages are
cover sheets.

As to factors one and two -- why the interests in nondisclosure are
compelling and why the interests supporting access are less so --
Judge Levy holds that the Chapman/Lowery Objectors have not set
forth reasons for sealing the material other than that Harvard
University designated the materials as confidential when produced
to VNA. Sealing this material is consistent with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 5.2, which prohibits electronic filing of certain
information, including a date of birth and the name of an
individual known to be a minor. For these 104 pages, the interests
of nondisclosure are more compelling than the interests supporting
access, and accordingly the first two Shane Group factors are met.

As to the third Shane Group factor -- why the seal itself is no
broader than necessary -- the 104 pages only contain a list of
names, birthdates, and bone lead testing results. There is no other
information and accordingly, it is appropriate to seal these pages
in their entirety. The decision to seal this portion of the records
is narrowly tailored to cover only the sensitive information.
Accordingly, the third Shane Group Factor is satisfied for the 104
pages, which are, specifically, the following pages: ECF No. 2022
*SEALED*, PageID.70247-70351. These pages should remain sealed.

As to the remaining pages in ECF No. 2022, it is not evident on
their face why Harvard University designated as confidential
invoices, payment information, and emails related to Dr. Specht,
bone lead testing equipment, and bone lead testing. No parties (or
non-parties, i.e. the producing entity Harvard University) have set
forth reasons why these documents should remain sealed under the
Confidentiality Order.

Despite this, a provisional seal is granted for these pages. Judge
Levy extends the time for the producing party or other interested
party to set forth reasons why these items should remain sealed to
March 11, 2022. If no such requests are filed, the Chapman/Lowery
Objectors are ordered to re-file these pages on the docket as
provided in the Confidentiality Order.

In conclusion, Judge Levy granted in part the Chapman/Lowery
Objectors' request to seal portions of its filings related to its
motion for reconsideration.

B. Background Regarding Movants' Position as Non-Class Member
Objectors

As set forth in the Final Approval Order, the ASA involves both
class and non-class claims and cases. Both Dr. Reynolds and the
Chapman/Lowery Objectors are non-class participants to the
settlement. Accordingly, Judge Levy holds that the Chapman/Lowery
Objectors' arguments that the Court's Final Approval Order does not
conform with the fairness requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, which is applicable only to class cases and claims,
does not align with their own circumstances. Instead, "in non-class
action cases, the parties may settle the case and stipulate to its
dismissal without obtaining court approval. But for the fact that
the settlement involved class cases and claims as well as minor
children, Court approval of the ASA would not have been required at
all. Accordingly, the Court was not required to review and approve
of the ASA as it relates to either of the movants.

The ASA, however, does not limit objections to class members only.
Therefore, Judge Levy accepted and considered the movants'
objections at that time and will evaluate their motions for
reconsideration -- though, she will not do so under Rule 23's
standard as urged in the objections.

C. Dr. Reynolds And The Chapman/Lowery Objectors' Arguments That
The MIOSHA Documents Are "New Evidence" Necessitating A Different
Result Are Denied

Both Dr. Reynolds and the Chapman/Lowery Objectors argue that the
Court should reconsider its decision granting final approval
because the result of the Special Master's Freedom of Information
Act ("FOIA") request to the Michigan Department of Occupational
Safety and Health Administration ("MIOSHA") constitutes newly
discovered evidence that compels the Court to reach a different
outcome. Judge Levy rejected their argument.

As background, the Special Master describes the MIOSHA FOIA
material at issue in her filing entitled, Notice of the Special
Master Regarding Information Provided by the Michigan Occupational
Safety and Health Administration. The Special Master issued the
FOIA request at the Court's direction on approximately Sept. 17,
2021. MIOSHA granted the Special Master's FOIA request in part and
denied it in part. (After she obtained the materials from MIOSHA,
the Special Master reviewed them, prepared the Special Master's
Notice, and filed the materials on the docket on Nov. 10, 2021.
Later that same day, the Court issued the Final Approval Order.

In the Final Approval Order, the Court stated at the end of its
discussion related to MIOSHA: Due to delays beyond the control of
the Special Master or the Court, the requested documents have only
recently been made available to the Special Master. The Court may
supplement this portion of the Opinion and Order after it receives
and reviews the information obtained by the Special Master, if
necessary.

Based on this portion of the Final Approval Order, Dr. Reynolds
argues that as a threshold matter, the Court entered its ruling on
this issue without having reviewed the documentation from MIOSHA
related to its investigation or inspection of the use of the bone
scan devices. At the very least, the Court should reconsider the
portion of its Order on this issue to include the findings from its
review of the MIOSHA documentation.

Judge Levy rejects Dr. Reynolds' argument that the Court should
have waited for the MIOSHA FOIA to be completed before issuing the
Final Approval Order and further disagrees that reconsideration is
necessary because there is no new information in the MIOSHA
materials that suggests that the final approval was improper. She
says, the Court need not have waited further, particularly where
there were over 50,000 Claimants who had registered for the
settlement already and were eager to learn whether the Court would
grant it final approval. Nothing in the MIOSHA material provides
grounds for changing the outcome of the Final Approval Order. The
Court's rulings related to the MIOSHA material and Napoli Program
remain unchanged and a supplement or amendment to the Court's Final
Approval Order is unnecessary.

Accordingly, the position of Dr. Reynolds and the Chapman/Lowery
Objectors that the MIOSHA documents demonstrate a palpable error in
the Final Approval Order requiring a different outcome is without
merit. Both Dr. Reynolds and the Chapman/Lowery Objectors' motions
for reconsideration related to the MIOSHA documents are rejected.

D. The Remainder of Dr. Reynolds' And The Chapman/Lowery Objectors'
Arguments In Their Motions For Reconsideration Are Denied

1. Reconsideration of the Court's Characterization of Thermo
Fisher's Letter Is Unnecessary

Dr. Reynolds argues that the record does not support the Court's
characterization of Thermo Fisher's motivations in its letter to
the Napoli law firm. This argument relates to the portion of the
Final Approval Order where the Court set forth the full text of a
May 12, 2021 letter to from Thermo Scientific, a manufacturer of
hand-held pXRF devices, to Barbara Krohmer of the Napoli Shkolnik
law firm. Dr. Reynolds takes issue with the portion of the Court's
Order.

Judge Levy holds that Thermo Fisher's letter regarding the pXRF
handheld device does not change the Court's decision that the ASA
is a fair, adequate, and reasonable outcome of the litigation. The
fact that Thermo Fisher may have communicated with Dr. Specht in
2019 does not affect the overall fairness of the ASA or the Court's
approval of it. More important than whether the Court's
characterization of Thermo Fisher's letter is correct is that this
interpretation makes no difference to the outcome. The
Chapman/Lowery Objectors' argument that the Court is somehow a
party to an illegal use of Thermo Fisher's device is baseless.
MIOSHA did not fine or criminally charge Napoli Shkolnik, and Judge
Levy defers to MIOSHA to enforce its own regulations. Accordingly,
these arguments are denied.

2. The Court Need Not Have Delayed Issuing the Final Approval Order
Until A Thermo-Fisher Deposition or Other Discovery Could Take
Place

Dr. Reynolds argues that a Thermo Fisher representative was
scheduled to be deposed on Sept. 2, 2021, but the deposition was
postponed. The rescheduling of the deposition was forthcoming
before the Order was issued. The Court issued its Order without the
benefit of that direct and highly relevant testimony of Thermo
Fisher.

Judge Levy opines that it is unclear what the palpable error
committed by the Court is alleged to be based on this argument. She
says the Court need not have waited on the scheduling or
rescheduling of depositions of non-party representatives before
issuing an order on a fully briefed and argued motion.
Additionally, the Court did not base its opinion on an "incomplete
record" as Dr. Reynolds suggests. Once again, Judge Levy has
reviewed extensive and voluminous briefs, expert reports,
declarations of subclass counsel, and portions of extensive
discovery that was taken before the settlement was achieved. The
record is anything but incomplete, and all the evidence points to
one conclusion -- that Final Approval was and is appropriate in the
case.

For the same reasons set forth, Judge Levy rejects the argument
that Dr. Reynolds and others could not have supported their
objections with more facts at the time their objections were filed.
There was nothing whatsoever barring Dr. Reynolds or anyone else
from conducting discovery, hiring experts, or taking any other
steps to support their objections. And in any event, the
"withdrawn" motion remains on the docket to this day. Dr. Reynolds
may review it at any time.

Additionally, Judge Levy rejects Dr. Reynolds' argument that the
Court created an impossibility with the expectation that objectors
should have facts and evidence in support of their arguments. But a
party in litigation must obtain facts to support their arguments
and positions in court. Indeed, Dr. Reynolds could have, for
example, obtained expert testimony regarding radiation and/or pXRF
bone lead testing, but he did not do so. Instead, as he admits,
"there is no evidence in the record to contradict the documentation
provided by Plaintiffs' counsel on the bone scans." This argument
is rejected.

3. Reconsideration of the Court's Decision Not to Hold an
Evidentiary Hearing Related to the Napoli Program is Denied

Dr. Reynolds argues that the Court should have held an evidentiary
hearing to allow him to present more evidence to support his
claims. The Final Approval hearing was such an opportunity. At the
Final Approval hearing, the parties clarified that Dr. Reynolds was
heard as an individual and not as an expert witness. On Sept. 7,
2021, Dr. Reynolds filed a motion for leave to file a sur-reply,
where he sought identical relief. The Court denied his motion for
the reasons set forth in its Order dated Sept. 17, 2021. If, by
refreshing his request for an evidentiary hearing, Dr. Reynolds is
seeking to have the Court reconsider that decision, Judge Levy
finds it untimely and she denied it.

4. The Remaining Arguments are Denied

The remainder of Dr. Reynolds' motion re-argues the points that he
made in his objection. For example, Dr. Reynolds' reiterates his
opposition to the Compensation Grid's method of providing a
different level of compensation depending on the amount of proof
that a Claimant submits. In particular, he opposes the Compensation
Grid's inclusion of bone lead testing as a method of proof. Again,
Judge Levy can only approve or reject a settlement in its entirety.
These arguments were all presented in his original filings and were
thoroughly addressed in the Final Approval Order. His arguments are
also belied by the overwhelming acceptance of the settlement.

The Chapman/Lowery Objectors' argue that the Harvard University and
Purdue University documents they cite are newly discovered
evidence. Although some of these documents were not submitted to
the Court earlier, JUdge Levy opines that they do not constitute
new evidence that demonstrates a palpable error in the Final
Approval Order. They do not make a difference to the outcome in any
event. The bottom line is that Dr. Nie could not do what was asked
of her at the specific time it was asked either by the
Chapman/Lowery Objectors or Co-Lead Class Counsel. This does not
change the result of the Final Approval Order.

The Chapman/Lowery Objectors provide more details in their motion
for reconsideration regarding their position on the Napoli
Program's consent form and the cost of a scan performed at the
Napoli Program. They argue that the documents produced by Harvard
University in response to a VNA subpoena demonstrate that there
were a large number of bone lead tests conducted in total and that
therefore, bone lead testing is the "predominant means by which
claimants could qualify for an enhanced award." Judge Levy rejects
this argument. She opines that the documents produced by Harvard
University have nothing to do with the Napoli Program's consent
form or $500 per scan charge.

The Chapman/Lowery Objectors have been taking the position that
bone lead tests conducted by the Napoli Program are invalid due to
Thermo Fisher and MIOSHA's purported positions and also that more
tests should have been made available for themselves. They cannot
have it both ways.

The record demonstrates that the Napoli Program began bone lead
testing well before the settlement was achieved. The testing was
pertinent to the litigation regardless of its later inclusion as
one of many proofs set forth in the Compensation Grid. Accordingly,
Judge Levy rejects the underlying argument that the Napoli Program
unfairly favored Napoli Shkolnik's clients. The bone lead testing
results would have apparently been part of the Plaintiffs'
litigation proofs regardless of whether it was included in the ASA.
Bone lead test results are most certainly a part of the proofs in
the first bellwether trial, which is currently ongoing.

III. Conclusion

In sum, Judge Levy denied the motions for reconsideration are
denied for the reasons she set forth. She concludes that many, if
not all, of the arguments made in the motions "present the same
issues already ruled upon by the Court."  And all of the arguments
made in the motions for reconsideration fail to identify "a
palpable defect" that, if corrected "will result in a different
disposition of the case."

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 18, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/n7kbdu5r from Leagle.com.


GATE GOURMET: Diaz Wage-and-Hour Suit Moved From C.D. to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALICIA NOEMI BAUTISTA DIAZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. GATE GOURMET, INC., and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-09454, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on February 24, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-01136-JCS to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California' Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum and regular rate wages,
failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to authorize and permit rest breaks, failure to
timely pay final wages at termination, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, and unfair business practices.

Gate Gourmet, Inc. is a global airline catering, retail onboard and
equipment solutions provider, headquartered in Reston, Virginia.
[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Douglas J. Farmer, Esq.
         Brian D. Berry, Esq.
         Sean M. Kramer, Esq.
         OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
         Steuart Tower, Suite 1300
         One Market Plaza
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Telephone: (415) 442-4810
         Facsimile: (415) 442-4870
         E-mail: douglas.farmer@ogletree.com
                 brian.berry@ogletree.com
                 sean.kramer@ogletree.com

GOLD EAGLE CO: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gold Eagle Co. The
case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Gold Eagle Co., Case No.
1:22-cv-01508 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2022).

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

Gold Eagle Co. -- https://www.goldeagle.com/ -- manufactures and
distributes automotive aftermarket fluids and additives.[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


GOLDEN STATE FC: Guerrero Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jennifer Guerrero, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Golden State FC LLC (now known as
Amazon.com Services LLC), Amazon.com Services LLC, Amazon.com,
Inc., Case No. CGC-21-597377 was removed from the San Francisco
Superior Cour, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on Feb. 24, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-01161 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.

Golden State FC LLC now known as Amazon Services LLC --
https://www.amazon.com/ -- offers many of the Web service platforms
that are Amazon offers.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Megan M. Cooney, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612-4412
          Phone: (949) 451-3800
          Fax: (949) 451-4220
          Email: MCooney@gibsondunn.com


GOYA FOODS: N.J. Court Narrows Claims in Mejias' 2nd Amended Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANIBAL MEJIAS, et al., Plaintiffs v. GOYA FOODS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-12365 (BRM) (LDW) (D.N.J.), Judge Brian
R. Martinotti of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey granted in part and denied in part Goya's Partial Motion to
Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.

I. Background

Plaintiffs Anibal Mejias, Jerry Fuller, Dennis Minter, and Jose
Pena bring the putative class action against Goya. Goya is a New
Jersey-based company manufacturing food products.

The Plaintiffs worked for Goya as truck drivers for various periods
between 2010 and 2019. The four Plaintiffs were named as class
representatives who formerly contracted with Goya to deliver food
products in various states. The Plaintiffs allege that they "signed
a form agreement with Goya labeled Independent Contractor's Service
Agreement."

Plaintiff Mejias worked in North Carolina and South Carolina,
Minter worked in New Jersey, Fuller worked in New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware, and Pena worked in New
Jersey, Maryland, and Delaware.

On Dec. 7, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended
Complaint against Goya. The Second Amended Complaint alleges Goya
unlawfully designated the Plaintiffs and other truck drivers as
independent contractors and withheld compensation. The Plaintiffs
allege two putative classes under New Jersey state law: (1) a New
Jersey Wage Deduction Class; and (2) a New Jersey Overtime Class.

The New Jersey Wage Deduction class is defined as: All truck
drivers who performed work for Goya in the State of New Jersey and
who were designated as independent contractors or owner operators
and from whom Goya withheld wages by deducting money associated
with truck and equipment rental, truck repairs and maintenance,
permits and licenses, fuel, mileage taxes, fees, tolls, insurance,
health insurance, returned or damaged products, and/or other
deductions set forth in Goya's records, between July 18, 2013 and
the present (the New Jersey Wage Deduction Class).

The New Jersey Overtime Class is defined as: All truck drivers who
performed work for Goya in the State of New Jersey and who were
designated as independent contractors or owner operators, and who
were not paid overtime compensation when they worked over forty
(40) hours in a workweek, at any time between July 18, 2017 and the
present (the New Jersey Overtime Class).

Plaintiffs Minter, Fuller, and Pena serve as the class
representatives for both putative classes.

The Second Amended Complaint alleges (1) violation of the New
Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL"), N.J. Stat. Ann. Section
34:11-4.1, et seq., for making improper deductions from the
Plaintiffs' wages (on behalf of Minter, Fuller, Pena, and the New
Jersey Wage Deduction Class) under Count One; (2) violation of the
New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), N.J. Stat. Ann. Section
34:11-56, et seq., for failure to pay the Plaintiffs overtime (on
behalf of Minter, Fuller, Pena, and the New Jersey Overtime Class)
under Count Two; violations of the NJWPL on behalf of Mejias
individually (Count Three); (4) violations of the NJWHL on behalf
of Mejias individually (Count Four); and, alternatively, (5)
violations of the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act ("SCPWA"),
S.C. Code Ann. Section 41-10-10, et seq., for making improper
deductions from his wages on behalf of Mejias individually (Count
Five).

On Sept. 7, 2021, Goya filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss, seeking
to dismiss Count One, Count Three, Count Four, and Count Five. On
Sept. 4, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their opposition. On Sept. 12,
2021, Goya filed its reply. On Sept. 13, 2021, the Plaintiffs
requested leave to file a sur-reply. The Court granted the
Plaintiffs' request.

II. Discussion

A. Whether TIL regulations preempt NJWPL and SCPWA

Goya argues the Plaintiffs' wage deduction claims arising under
NJWPL (Count One) and SCPWA (Count Five) should be dismissed
because the federal Truth in Leasing ("TIL") regulations permit the
wage deductions at issue in the Second Amended Complaint, and to
the extent the state statutes are found to prohibit the deductions
at issue, TIL regulations preempt NJWPL and SCPWA.

The Plaintiffs counter the TIL regulations do not apply to them
because they could be considered "agents" of Goya and the TIL
regulations do not apply to agents. They argue determining whether
they are agents is a factual determination that is inappropriate at
the motion to dismiss stage. They also contend, to the extent the
TIL regulations may be deemed to apply to them, these regulations
do not preempt state law. To that end, the Plaintiffs argue: (1)
the TIL regulations speak only to disclosure requirements, not
substantive rights; (2) Goya cannot overcome the presumption
against preemption; and (3) the deductions taken by Goya are
prohibited under state law.

Judge Martinotti opines that the Goya failed to meet its burden to
prove TIL regulations preempt state law. First, he finds that Goya
failed to show the Plaintiffs' claims are definitively governed by
the TIL regulations, and, therefore, failed to establish its
affirmative defense of preemption is apparent on the face of the
Plaintiffs' complaint. Goya failed to show the Plaintiffs' claims
are definitively governed by the TIL regulations, and, therefore,
failed to establish its affirmative defense of preemption is
apparent on the face of the Plaintiffs' complaint. Third, in
essence, Goya is asking the Court to conclude the TIL regulations
control the Plaintiffs' claim, not NJWPL and SCPWA. Judge
Martinotti finds Goya's position inconsistent with federal policy.
For these reasons, Goya's motion to dismiss Count One and Count
Five is denied.

B. Whether the NJWPL and NJWHL regulate conduct outside the state

Goya argues Count Three and Count Four must be dismissed because
Mejias cannot assert a claim under NJWPL and NJWHL as he did not
work in New Jersey. The Plaintiffs respond the Court may apply New
Jersey law to Mejias' claims because Mejias is seeking to "regulate
conduct within the State of New Jersey," and the purported
wrongdoings were committed by "a New Jersey Company, within New
Jersey, from its headquarters in the State."

Judge Martinotti holds that New Jersey law does not regulate
conduct outside the state. He finds the NJWPL and NJWHL do not
apply to employees based outside of New Jersey. In the case, the
Plaintiffs do not allege Mejias ever worked in New Jersey.
Therefore, they failed to state an NJWPL or NJWHL claim. For these
reasons, Goya's motion to dismiss Count Three and Count Four is
granted.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Martinotti granted in part and
denied in part Goya's Partial Motion to Dismiss. Goya's Motion to
Dismiss Count One (violations of NJWPL) and Count Five (violations
of SCPWA) is denied. Goya's Motion to Dismiss Count Three
(violations of NJWPL on behalf of Mejias) and Count Four
(violations of NJWHL on behalf of Mejias) is granted, and Count
Three and Count Four of the Second Amended Complaint are dismissed
without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 18, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/mr2fk65y from Leagle.com.


GRKSTL TRANSPORTATION: Pike Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GRKSTL
Transportation, Inc. The case is styled as Kayla Pike, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GRKSTL
Transportation, Inc., Case No. 4:22-cv-04018-SOH (W.D. Ark., Feb.
22, 2022).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act for Denial of Overtime Compensation.

GRKSTL Transportation Inc. is located in Texarkana, AR, United
States and is part of the Other Support Activities for
Transportation Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM
          10800 Financial Centre Parkway
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Phone: (501) 904-1649
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


HEALTH CAROUSEL: Faces Class Action Over Coercive Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andy Brownfield, writing for Cincinnati Business Courier, reports
that a class-action lawsuit filed against staffing firm Health
Carousel accuses it of using coercive practices to keep employees
from leaving.

Three former employees - all Filipino women - of Norwood-based
Health Carousel have filed a lawsuit accusing it of creating a work
environment that made it exceedingly difficult for those women to
leave their employment with the company, in a way they claim
violates federal and state human trafficking laws. [GN]

HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Class Cert. Hearing Continued to March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Hon. Judge
Vince Chhabria entered an order granting the parties stipulation
that the class certification hearing be continued to March 31,
2022.

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 Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JJAGIQ 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

HIPPY TREE: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hippy Tree, LLC. The
case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Hippy Tree, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01511 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2022).

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

HippyTree -- https://www.hippytree.com/ -- is an original surf &
stone apparel company, dedicated to designing products that embody
the surf and climbing lifestyle.[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


HIREVUE INC: Paul Hastings Attorney Discusses BIPA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth M. Willner, Esq., and and Claire Saba, Esq., of Paul
Hastings LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that a recently
filed class action lawsuit alleges a hiring platform company, which
used artificial intelligence ("AI") to assess job candidates during
video interviews, illegally collected facial data for analysis. The
prospective class alleges multiple violations of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act[1] ("BIPA"), which places limits
on the use of biometric identifiers or biometric information in
Illinois. Under BIPA, biometric identifiers include a retina or
iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face
geometry. BIPA broadly defines biometric information as "any
information" that is based on an individual's biometric identifier
used to identify an individual. This lawsuit is a reminder of the
risks for employers using AI or biometric information in employment
assessments.

BIPA Requirements and Prohibitions

BIPA requires private entities, including employers, that "collect,
capture, purchase, receive . . . or otherwise obtain" biometric
identifiers or information, such as face geometry, in Illinois, to
satisfy three requirements. First, the entity must inform the
person in writing that a biometric identifier or biometric
information is being collected or stored. Second, the entity must
inform the subject in writing of the specific purpose and length of
term for which a biometric identifier or biometric information is
being collected, stored, and used. And third, the entity must
receive a written release from the subject.

BIPA also requires entities, including employers in Illinois, that
process biometric identifiers or information to develop and
publicize a written policy establishing a retention schedule and
guidelines for permanently destroying the biometric identifiers or
information. BIPA prohibits entities, including employers in
Illinois, from selling or otherwise profiting from a person's or
customer's biometric identifiers or biometric information.

Individuals can recover liquidated damages of $1,000 or actual
damages per violation, whichever is greater, along with attorneys'
fees and expert witness fees. Liquidated damages increase to $5,000
if the violation is intentional or reckless.

The Proposed Class Action

On January 27, 2022, an Illinois resident filed a class action
complaint in Illinois state court against the hiring platform
company HireVue alleging violations of BIPA.[2] The complaint
claims that the company illegally collected facial data for
analysis without written permission when the plaintiff interviewed
for a job through HireVue's online platform. The complaint also
accuses HireVue of profiting from her and other potential class
members' facial biometric identifiers. Finally, the complaint
alleges HireVue failed to provide a publicly available retention
schedule and/or guidelines for permanently destroying the
biometrics.

The plaintiff seeks to represent herself and "thousands of members
of the Class" "whose biometrics were captured, collected, received
. . . or otherwise obtained" through HireVue's video interview
software within the state of Illinois any time within the
applicable limitations period.[3]

Other Laws Directed Specifically at Artificial Intelligence

Employers should be aware of other states that have passed laws
affecting biometrics. Arkansas, Texas and Washington have passed
similar Biometric Privacy Laws.[4] California adopted a
comprehensive privacy statute, the California Consumer Privacy Act,
that requires employers to issue notices to applicants and
employees, which describe the categories of information being
collected, as well as how the information is collected, used,
shared, and disposed of.[5] Maryland prohibits employers from using
facial recognition technology during pre-employment job interviews,
unless the applicant consents by signing a specified waiver.[6]

Other state and local legislatures have passed legislation that
specifically addresses AI. Effective in 2023, New York City law
will prohibit the use of automated hiring and promotion tools in
New York City unless those tools have been subject to a bias
audit.[7] The New York City law also will require employers to
notify employees or candidates who reside there if the tool was
used to make job decisions.

Another Illinois law, the Artificial Intelligence Video Interview
Act ("AIVIA"),[8] imposes additional requirements on AI-based
interviews. Although there is no private right of action under
AIVIA, the act requires employers comply with certain requirements
when recruiting for Illinois-based positions and using
video-recorded interviews that use AI. Before seeking applications
to submit to video interviews, AIVIA requires employers to notify
each applicant that AI may be used to analyze the applicant's video
interview and consider the applicant's fitness for the position;
provide each applicant with information explaining how the AI works
and the types of characteristics used to evaluate applicants; and
obtain consent from each applicant to be evaluated by the AI
program. For more information on the Artificial Intelligence Video
Interview Act, see our previous Client Alert.

Other jurisdictions, including Washington D.C., are considering
similar laws.

Other Legal Challenges

The Illinois case described above follows another case challenging
HireVue's AI-based interviews. In 2019, the Electronic Privacy
Information Center ("EPIC") filed a Federal Trade Commission
complaint against HireVue challenging the company's AI-driven
assessments that assess job candidates based on facial analysis. In
response, HireVue announced it would stop relying on facial
analysis to assess job candidates, but would continue to analyze
biometric data from job applicants.[9]

Anti-Discrimination Laws May Also Apply to AI Selection Tools

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently announced it
will focus on the use of AI in employment decisions, specifically
providing updated guidance on how AI and other emerging tools may
comply with federal anti-discrimination laws (described below).

Federal and state anti-discrimination laws may apply broadly to AI
selection tools to prohibit discrimination against individuals in
protected classes based on characteristics such as race, color,
sex, national origin, religion, disability and age. These federal
anti-discrimination laws include Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 ("Title VII"), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967 ("ADEA"), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
("ADA"). Both Title VII and the ADEA prohibit employers from using
AI selection tools that disproportionally impact a protected group
unless certain conditions are met. Under Title VII, an employer may
use a tool with a disproportionate impact if the tool is a
reasonable measure of job performance and is the least adverse
alternative. Under the ADEA, an employer need only prove that the
tool is reasonable. The ADA specifically bans hiring using
employment tests that tend to screen out an individual with a
disability or class of individuals with disabilities unless the
test is shown to be job-related and consistent with business
necessity. Many states and localities have analogous
anti-discrimination laws that may be more protective than the
federal laws of employee and applicant rights.

To reduce risk of anti-discrimination liability, employers should
consider ensuring that employment tests and other selection tools
and procedures that pose an adverse impact on a protected class are
validated for the positions and purposes for which they are used.
Federal guidelines identify several validation methods, and call
for selection tools to be reviewed regularly to ensure they are
properly validated. Employers are well advised to seek professional
guidance with respect to the validation of AI-based and other
selection tools.

What Employers Should Do

Employers should be mindful of the risks involved with AI
assessment technology and ensure they comply with the emerging
patchwork of federal, state and local laws regulating their use, as
described above. Because interview technologies allow prospective
employees to interview virtually, employers should consider where
interviews take place as well as where decisions are made and jobs
are located.

Employers should be mindful of the data collected by the AI
assessment technology and ensure they comply with laws regulating
the collection, use, and storage of biometric and personal
information that may be used by the AI assessment technology.

Steps employers should consider include:

-- Assessing whether AI assessment technology poses an adverse
impact and whether it is valid and job-related under federal and
state anti-discrimination laws.
Pursuant to BIPA, when employers collect biometric information or
biometric identifiers in Illinois:
-- Establishing a written policy on retention and destruction of
the biometric information or biometric identifiers
-- Properly informing the subject in writing about the use and
retention of the biometric information or biometric identifiers and
obtain a written release
-- Ensuring that the biometric information or biometric identifiers
are not used for profit
-- Ensuring that the proper disclosure and storage of the biometric
information or biometric identifiers
-- When using biometric information in Arkansas, California, Texas
and Washington, following confidentiality practices consistent with
those states privacy laws with respect to that information.
-- When using facial recognition during pre-employment job
interviews in Maryland, obtaining applicant consents by signing a
specified waiver.
-- When using automated hiring or promotion algorithms, in or after
2023 in New York City, subjecting those tools to a bias audit and
issue appropriate notices under the New York City law.

Also in Illinois, complying with AIVIA requirements for AI-based
interviews.
Considering monitoring state and federal law for additional
developments in this evolving area. [GN]

HUGGER MUGGER: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hugger Mugger Company
Inc. The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Hugger Mugger Company Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01451 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2022).

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

Hugger Mugger -- https://www.huggermugger.com/ -- offers
high-quality, handmade yoga bolsters & meditation cushions,
top-rated yoga mats, yoga props, and more.[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


INVITATION HOMES: Rivera's Class Cert. Bid Denied; Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE RIVERA, et al., Plaintiffs v. INVITATION HOMES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-03158-JSW (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Jeffrey S. White of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification and dismissed the action.

I. Background

Defendant Invitation Homes owns, leases, and manages rental homes
across the country. The Plaintiff alleges that a series of mergers
and acquisitions led to present day entity that is Invitation
Homes, the "current defendant." Invitation Homes began implementing
a standardized national lease with a $95 late fee for its
California properties in August 2018.

In November 2013, Rivera signed a lease agreement with Colony
American Homes to rent a home in Sylmar, California. The lease
agreement contained a late fee provision, which obligated Rivera to
pay a $50 late fee if rent was not timely received. The record
shows that Rivera incurred several $50 late fees between Jan. 1,
2014, and April 4, 2016, during the time he was renting the Sylmar
property from Colony American Homes.

In March 2016, Rivera signed a new lease agreement for the Sylmar
property with Waypoint Homes. The term of the lease was from April
2016 through April 2017, and the lease agreement included a $95
late fee provision. During the term of this lease with Waypoint
Homes, Rivera incurred several $95 late fees. Rivera last paid a
late fee around February 2017. Rivera was last charged a late fee
on April 6, 2017, but that fee was reversed and never paid.  On
April 17, 2017, Waypoint Homes served Rivera with a Notice of
Non-Renewal of Lease with respect to the Sylmar property. Rivera
moved out of the home in early 2018.

The Plaintiff originally filed the putative class action on May 25,
2018, alleging that the late fees imposed by Defendant Invitation
Homes pursuant to its uniform lease agreement violate California
Civil Code section 1671, California's Unfair Competition Law, and
the consumer protection laws of several other states. Defendant
moved to dismiss, and the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint
in response. The Defendant again moved to dismiss. The Court
granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss with leave to amend.

On July 19, 2019, Rivera filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"),
which again challenged Invitation Homes' purportedly unlawful $95
late fee but added several out-of-state plaintiffs. The Defendant
again moved to dismiss, arguing that there was no personal
jurisdiction over Invitation Homes in California for the
non-California claims and that the Plaintiff's UCL "unfair" claim
was still deficient.

In its opposition to the Defendant's motion to dismiss the SAC, the
Plaintiff argued that Invitation Homes should be subject to general
jurisdiction in California because of its predecessor entities'
purported connections with California. The Court rejected the
Plaintiff's argument and his attempt to pursue a theory of
successor liability finding that "the SAC does not allege successor
liability" and "makes only a passing reference to the existence" of
the predecessor entities. It granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss without leave to amend, with the exception of Rivera's
unjust enrichment claim. The Plaintiff filed the operative Third
Amended Complaint ("TAC") on Jan. 29, 2021.

On Oct. 29, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the present motion seeking to
certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
23(b)(3), or, in the alternative, to certify the issue of whether
the Defendant and/or its predecessors' late fees charged violate
Section 1671(d) under Rule 23(c)(4). He seeks to certify a class
defined as: All of the Defendant's and its predecessor entities'
California tenants who were charged penalties or fees for paying
rent deemed as late or deficient between May 25, 2014, and the date
of class certification.

II. Analysis

Class certification is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23. Under Rule 23(a), a court may certify a class only if (i) the
class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable,
(ii) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (iii)
the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of
the claims or defenses of the class, and (iv) the representative
parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
class. As the moving party, Plaintiff bears the burden to show they
meet each of Rule 23(a)'s requirements and that they meet at least
one requirement under Rule 23(b).

The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class in his motion
for certification: All of Defendant's and its predecessor entities'
California tenants who were charged penalties or fees for paying
rent deemed as late or deficient between May 25, 2014, and the date
of class certification.

This definition differs from that in the operative complaint, which
defines the putative class as: All of Defendant's California
tenants who were charged penalties or fees for paying rent
Defendant deemed as late or deficient.

A. The Scope of the Proposed Class

The Defendant argues that the inclusion of "predecessor entities"
in the proposed class definition is inappropriate because it seeks
to expand the scope of the complaint and the Plaintiff's motion
should be denied on this basis. The Plaintiff argues that the
proposed modification to the class definition is minor because it
does not substantively alter the definition contained in the
operative complaint.

Judge White disagrees. He says, if the class definition is modified
to include the Defendant's "predecessor entities," the proposed
class would encompass late fees dating back to 2014 and imposed by
entities barely referenced in the complaint. This would
significantly alter the scope of the case and go beyond the wrongs
alleged in the complaint. This is not a minor modification to the
proposed class as in the cases the Plaintiff cites. Additionally,
the Defendant would be prejudiced if the Court were to permit the
proposed modification. The proposed modification would also
prejudice the Defendant given the length of time the case has been
pending.

Accordingly, Judge White finds that the Plaintiff's proposed
amendment to the class definition would improperly expand the class
beyond the claims pled in the complaint, and he declines to adopt
the Plaintiff's modified class definition.

B. Whether the Named Plaintiff Has Standing.

The Defendant next argues that Rivera lacks standing. It argues
that Rivera has not suffered an injury-in-fact that is fairly
traceable to its conduct and thus lacks standing. Specifically, it
contends that the evidence shows that Rivera (1) never signed a
lease agreement with Invitation Homes, (2) was never charged a late
fee by Invitation Homes, and (3) never paid a late fee to
Invitation Homes.

The Plaintiff does not dispute that he never entered into a lease
agreement with Invitation Homes and that Invitation Homes never
charged him a late fee. However, the Plaintiff argues he has
standing to pursue his claims based on the late fees Defendant's
predecessor entities charged him. This argument rests on the
Plaintiff's flawed assertion that his claims encompass late fees
charged by the Defendant's predecessor entities.

However, Judge White holds that this theory is not alleged in the
complaint. Thus, the Plaintiff concedes that his only purported
injury results from conduct traceable to the predecessor entities,
not Invitation Homes. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has not and cannot
establish that he suffered an injury as a result of Invitation
Homes' imposition of a $95 late fee pursuant to its uniform lease
agreement. Because Rivera, the only named plaintiff, lacks Article
III standing, he is not a member of the proposed class, and the
Court need not reach a decision on the merits of class
certification. Moreover, when the sole named plaintiff in a class
action lawsuit has lacked standing since the outset of the
litigation, substitution of another named plaintiff is not
required, and dismissal is proper. Accordingly, Rivera never had a
cognizable claim against Invitation Homes and lacked standing to
assert his claims from the outset of the litigation.

The Plaintiff argues that Rivera's lack of standing should not bar
certification or require dismissal because the Court can grant
certification conditioned upon substitution of another named
plaintiff. However, Judge White finds that the Plaintiff does not
address the Ninth Circuit's holding in Lierboe v. State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co., 350 F.3d 1018, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003). And the cases
he cites in support of substitution are inapposite because none
address a situation where, like the instant case, the sole named
plaintiff lacked Article III standing from the start of the
litigation. It is not a situation in which the case can continue
with a putative class member substituted as the named plaintiff."
Hence, dismissal is proper under these circumstances.

D. Defendant's Motion to Seal.

The Defendant has filed a motion to seal in connection with its
opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. It
seeks to seal certain documents and portions of documents that have
been designated as "Confidential" under the parties' stipulated
protective order.

Judge White notes that it appears that the Defendant seeks to seal
information that has been designated as confidential by the
Plaintiff. The Plaintiff, as the designating party, was required to
file a statement or declaration explaining the reasons for keeping
a document sealed. However, the Plaintiff has not done so.
Accordingly, unless within five days of the Order the Plaintiff
submits a statement or declaration establishing that the
information Defendant seeks to seal should be omitted from the
public record, the sealing motion will be denied, and the documents
will be filed in the public record.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge White dismissed the action and
denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. A separate
judgment will be issued, and the Clerk will close the file.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 18, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3ymvnrva from Leagle.com.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Long Sues Over Commissioned Employees' Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE LONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUNIPER NETWORKS (US), INC., Defendant, Case
No. 5:22-cv-01158 (N.D. Cal., February 25, 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 commissioned employee
from October 2017 to February 2021.

Juniper Networks (US), Inc. is a manufacturer of networking
products, headquartered in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
         Annaliz Loera, Esq.
         Nicolas W. Tomas, Esq.
         LEBE LAW, APLC
         777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90021
         Telephone: (213) 444-1973
         E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com
                 Annaliz@lebelaw.com
                 Nicolas@lebelaw.com

JUSTANSWER LLC: Subscription Suit Can Proceed, May 6 Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
JW August, writing for Times of San Diego, reports that the
internet offer from JustAnswer is tempting for anyone looking for
an expert: If you need medical advice, you can get unlimited
conversations with doctors. Sign up for a small fee and a seven-day
trial promises "on call experts, 24/7."

San Francisco-based JustAnswer has available experts like "lawyers,
vets, tech support & mechanics." One offer for a dermatologist
says: "Try seven days for just five dollars. Then $46/month. Cancel
anytime." And therein, as the saying goes, lies the rub.

"Catherine" a consumer from California warns, "What they don't make
clear is that along with an answer comes membership. You don't sign
up for membership but you're enrolled anyway."

Catherine is one of a number of unhappy JustAnswer customers
posting on Trustpilot, a respected consumer review website. Her
complaint reflects a recent ruling by the Court of Appeal, Fourth
Appellate District in San Diego.

The case is Tina Sellers vs. JustAnswer. While neither Sellers nor
her attorneys would respond for this story, legal files show the
appellate court found it was difficult for consumers to understand
or find out easily what they had signed up for.

"Tanya" on the JustAnswer website tells readers that her
"experience in JustAnswer was the best thing I've ever dealt with
online. Professional, courteous, caring and just down right
truthful. I love this site and recommend to anyone seeking legal
advice or anything else."

We asked San Diego Attorney Monty McIntyre to review the court's
decision. He described the JustAnswer offer as "a pretty cheap
buy-in at only a $5 trial, but then the customer didn't know they
were waiving their rights . . . and you also didn't know you're
signing up for automatic renewals. "

What consumers were provided was a hyperlink to what the company
argued was sufficient information about the deal. It reads, "By
chatting and providing personal info, you understand and agree to
our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy."  

One element of the terms of service was the requirement that an
unhappy client had to go to arbitration with no option for a civil
trial.

"Amy" said on Trustpilot she wanted her money back and "they
refused to refund it; they just canceled any future charges. I
didn't have the time or the energy to argue with the person cause
they clearly didn't care. So I am out almost $50 for NOTHING!!"

The San Diego court found "the (JustAnswer) hyperlink does not take
the consumer to terms advising them they would be bound by an
agreement to arbitrate. Instead, the terms are available only if
the consumer scrolls through the disclaimers and clicks on a
secondary link to the terms of service."  The court also found the
hyperlink "was to a separate web page that displayed the 26-page
terms of service.

The court ruled the lawsuit can move forward as a class action. The
next scheduled hearing will be May 6 before Superior Court Judge
Kenneth Medel.

JustAnswer hasn't responded to our request for comment on the
pending lawsuit.

It's a victory for the public, says McIntyre, noting that "the big
takeaway is that consumers should have protection in California" if
the Internet contract provision requiring arbitration or a waiver
of class action "is buried with a hyperlink, where they're not
likely to read it."

This ruling could well change online business practices in
California. McIntyre noted that "a lot of internet businesses these
days are set up on a subscription model." It's very common for
companies to say, "if you sign up, you're going to have to sign up
for automatic renewals. You can stop in the future, but you have to
subscribe now." [GN]

JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Indian River Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
INDIAN RIVER 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-01156 (N.D. Cal., February 24, 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.

Indian River Central School District is a unified school district
with its offices located at 32735B County Route 29 in Philadelphia,
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: General McLane Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL MCLANE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP,
INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN;
NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; and JOHN DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01144 (N.D. Cal., February
24, 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.

General McLane School District is a public school district with its
offices located at 11771 Edinboro Road, Edinboro, Pennsylvania.

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

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

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

                 - and –

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

KOLE IMPORTS: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kole Imports. The
case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Kole Imports, Case No.
1:22-cv-01509 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2022).

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

Kole Imports -- https://www.koleimports.com/ -- is a consumer goods
company offering wholesale merchandise, closeouts, and
products.[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


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Crandell Suit Moved From S.D. Iowa to W.D. Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRIAN CRANDELL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V., PHILIPS
NORTH AMERICA LLC, and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No.
4:22-cv-00038, was transferred from the Southern District of Iowa
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
on February 24, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00344-JFC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, negligence, and duty to warn, by
manufacturing and selling Continuous Positive Airway Pressure and
BiLevel Positive Airway Pressure devices containing polyester-based
polyurethane sound abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam).

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 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:                                   
                                  
         
         Larry D. Helvey, Esq.
         LARRY HELVEY LAW FIRM
         2735 First Avenue SE, Suite 101
         Cedar Rapids, IA 52402
         Telephone: (319) 362-0421
         Facsimile: (319) 362-3496
         E-mail: lhelvey@helveylaw.com

KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Pittman Files Suit in D. Montana
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Koninklijke Philips
N.V., et al. The case is styled as Robert Pittman, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Koninklijke Philips
N.V., Philips North America LLC, Philips RS North America LLC, Case
No. 2:22-cv-00012-BMM-JTJ (D. Mont., Feb. 23, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Koninklijke Philips N.V. -- https://www.philips.com/global -- is a
Dutch multinational conglomerate corporation that was founded in
Eindhoven in 1891.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John L. Amsden, Esq.
          Sydney E. Best, Esq.
          BECK, AMSDEN & STALPES, PLLC
          2000 South 3rd Avenue, Unit A
          Bozeman, MT 59715
          Phone: (406) 586-8700
          Fax: 586-8960
          Email: amsden@becklawyers.com
                 sydney@baslawyers.com

               - and -

          Patrick W. Pendley, Esq.
          PENDLEY LAW FIRM
          PO Drawer 71
          24110 Eden Street
          Plaquemine, LA 70765
          Phone: (225) 687-6396
          Fax: 687-6398


KSE SPORTSMAN: Must Face Subscribers' Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that the publisher
of Guns and Ammo magazine failed to shake off a proposed class
action in Michigan federal court by subscribers who allege they
were flooded with junk mail after the company released their
personal information without their approval.

The subscribers allege that KSE Sportsman Media Inc., doing
business as Outdoor Sportsman Group Inc., disclosed information
about their Guns and Ammo, RifleShooter, and Handguns magazine
subscriptions to data aggregators, data appenders, data
cooperatives, and list brokers, which in turn disclosed their
information to "aggressive advertisers, political organizations,
and non-profit companies." [GN]


LEATHERMAN TOOL: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Leatherman Tool
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Leatherman Tool Group,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01519 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2022).

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

Leatherman -- https://www.leatherman.com/ -- is an American brand
of multitools and knives made by Leatherman Tool Group of Portland,
Oregon.[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


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Denial of Insurance Class Certification Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lyle Adriano, writing for Insurance Business America, reports that
a decision by an appeals court has determined that a class action
against Liberty Mutual Insurance and its contractor over claims for
totaled cars would be "unmanageable."

The class-action lawsuit filed against Liberty Mutual and its
valuation contractor CCC Intelligent Solutions claimed breach of
contract and unfair trade practices. The complaint argued that
Liberty's insurance policy required payment of the "actual cash
value" of a totaled vehicle, but CCC Intelligent Solutions assigns
valuation to vehicles based on their prices in private transactions
instead of dealership prices. Plaintiffs also accused Liberty of
adjusting the value shown on the CCC reports and claimed that the
"condition adjustments" violated Washington state regulation.

While the case managed to push through a motion to dismiss, a
Tacoma, WA district court judge denied it class-action
certification.

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court
judge's decision to deny class-action status.

"If there was no injury, then there was no breach of contract or
unfair trade practice," said Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson in a written
decision, adding that "figuring out whether each plaintiff was
injured would be an individualized process," and would ultimately
be "unmanageable."

CCC's lawyers issued a statement on the decision, calling it
"particularly impactful in light of numerous putative class actions
- all involving similar claims against CCC and its insurer
customers - that are still pending."

JD Supra reported that insurers could use the decision as a
precedent in cases involving other lines of insurance such as
property, where there are disputes over actual cash value or
replacement cost value.

Reuters reached out to John DeStefano of Hagens Berman, who argued
the appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs, for comment, and the lawyer
said that they are "evaluating options." [GN]

LIBERTY PUZZLES: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Liberty Puzzles LLC.
The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Liberty Puzzles LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01463 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2022).

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

Liberty Puzzles -- https://www.libertypuzzles.com/ -- offers
classic wooden jigsaw puzzles, made with quarter-inch maple plywood
& the finest archival paper & inks.[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


LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Herrera Files Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against County of Los
Angeles, et al. The case is styled as Agustin Herrera, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. County of Los Angeles; Los
Angeles County Department of Probation; Adolfo Gonzalez, Chief
Probation Officer, in his personal capacity; Ray Leyva, Former
Chief Probation Officers interim; Terri McDonald, in their personal
capacities; Jerry Powers, in their personal capacities; Los Angeles
County Department of Mental Health; Does 1-20, inclusive, Case No.
2:22-cv-01013-PA-PD (C.D. Cal., Feb. 14, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil
Rights Acts.

Los Angeles County, officially the County of Los Angeles --
https://lacounty.gov/ -- and sometimes abbreviated as L.A. County,
is the most populous county in the United States and in the U.S.
state of California, with more than ten million inhabitants as of
the 2020 census.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barrett S Litt, Esq.
          Lindsay Battles, Esq.
          MCLANE BEDNARSKI AND LITT LLP
          975 East Green Street
          Pasadena, CA 91106
          Phone: (626) 844-7660
          Fax: (626) 844-7670
          Email: blitt@mbllegal.com
                 lbattles@mbllegal.com

               - and -

          Michael S Rapkin, Esq.
          Scott Brian Rapkin, Esq.
          RAPKIN AND ASSOCIATES LLP
          475 Washington Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90292
          Phone: (310) 319-5465
          Fax: (310) 319-5355
          Email: msrapkin@gmail.com
                 scottrapkin@rapkinesq.com


LOUISIANA HEALTH CARE: Davis Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Lionel Davis, as representative of Leroy
Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Louisiana Health Care Consultants, LLC, Bob G. Dean, Jr., Uptown
Healthcare Center, LLC doing business as: Maison Orleans Healthcare
of New Orleans, Case No. 21-09579, M-13 was removed from the CDC,
Parish of Orleans, to the U.S. District Court for Eastern District
of Louisiana on Feb. 11, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00355-ILRL-KWR
to the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Injunctive &
Declaratory Relief.

Louisiana Health Care Consultants, LLC has management of 5 nursing
homes.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

          Matthew M. Coman, Esq.
          Jordan Jeansonne, Esq.
          GARCIA & ARTIGLIERE
          400 Poydras Street, Suite 2045
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Phone: (504) 354-9750
          Fax: (504) 354-9751
          Email: mcoman@lawgarcia.com
                 jjeansonne@lawgarcia.com

               - and -

          Brian P. Marcelle, Esq.
          Jacques Charles Mestayer, Esq.
          Stephen Michael Huber, Esq.
          HUBER, THOMAS AND MARCELLE, LLP
          1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2200
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Phone: (504) 274-2500
          Email: brian@huberthomaslaw.com
                 jacques@huberthomaslaw.com
                 stephen@huberthomaslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew D. Weinstock, Esq.
          Joseph C. McAloon, Esq.
          Meredith N. Will, Esq.
          Philip G. Watson, Esq.
          DUPLASS, ZWAIN, BOURGEOIS, PFISTER, WEINSTOCK & BOGART
          Three Lakeway Center
          3838 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 2900
          Metairie, LA 70002
          Phone: (504) 832-3700
          Email: andreww@duplass.com
                 jmcaloon@duplass.com
                 mwill@duplass.com
                 pwatson@duplass.com

               - and -

          H. Minor Pipes, III, Esq.
          Kelsey L. Meeks, Esq.
          PIPES MILES BECKMAN, LLC
          1100 Poydras St., Suite 1800
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Phone: (504) 322-7070
          Email: mpipes@pipesmiles.com
                 kmeeks@pipesmiles.com


LUME DEODORANT: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lume Deodorant, LLC.
The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Lume Deodorant, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01515 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2022).

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

Lume Deodorant -- https://lumedeodorant.com/ -- is an aluminum free
deodorant for pits, feet and privates.[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


MADISON REED: Faces Class Action Over Hair Coloring Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action alleges Madison Reed hair color products are far
harsher than the company lets on and have been known to cause hair
loss, breakage, shedding, scalp irritation and other damage to a
user's hair.

The sprawling 102-page lawsuit says that Madison Reed positions its
"salon-quality" hair color products as less harsh on hair, namely
because they do not contain ammonia; however, one of the chemicals
found in the hair dyes, ethanolamine, is not only made from ammonia
but has been scientifically shown to cause more damage to hair than
the chemical it replaced.

According to the case, ethanolamine is a known irritant made from
ammonia and ethylene oxide, which is recognized by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency as a carcinogen. As the suit tells
it, Madison Reed intentionally fails to disclose to consumers that
a number of the ingredients it uses to replace "harsher" chemicals
like ammonia are themselves harmful.

". . . the Products' front label communicated to Plaintiff and
members of the Class the false message that the Products were safer
because they did not contain those ingredients, even though their
replacements were just as bad, some even much worse since they were
partly composed of known carcinogens . . ."

The complaint, filed in New York on February 7, alleges that
Madison Reed is well aware of the danger its hair color products
pose yet provides no warning to consumers and, in fact, continues
to claim in its pervasive advertisements that the dyes are gentle,
safe and healthy for hair. Rather than inform users that its "free
of" ammonia hair dyes would need to include an ingredient that
functions similarly to ammonia, Madison Reed instead offers a
"barely intelligible" ingredients list rife with highly complex
chemicals that a reasonable buyer "is not likely to know about,"
the case says.

"To date, Defendant has not recalled the Products, has not provided
any warnings of the known risks, has not reformulated the Products,
has denied that the Products cause the reported health issues, has
not offered its customers any compensation for their damages and
continues to tout via radio commercials, its website, mailers and
elsewhere that the Products contain 'good' ingredients and are
devoid of 'harsh ingredients,'" the lawsuit summarizes.

The plaintiff says that prior to the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in
New York, she would have her hair dyed at a professional salon.
Around September 2020, the plaintiff began to consider dying her
hair at home and, after doing some research, settled on using
Madison Reed's products under the belief that they were healthier
and safer, the suit says.

The woman claims that she "immediately started losing hair" after
using Madison Reed products.

Replacement ingredients are just as harmful, lawsuit says
The suit describes Madison Reed as a company that touts itself as
honest and focused on using ingredients that are less harsh on the
health of a user and their hair than traditionally formulated dyes.
The case says the introduction of Madison Reed products to the
market was "refreshing and highly-welcome" given traditional
permanent hair color products are known to contain irritating
chemicals such as ammonia.

Madison Reed's primary marketing message, the lawsuit stresses, is
that its hair coloring products are free from certain "harsh
ingredients" typically found in hair dyes, namely chemicals like
PPD, resorcinol, parabens, phthalates and SLS, among others.
Ammonia, for instance, is "very toxic" and "potent enough" to clear
a room, the suit says, and PPD is known to cause allergic reactions
in some users, according to the case. Overall, Madison Reed’s
widespread advertising has been "very effective" at convincing
consumers that its products are gentler and safer than competing
hair dyes, the filing says.

Unfortunately for users, the case relays, the ingredient that
Madison Reed replaced PPD with is the "virtually unknown" PTDS,
which "still causes an allergic reaction in a whopping 1 out of
every 2 individuals" allergic to the original chemical. Similarly,
Madison Reed's replacement for ammonia is nevertheless an ammonia
derivative known to damage hair, the suit says.

"Indeed, several studies that have been brought to Defendant's
attention, have shown that ethanolamine is more harmful to hair and
human health than ammonia," the case relays.

The complaint later alleges that Madison Reed's replacement of
resorcinol, which in traditional products reacts with a hair color
developer such as hydrogen peroxide to bond dye permanently to
hair, with a chemical called 2-methylresorcinol is not as safe for
users as the company represents. According to the suit,
2-methylresorcinol has been listed as a potential endocrine
disruptor. Further, given the minimal amount of data about
2-methylresorcinol, which the case calls a "concern," Madison
Reed's representation that its products are free from resorcinol
serves only to "provide consumers with a false sense of hope that
whatever has been used to replace it is less harmful,' according to
the case.

Case claims Madison Reed hears user complaints, does nothing
As the lawsuit tells it, Madison Reed is well aware that its
representations of its hair dye do not match reality and has
responded to a waterfall of complaints by refuting consumers'
experiences and continuing to claim the products do not cause hair
damage.

Rather than take responsibility for the alleged damage its products
have caused, Madison Reed has blamed users' hair loss and scalp
irritation on other risk factors, including pregnancy, and
stressors such as weight loss, surgery, and hormonal birth control
pills, according to the lawsuit. The company has even claimed that
hair breakage experienced by users was due to the use of certain
types of pillowcases, the suit says.

Madison Reed, seemingly "[u]ndeterred by medical science," has also
attempted to convince consumers that its products do not cause hair
loss because hair dye "cannot penetrate the scalp," the lawsuit
claims, noting that dermal absorption is "universally recognized by
the medical community and U.S. government agencies."

The sheer volume of consumer complaints about the hair color
products, along with the company's response, make it clear that
Madison Reed is "well-aware that it has a huge problem on its
hands," the lawsuit says. Nevertheless, the defendant has seemingly
chosen to stand pat and play defense rather than meaningfully
address consumers' concerns and the alleged risks posed by its hair
coloring products, the complaint asserts:

"Remarkably, Defendant remains steadfast in its defense of its
dangerous Products and messaging by continuing to shift any blame
to consumers or to other extraneous factors, by misstating
universally accepted principles of medical science, i.e. denying
that dermal absorption can occur through the scalp, and by
vigorously defending litigation commenced against it because of its
misrepresentations of the Products, in an effort to clear its hair
dyes of any wrongdoing so that it can continue to turn a profit."

Who does the Madison Reed lawsuit look to cover?
The case looks to represent all consumers who bought Madison Reed
hair coloring products in New York during the fullest period
allowed by law.

What if I don't live in New York?
At this time, the proposed class action detailed on this page looks
to cover only New York residents who've bought Madison Reed
products. If you live in another state and want to know more about
your legal rights, you may want to reach out to a class action
attorney in your area. (Google is a good place to start.) Many
attorneys offer free consultations and would be able to give you
more details on how to proceed.

I use Madison Reed products to color my hair. How do I get
involved?
When a case is initially filed, there's usually nothing a person
needs to do to join or make sure they're involved in the class
action. It's only if and when a lawsuit settles that the people
"covered" by the suit, known as "class members," need to act, which
typically entails filing a claim form online or by mail.[GN]

MANHATTAN GOLD & SILVER: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Manhattan Gold &
Silver, Inc. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Manhattan Gold
& Silver, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01464 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2022).

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

Manhattan Gold & Silver -- https://www.mgsrefining.com/ -- is a
family-owned, full-service precious metal refinery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MARC J. GOLD LAW: Charles Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Charles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MARC J. GOLD LAW OFFICES, LLC, Case No. CACE-22-002281
(Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Feb. 11, 2022), is
brought against the Defendant for violations of the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act and Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

This action involves the debt arising from a transaction between
Nova Southeastern University, the original creditor, and Plaintiff,
of which was primarily for the personal benefit of the Plaintiff,
the Plaintiffs family, as well as members of Plaintiffs household
(the "Consumer Debt"). On November 11, 2021, the Defendant sent the
Plaintiff letter in an attempt to collect the Consumer Debt. The
Defendant is required to state that it (Defendant) is a debt
collector in the Collection Letter.

The Defendant failed to state in the Collection Letter that it is a
debt collector. The Defendant failed to disclose that the
Collection Letter is a communication from a debt collector. The
Defendant engaged in activity constituting "any action to collect a
debt" by sending the Collection Letter to the Plaintiff. The
Collection Letter is a communication from the Defendant to the
Plaintiff in connection with the collection of a debt.

The Collection Letter was required to comply with, among other
things, the disclosure requirements of the FCCPA and FDCPA ("The
failure to disclose in the initial written communication with the
consumer and, in addition, if the initial communication with the
consumer is oral, in that initial oral communication, that the debt
collector is attempting to collect a debt and that any information
obtained will be used for that purpose, and the failure to disclose
in subsequent communications that the communication is from a debt
collector).

The Collection Letter does not comply with the disclosure
requirements of the FCCPA and FDCPA. The Defendant knew that its
debt collector efforts that targeted Florida consumers needed to
comply with the FDCPA for Defendant's Consumer Collection Agency
license to remain valid, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a "consumer" within the meaning of the FDCPA.

The Defendant is a business entity engaged in the business of
soliciting consumer debts for collection.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          The Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: 954-907-1136
          Fax: 855-529-9540
          Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                 tom@jibraellaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Zeev Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Valentino Zeev,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-20539-KMM (S.D. Fla., Feb. 23, 2022).

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

Midland Credit Management -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/ --
helps consumers resolve past-due debt obligations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin E. Zeig, Esq.
          ZEIG LAW FIRM, LLC
          3595 Sheridan Street, Suite 103
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Phone: (754) 217-3084
          Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


MILOS HY INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Markovic Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
VIOLETA MARKOVIC and DARKO ILIC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MILOS HY, INC. d/b/a
ESTIATORIO MILOS d/b/a MILOS WINE BAR; MILOS, INC. d/b/a ESTIATORIO
MILOS; COSTAS SPILIADIS; CONSTANTINOS SPILIADIS; EVRIDIKI
SPILIADIS; GEORGE SPILIADIS;DAVID DANGOOR, and IOANNA SOURIAS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01412 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2022) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as restaurant
servers.

MILOS HY, INC. owns and operates an enterprise comprised of 3 Greek
restaurants under the common trade name "Milos". [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angela Kwon, Esq.
          BROWN KWON & LAM LLP
          521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10175
          Telephone: (212) 295-5828
          Facsimile: (718) 795-1642
          Email: akwon@bkllawyers.com

MINGHIA MEXICO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Amaral Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH SILVIERA AMARAL, JR. and MIZZEL AUSTAR TRAMMELL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. MINGHIA MEXICO CALIFORNIA, INC., AEROTEK, INC., INVO
PEO, INC., III, HUMAN BEES, INC., Case No. 22CV394492 (Cal. Sup.,
Feb. 2, 2022), is an action against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal
and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse
necessary business expenses.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as staffs.

Minghua Food Co., Ltd. was founded in 2000. The company's line of
business includes the making of fresh cookies, crackers, pretzels,
and other dry bakery products. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
          Email: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com

MORGAN AND MORGAN: Lebovits Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Morgan and Morgan,
P.C. The case is styled as Ester Lebovits, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Morgan and Morgan, P.C.
d/b/a Morgan Bornstein & Morgan, Case No. 3:22-cv-00967 (D.N.J.,
Feb. 23, 2022).

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

Morgan & Morgan -- https://www.forthepeople.com/ -- is America's
largest personal injury law firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Uri Horowitz, Esq.
          HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC
          14441 70th Road
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (718) 705-8706
          Fax: (718) 705-8705
          Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com


NATION COMPANY: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Nation Company,
LLC. The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. The Nation Company, LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-01524 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2022).

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

The Nation -- https://www.thenation.com/ -- is the oldest
continuously published weekly magazine in the United States.[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


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court Grants Browne's Bid to Alter Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LESROY E. BROWNE, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN
TRUST; and JOHN DOES 1 to 15, Defendants, Civ. No. 21-11871 (KM)
(JSA) (D.N.J.), Judge Kevin McNulty of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's motion to alter judgment and strike.

In 2007, Browne cosigned a student loan from JP Morgan Chase. That
loan was paid in full in 2020. At some point before the loan was
repaid, it was transferred from the originator to a trust.

Mr. Browne brought a putative class action against National
Collegiate Student Loan Trust ("NCSLT"), seeking a declaration that
the Trust was not licensed to collect debts in New Jersey and that
his loan payments for several years should therefore be refunded,
and treble damages paid. Judge McNulty dismissed his suit and found
that Browne did not suffer a concrete injury and thus did not have
standing to bring the suit.

That dismissal was entered without prejudice to amendment, but
Browne declined to amend his complaint. Instead, he moves to have
his case remanded to state court where it was first filed and to
strike the portion of the opinion that discussed a private right of
action under New Jersey's Consumer Finance Licensing Act ("CFLA").

A more detailed factual background can be found in Judge McNulty's
prior opinion dismissing the suit on standing grounds. In that
opinion, he held that the Supreme Court's recent standing cases
compelled him to dismiss the case because Browne had not alleged
that he suffered a concrete injury. Because the dismissal was
jurisdictional, and because it might be possible for Browne to
amend his complaint to properly allege standing, the dismissal was
entered without prejudice. Not wishing to leave the parties in the
dark, and to guide any potential amendment, he discussed briefly in
the alternative the issue of whether New Jersey's Consumer Finance
Licensing Act ("CFLA") contains a private right of action. He wrote
that it does not.

Mr. Browne, however, has chosen to stand on his original complaint
and has declined to amend. Instead, he moves to alter the judgment
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and remand the case to
the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, Hudson County, where
it was originally filed. Browne also requests, without argument,
that Judge McNulty strikes the CFLA section of the opinion. NCSLT
opposes the motion and argues that Judge McNulty should not disturb
the opinion in any way.

Judge McNulty opines that Browne's decision to forgo a motion to
amend has left the matter in status quo ante, without subject
matter jurisdiction. The removal statute makes clear that "if at
any time before final judgment it appears that the district court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case will be remanded." What
is more, "remand is not a discretionary decision on the part of the
Court; it is mandatory under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c) even if
remanding the case to state court may be futile." NCSLT argues that
there is no basis for remand, but fails to discuss the clear
requirement of remand contained in the removal statute. Judge
McNulty thus agree with Browne that remand is the proper solution.

There is not, however, any reason to strike any portion of the
prior opinion. As the opinion itself made clear, the discussion of
a private right of action under the CFLA was dictum. It formed, and
forms, no part of the court's judgment. Although the reason for
including it has now become moot, there was good reason for its
inclusion at the time. Judge McNulty agrees that he currently lacks
precedential force, but Browne's motion to rewrite history by
striking it is denied.

For these reasons, Judge McNulty granted in part and denied in part
the Plaintiff's motion to alter judgment and strike. Specifically,
the motion to alter judgment is granted and the motion to strike is
denied, and the case is remanded to the New Jersey Superior Court,
Law Division, Hudson County.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2bk7juxj from Leagle.com.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Hires Ex-AG to Defend Flores Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the NFL has hired a law firm that
includes former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch to defend it
and its teams in Brian Flores' race discrimination lawsuit.

Lynch, the attorney general in the latter part of the Obama
administration, will work with Brad Karp, chairman at Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison. Karp previously has worked for the
league in concussion cases.

Flores, who is Black, was fired as Miami's coach in January despite
back-to-back winning seasons. He named the league and three teams
-- the Dolphins, Denver Broncos and New York Giants -- in a
class-action lawsuit earlier in February, alleging unfair hiring
practices in the NFL.

After the lawsuit was filed, the league said it would defend itself
against claims it called "without merit." The Dolphins, Broncos and
Giants also denied Flores' allegations.

Soon after, in a memo to the 32 clubs, NFL Commissioner Roger
Goodell said:

"We understand the concerns expressed by coach Flores and others. .
. . While the legal process moves forward, we will not wait to
reassess and modify our strategies to ensure that they are
consistent with our values and longstanding commitment to
diversity, equity and inclusion."

During his annual Super Bowl news conference, when Goodell
frequently was grilled about diversity in the NFL and the Flores'
case, the commissioner added:

"We won't tolerate racism. We won't tolerate discrimination. I
found all of the allegations, whether they were based on racism or
discrimination or the integrity of our game, all of those to me
were very disturbing. They are very serious matters to us on all
levels, and we need to make sure we get to the bottom of all of
them."

In his lawsuit, Flores cites a string of text messages with
Patriots coach Bill Belichick three days before his scheduled
Giants interview for the head coaching position. Those texts led
Flores to believe Brian Daboll already had been chosen as the new
coach.

"It was humiliating to be quite honest," Flores said. "There was
disbelief, there was anger, there was a wave of emotion for a lot
of reasons."

There were nine head coach openings this offseason and two went to
minorities: Mike McDaniel, who replaced Flores in Miami and is
biracial, and Lovie Smith, who is African American and replaced
David Culley, who also is Black. That brought the total of minority
head coaches to five, three Black. More than 70% of NFL players are
Black.

Flores also alleges in the lawsuit that Dolphins owner Stephen Ross
offered to pay him $100,000 for every loss during the coach's first
season (2019) because he wanted the club to "tank" so it could get
the draft's top pick. [GN]

NATIONWIDE INSURANCE: Drawdy Sues Over Failure to Refund Premiums
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Drawdy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Case No.
2:22-cv-00271-JAM-KJN (E.D. Cal., Feb. 10, 2022), seeks relief in
California for Nationwide's unfair and unlawful conduct, and
asserts a claim for violations of California's Unfair Competition
Law (UCL), by failing to refund premiums.

Nationwide Insurance Company of America, like many other auto
insurers in California and nationwide, has used the COVID-19
pandemic to enrich itself by retaining millions in a windfall
resulting from the drastic decrease in driving, accidents, and auto
risks associated with pandemic-related shutdowns and stay-at home
orders. Before the pandemic and government shutdowns, Nationwide
collected full premiums for car insurance that were priced to
insure against driving risks and behavior associated with
pre-pandemic behavior. In March 2020, however, as California and
other states enacted shelter-in-place mandates and the vast
majority of the workplace switched either to remote work – or no
work at all, it became clear immediately that car insurance
companies like Nationwide stood to make immense windfalls if they
fail to issue refunds to their customers.

Nationwide made a one-time refund of approximately 15% for two
months of premiums in 2020 to placate orders issued by the
California Department of Insurance. Nationwide pocketed the rest of
the premiums as profit. Although the California Department of
Insurance later instructed California insurers like Nationwide to
issue more refunds, Nationwide has refused and kept the ill-gotten
gains in its coffers. Nationwide's unfair application of rates
approved prior to the beginning of COVID-19 pandemic is manifestly
unfair and violates the UCL.

During the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, Plaintiff,
like most other Californians, barely drove his personal automobile
and recreational vehicle at all and accordingly exposed his car,
his recreational vehicle, himself, and the general public to far
less risks than what was expected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Nationwide provided insurers with a one-time refund of $50, which
Nationwide claims approximated 15% of auto insurance premiums. It
did not provide a refund for recreational vehicles.

Like the rest of Nationwide's California customers, Plaintiff
received his $50 refund from Nationwide early in the COVID-19
pandemic, on May 7, 2020 specifically. Other than the one-time $50
refund, Nationwide never refunded Plaintiff or the rest of its
California customers any premiums due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The
refund provided by Nationwide was not sufficient to compensate for
the overpayment of premiums due to the associated decrease in
driving and risks stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. Hence,
Plaintiff Drawdy suffered an injury in fact resulting in the loss
of money and/or property, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased insurance for his personal automobile and a
recreational vehicle in California from Nationwide before the start
of the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated government shutdown and
stay-at-home orders.

Nationwide was in the business of providing insurance services to
individuals in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel Smith, Esq.
          Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: jsmith@bursor.com
                 ykrivoshey@bursor.com


NEW ORIENTAL: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of April 5 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Feb. 16 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the
American Depositary Receipts ("ADR's") of New Oriental Education &
Technology Group Inc. ("New Oriental Education" or "the Company")
(NYSE:EDU).

All investors who purchased the ADR's of New Oriental Education &
Technology Group Inc. and incurred losses are urged to contact the
firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or
(212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning
the action or join the case on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the ADR's of New Oriental Education
& Technology Group Inc., you may, no later than April 5, 2022,
request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed
class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your
rights as an investor in the ADR's of New Oriental Education &
Technology Group Inc.

On April 25, 2021, media reports revealed that the government of
the City of Beijing had fined four online education agencies,
including the New Oriental subsidiary Koolearn, the maximum fine of
500,000 yuan each for misleading customers with false advertising
regarding course pricing. On May 12, 2021, news reports revealed
that an impending crackdown by the Chinese government on the
private tutoring sector would be further reaching and more drastic
than previously publicly known, including that regulators had
already taken adverse actions against New Oriental and other
for-profit tutoring companies.

On this news, New Oriental fell $2.77 per ADR, or 19.4%, over the
following two trading sessions to close at $11.51 per ADR on
May 13, 2021.

On June 1, 2021, Chinese regulators announced that they had fined
15 off-campus training institutions, including New Oriental, for
illegal activities such as false advertising and fraud. New
Oriental's ADR price fell $1.77 per ADR, or 16%, over the following
two trading sessions to close at $9.32 per ADR on June 3, 2021.

Subsequently, on July 23, 2021, China unveiled a sweeping overhaul
of its education sector, banning companies that teach the school
curriculum from making profits, raising capital or going public,
effectively ending any potential growth in the for-profit tutoring
sector in China. On July 25, 2021, New Oriental published an
"update" on the new regulations, which stated that the Company will
"comply with relevant rules and regulations when providing
educational services" and "expects such measures to have material
adverse impact on its after-school tutoring services related to
academic subjects in China's compulsory education system."

On this news, New Oriental fell $4.46 per ADR, or nearly 70%, over
the following two trading sessions to close at $1.94 per ADR on
July 26, 2021.

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

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

Contact:

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Patrick Donovan, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, donovan@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774

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

OMG ACCESSORIES: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against OMG Accessories, LLC.
The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. OMG Accessories, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01522 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2022).

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

OMG Accessories -- https://omgaccessories.com/ -- is the world's
most imaginative lifestyle brand for kids, teens and beyond.[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


PANDA PLATES: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Panda Plates Inc. The
case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Panda Plates Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-01516 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2022).

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

Panda Plates Inc. -- https://www.pandaplates.com/ -- provides food
products. The Company offers pizza, salads, gazpacho, soups,
chicken wings, spaghetti, garlic bread, and beverages.[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


PANKOW OPERATING: Sach PAGA Suit to Remain in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KENT SACHS, individually, and on behalf of other
aggrieved employees, pursuant to the California Private Attorneys
General Act, Plaintiff v. PANKOW OPERATING, INC., a California
corporation; CHARLES PANKOW BUILDERS, LTD., a California limited
partnership; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 2:21-cv-08998-AB (ADSx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Andre Birotte, Jr.,
of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1447.

I. Background

The Court and the parties are familiar with the factual background
of the case, due to the fact that these parties are litigating a
related case before the Court, (Case No. 2:21-cv-07742-AB-ADS),
based on the same set of allegations. The key difference in the
present case is that it is grounded in California Labor Code
Section 2698, et seq., namely California's Private Attorneys
General Act ("PAGA").

PAGA plaintiffs are private attorneys general who, stepping into
the shoes of the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency
("LWDA"), bring claims on behalf of the state agency," with the aim
of, "vindicating the public interest in enforcement of California's
labor law."  Moreover, "the bulk of any recovery goes to the LWDA,
not to aggrieved employees. The employee's recovery is thus an
incentive to perform a service to the state, not restitution for
wrongs done to members of the class."

Whereas the Plaintiff's class action involves 10 causes of action,
the case involves a single PAGA claim. That said, the Plaintiff's
PAGA claim is predicated on the same claims that appear in the
Plaintiff's class action: (i) failure to pay overtime, (ii) failure
to provide meal period, (iii) failure to provide rest periods, (iv)
failure to pay minimum wages, (v) failure to timely pay wages upon
termination, (vi) failure to timely pay wages during employment,
(vii) failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements,
(viii) failure to keep complete and accurate payroll records, and
(ix) failure to reimburse necessary business-related expenses and
costs. (The class action includes one additional claim, alleging
unfair competition). Moreover, these nine underlying claims allege
the same statutory violations as are alleged in the class action.

Before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. Defendants
Pankow Operating, Inc. and Charles Pankow Builders, Ltd.
(collectively, "Defendants" or "Pankow") opposed the Motion, and
the Plaintiff filed a Reply. Judge Cote deemed the matter
appropriate for resolution without oral argument and therefore took
it under submission on Feb. 10, 2022.

II. Discussion

The Plaintiff argues that his PAGA action should be remanded to
state court, in part because Cal. Lab. Code Section 514 does not
apply to the PAGA action's first two underlying claims (alleging
failure to pay overtime and failure to provide meal periods).
As in the Plaintiff's class action, resolution of the instant
Motion depends on proper interpretation and application of Section
301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"). The Supreme
Court has said that the preemptive force of this statute is
powerful enough to displace state causes of action entirely. In
other words, a cause of action that arises under Section 301 will,
upon removal to federal court, become "purely a creature of federal
law." Id. And this will hold true, even if the cause of action was
originally pled under state law and "state law would provide a
cause of action in the absence of Section 301."

In order to determine whether a cause of action is preempted by
Section 301, the Ninth Circuit follows the two-part Burnside test.
At the first step, the Court must determine "whether the asserted
cause of action involves a right conferred upon an employee by
virtue of state law, not by a CBA. If the right exists solely as a
result of the CBA, then the claim is preempted, and our analysis
ends there." If the right exists independently of a CBA, then, at
the second step, the Court must determine whether the right still
"substantially depends" on analyzing the relevant CBA.

Where there is substantial dependence, there is preemption by
Section 301. Where the right in question neither exists solely as a
result of the CBA nor substantially depends on analysis of the CBA,
the cause of action is not preempted by Section 301 and does not
arise under federal law. In such cases, it is proper for the Court
to remand the cause of action to state court.

A motion to remand challenges the propriety of an action's removal
to federal court. This type of motion is "the functional equivalent
of a defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). "Like
plaintiffs pleading subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 8(a)(1),
a defendant seeking to remove an action may not offer mere legal
conclusions; instead, the defendant must allege the underlying
facts supporting each of the requirements for removal
jurisdiction."

In the case, Judge Cote holds that given that the language of
Section 514 applies to the Plaintiff, his first underlying claim is
subject to preemption by Section 301 of the LMRA. Moreover, since
the same language applies to the Plaintiff's second underlying
claim, that claim is also subject to federal preemption.

Since the Court has jurisdiction over these two underlying claims,
Judge Cote holds that the Court also has jurisdiction over the
Plaintiff's PAGA claim. Moreover, she deems it proper to adjudicate
the remaining seven underlying claims, since the Court has already
chosen to exercise supplement jurisdiction over the corresponding
causes of action in the Plaintiff's related case.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Cote denied the Plaintiff's Motion
to Remand. The Plaintiff's PAGA action will remain before the
Court.

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


PAULA'S CHOICE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paula's Choice, LLC.
The case is styled as Juan Ortega, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Paula's Choice, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01527 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2022).

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

Paula's Choice, Inc. -- https://www.paulaschoice.com/ -- provides
online cosmetics and skin care 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


PERRIGO CO: $10.6M in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE PERRIGO COMPANY PLC SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case
No. 19-CV-70 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Denise Cote of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the
Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and
Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses.

The matter came on for hearing on Feb. 16, 2022, on the Lead
Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award.

Judge Cote has considered all matters submitted to the Court at the
Settlement Hearing and otherwise and has determined the fairness
and reasonableness of the award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of litigation expenses requested.

Judge Cote awarded the Lead Counsel attorneys' fees in the amount
of 33 and 1/3% of the $31.9 million Settlement Fund  (the "Fee
Award") and $978,116.75 in reimbursement of litigation expenses
(which fees and expenses will be paid from the Settlement Fund),
which sums she finds to be fair and reasonable. One half of the Fee
Award and all reimbursable litigation expenses will be payable to
the Lead Counsel immediately upon entry of the Order. The remainder
of the Fee Award will be payable to the Lead Counsel upon the
Court's entry of an order granting the Lead Plaintiffs' forthcoming
motion for distribution of the Settlement Fund.

Any appeal or any challenge affecting the Court's approval
regarding attorneys' fees and reimbursing Litigation Expenses will
in no way disturb or affect the finality of the Judgment and will
not affect or delay the Effective Date of the Settlement.

There is no just reason for delay in the entry of the Order, and
immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 18, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/53f9n9a9 from Leagle.com.


PERRIGO CO: Settlement Allocation Plan in Securities Suit Approved
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE PERRIGO COMPANY PLC SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case
No. 19-CV-70 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Denise Cote of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the
Lead Plaintiffs' motion for approval of the proposed Plan of
Allocation.

The matter came on for hearing on Feb. 16, 2022, on the Lead
Plaintiffs' motion to determine whether the proposed plan of
allocation of the Net Settlement Fund created by the Settlement
achieved in the class action should be approved. Judge Cote, having
considered all matters submitted to her at the Settlement Hearing
and otherwise; and having considered and determined the fairness
and reasonableness of the proposed Plan of Allocation, finds and
concludes that the Plan of Allocation is, in all respects, fair and
reasonable to the Class. Accordingly, she approved the Plan of
Allocation proposed by the Lead Plaintiffs.

The Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the Amended
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated Oct. 22, 2021, and
all capitalized terms not otherwise defined in the Order will have
the same meanings as set forth in the Stipulation. The Court has
jurisdiction to enter the Order and over the subject matter of the
Action and all parties to the Action, including all the Class
Members.

The Notice of Lead Plaintiffs' motion for approval of the proposed
Plan of Allocation was given to all the Class Members who or which
could be identified with reasonable effort. The form and method of
notifying the Class of the motion for approval of the proposed Plan
of Allocation satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(7)), due process, and all
other applicable laws and rules, constituted the best notice
practicable under the circumstances, and constituted due and
sufficient notice to all persons and entities entitled thereto.

As of Feb. 9, 2022, 24,195 copies of the Settlement Notice, which
included the Plan of Allocation, were mailed to the potential Class
Members and nominees. No objections to the Plan of Allocation have
been received.

Judge Cote finds and concludes that the formula for the calculation
of the claims of Claimants as set forth in the Plan of Allocation
mailed to the Class Members provides a fair and reasonable basis
upon which to allocate the proceeds of the Net Settlement Fund
among Class Members with due consideration having been given to
administrative convenience and necessity.

There is no just reason to delay in the entry of the Order, and
immediate entry by the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4cas9fpj from Leagle.com.


PNC BANK: Court Enters Final Judgment and Dismisses Corona Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mark C. Scarsi of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California entered Final Judgment in the case,
GUADALUPE ALVARENGA CORONA, individually and on behalf of a class
of other similarly situated CLASS ACTION individuals, Plaintiff v.
PNC BANK, N.A., a Pennsylvania corporation; AND DOES 1-100,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-06521-MCS-SP (C.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action
Settlement as to the Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Release of
Claims was heard on Jan. 24, 2022 in the Court. Pursuant to the
Court's Order (1) Granting Motion for Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement and (2) Granting in Part and Denying in Part
Motion for Attorney's Fees, Expenses, and Service Award ("Final
Order"), Judge Scarsi entered Judgment in accordance with the terms
of the Settlement Agreement and Final Order.

By operation of the Judgment, and in accordance with the terms of
the Settlement Agreement and Final Order, the Class Representative
and each of the Settlement Class Members (excluding those who
submitted a timely Request for Exclusion) will be deemed to have
fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged
all Released Claims, as defined in the Settlement Agreement. For
purposes of this Judgment, Judge Scarsi refers to all defined terms
(i.e., terms with initial capitalization) as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement.

The Action is ordered dismissed with prejudice.

Without affecting the finality of the Judgment, the Court retains
exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the Action, the Class
Representative, the Class Members, and the Defendant for the
purposes of supervising the implementation, enforcement,
construction, administration, and interpretation of the Settlement
Agreement and the Final Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 18, 2022 Final Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5aw3r784 from Leagle.com.


POA RECOVERY: Duane Morris Discusses Investment Scheme Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Morris disclosed that how do 1,102 investors, who claim they
have been duped into investing in a Ponzi scheme, bring an action
in the Singapore courts? To many, the first thing to do would be to
launch a class-action lawsuit against the respondents.

In Singapore, such "class-action" lawsuits operate differently from
those in U.S. litigation. Traditionally, a group of litigants in
Singapore with a common interest would have to band together to
commence what is known as a "representative action," pursuant to
Order 15, Rule 12 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, 2014 Rev Ed). The
alternative would be for the litigants to each commence separate
proceedings and later consolidate them into one single action.

That was, until POA Recovery Pte Ltd v Yau Kwok Seng [2022] SGHC(A)
2, where the Appellate Division of the High Court held that
litigants could commence an action by assigning their claims to a
special purpose corporate entity to sue on their collective
behalf.

POA Recovery v Yau Kwok Seng provides much needed clarity on when
an assignment of a cause of action would run afoul of the rules of
maintenance and champerty, and when parties can assign causes of
actions to achieve efficiency in the litigation process.

Brief Facts
Between September 2012 and October 2015, around 4,000 investors
were lured into participating in an investment scheme relating to
crude oil produced in Alberta, Canada. The investors purchased
crude oil from Proven Oil Asia Ltd (POA), a Canadian company. The
investors were promised 3 percent quarterly returns on their
investment sum and the full capital sum at the end of the
investment term.

By October 2015, out of 17 investment projects, investors of three
projects had successfully exited, in that they had received their
capital refunds and investment returns. The remaining projects were
either partially exited, in that most investors in those projects
would have been paid their capital refunds and investment returns,
or not at all.

POA attributed its default in paying the capital refunds and
investment returns to the remaining investors to the drastic fall
in the price of oil worldwide. This was disputed by 1,102 of these
investors, who claimed to be victims of an investment fraud
perpetrated by the defendants, defrauding them of around CAD 130
million. The defendants were Capital Asia Group Pte Ltd, the
Singapore marketing agent, Capital Asia Group Oil Management Pte
Ltd, the holder of security in respect of the investments, and Mr.
Yau Kwok Seng, a director and shareholder of these companies.

These investors subsequently incorporated the plaintiff, POA
Recovery Pte Ltd, as a special purpose corporate entity to sue the
respondents on their behalf.[1] POA Recovery is a
Singapore-incorporated private limited company with an issued share
capital of S$1. Each individual investor entered into formal
assignment agreements under which they irrevocably assigned to POA
Recovery all "rights, title, benefit and interest" in the
"appropriate legal action against relevant persons and or entities
. . . who have caused or contributed to [their] loss or damage,
including the loss of the Crude Oil Investments."[2]

POA Recovery sued the defendants alleging, amongst other things,
fraud, conspiracy, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties
and negligence. The defendants roundly denied these allegations. As
a preliminary legal issue, the defendants contended that POA
Recovery did not have standing to bring the action as the
assignment agreements that it entered into with the investors were
void for being contrary to the doctrine of maintenance. It is this
preliminary legal issue that will be the focus in this commentary.

The Trial Judge's Decision
The trial judge dismissed the action on a standalone ground that
the use of a special purpose vehicle to bring a collective action
as an assignee of the investors' claims was impermissible
procedurally and in law.[3]

In doing so, the trial judge applied the test set out by the High
Court in Re Vanguard Energy Pte Ltd [2015] 4 SLR 597, namely, that
it is contrary to the doctrine of maintenance for individual
plaintiffs to assign their bare rights to litigate unless one of
the following three exceptions could be proven:

The assignment is incidental to a transfer of property;
The assignee has a legitimate interest in the outcome of the
litigation, such as where a company assigns a bare cause of action
to its shareholders. Shareholders are said to have a legitimate
interest in any such assignments as they generally would benefit/be
at loss from any litigation commenced by the company; or

There is no realistic possibility that the administration of
justice may suffer as a result of the assignment.

The trial judge concluded that none of the exceptions applied. The
judge found that POA Recovery was a "shell company" and that
structuring the action in such a manner was contrary to public
policy in that the defendants would have no one to look to for
costs except the solitary shareholder of the S$1 shell company. The
trial judge further observed that if the investors wished to bring
the action, they had to either individually bring actions against
the respondents, join parties and consolidate their actions under
Order 15 Rule 4 and Order 4 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court, or file a
representative action under Order 15 Rule 12 of the Rules of
Court.

The Decision of the Appellate Division of the High Court
The Appellate Division disagreed with the trial judge and found
that the use of a special purpose vehicle "would not necessarily
offend the doctrine of maintenance nor impermissibly sidestep
[Order] 15 [Rule] 12" of the Rules of Court.[4]

The Appellate Division found that the fundamental consideration of
protecting the purity of justice and interest of vulnerable
litigants was not violated per se by the investors using POA
Recovery to sue on their behalf.[5] The Appellate Division
highlighted that these fundamental considerations will be violated
if there was an "accompanying element of impropriety" such as a
surreptitious third-party funder controlling the proceedings, or
such third-party wagering on the litigation.

Such impropriety was not found in the present case. The facts
actually showed the following:[6]

All the claims of the investors (who were transnational) were
assigned to POA Recovery so that the assigned claims were
"consolidated" and brought to court as a single high-value claim;
POA Recovery was always controlled by the investors;
The litigation was solely funded by the investors, where the
investors had contributed their pro-rata share of the proceeds of
sale of some assets into a litigation pool. There was no evidence
that points to the existence of third-party financing; and
Importantly, POA Recovery was to have no share in the proceeds of
the litigation, and the assignment agreements made clear that the
recovered sums of the litigation would be paid out to the
investors.
Given this, the Appellate Division noted that the exceptions as
stated in Re Vanguard did not need to be considered as there was no
impropriety to begin with.

Further, as regards the respondents' concern that POA Recovery,
being a "shell company" with a minimum paid up capital of S$1,
could cost-proof itself, the Appellate Division found this to be
more apparent than real. POA Recovery had furnished S$430,000 as
security for costs for the trial, up to the stage of exchange of
affidavits of evidence-in-chief. The Appellate Division noted that
this was not an insignificant sum and any shortfall could have been
addressed by way of a further application for security for
costs.[7]

Commentary
Maintenance is the giving of assistance or encouragement to one of
the parties in litigation by a person who has neither an interest
in the litigation nor any other motive recognized by the law as
justifying the interference.[8] Champerty, on the other hand,
arises when a party maintains a civil action in consideration of a
promise of a share in the proceeds, should the action be
successful.[9] The rationale for these rules is to maintain the
"purity" of justice,[10] without any interference from a third
party who may dictate the proceedings, and to protect any
vulnerable litigants from such interference.

The exceptions in Re Vanguard arise for deliberation only when
there is a prima facie violation of the rules of maintenance and
champerty. In the present case, as the Appellate Division upheld
the propriety of the assignment agreements entered into between POA
Recovery and the investors, there was no need to consider if the
exceptions in Re Vanguard applied.

Crucially, the mere use of a special purpose vehicle structure does
not, on its own, violate the doctrines of maintenance and
champerty. There must be an element of impropriety involved such as
a surreptitious third-party funder controlling proceedings, or a
third-party wagering on the litigation. It would appear that the
party alleging the violation of the doctrines should bear the
burden (evidential) of proving such impropriety, and the legal
burden of establishing the alleged violation of the doctrines.

It would also appear that an assignment of a cause of action would
not infringe the doctrines of maintenance and champerty if:

   -- The funding of the litigation comes from those who have a
genuine interest in the outcome of the litigation, usually the
assignors of the causes of action;

   -- The special purpose vehicle does not reap any benefit from
the proceeds of the litigation, which should be solely for the
benefit of the assignors; and

   -- The direction and control of the litigation proceedings
remain with the true litigants.

Litigants seeking to rely on the single purpose vehicle structure
should also be mindful of the requirements for a valid assignment.
For example, where the assignment is by way of contract, the
contract must be supported by consideration. Where the assignment
is by way of deed, it has to be signed, sealed and delivered.

Representative Action or Incorporation of a Special Purpose
Vehicle?
The use of the single purpose vehicle structure is an alternative
to the representative action under Order 15 Rule 12 of the Rules of
Court.

In a representative action, all litigants must be clearly
identified, and the members of the class of represented persons
must be identified by an objective criterion that bears a rational
relationship to the common issues being asserted. Further, it is
imperative that there be significant issues of fact or law that are
common to all the litigants. The court will compare the
significance of the common issues between the claimants with the
significance of the issues that differ as between them. Where the
latter clearly outweighs the former, the "same interest"
requirement would not be met.

Once the threshold requirement of "same interest" is met, the court
will proceed to determine if there are other reasons to disallow
the representative action from proceeding. Such other reasons would
include whether there would be any hindrance to obtaining security
of costs, whether the representative action will truly save time
and expense for the parties, and the real possibility that a
defendant could raise separate defences against the claimants.

The use of a single purpose vehicle may well circumvent some of
these procedural hurdles that plague representative actions.
Further, the key benefit of using the single purpose vehicle
structure when multiple litigants are involved is efficiency. As
the Appellate Division observed, such an arrangement "obviates the
need for the cumbersome task of filing hundreds, if not thousands
of separate writs pending consolidation, thereby easing the strain
on both litigants and the courts."[11]

Conclusion
The decision by the Appellate Division in POA Recovery v Yau Kwok
Seng is a welcome one. Incorporating a single purpose vehicle is
now another option available to litigants in the ever-changing and
developing dispute resolution landscape in Singapore, but it is not
a "one size fits all" method. Careful consideration and guidance
from experienced attorneys can help to determine how to proceed and
which form of dispute resolution would be best suited to your
needs.

About Duane Morris & Selvam
The firm's dispute resolution practice conducts a wide array of
contentious and noncontentious work. Our attorneys are experienced
in guiding clients toward the form of dispute resolution best
suited to fit their needs. The practice engages in both domestic
and international arbitration matters.

Notes
[1] POA Recovery v Yau Kwok Seng, at [1].

[2] POA Recovery v Yau Kwok Seng, at [6].

[3] POA Recovery v Yau Kwok Seng, at [2].

[4] POA Recovery v Yau Kwok Seng, at [90].

[5] POA Recovery v Yau Kwok Seng, at [89].

[6] POA Recovery v Yau Kwok Seng, at [89].

[7] POA Recovery v Yau Kwok Seng, at [91].

[8] POA Recovery v Yau Kwok Seng, at [86], Lim Lie Hoa and another
v Ong Jane Rebecca [1997] SGCA 17 at [23] citing Halsbury’s Laws
of England vol 9 (4th Ed) para 400  

[9] POA Recovery v Yau Kwok Seng, at [87].

[10] Re Vanguard, at [38].

[11] POA Recovery v Yau Kwok Seng, at [90].[GN]

RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT: Klein Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Klein, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. RECEIVABLE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., Case No.
22-000703-CI (Fla. 6th Judicial Cir. Ct., Pinellas Cty., Feb. 11,
2022), is brought against the Defendant for damages under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, ("FDCPA") and the Florida Consumer
Collections Practices Act, ("FCCPA").

The Defendant alleges that Plaintiff owes a debt to Radiology
Associates of Clearwater in the amount of $275.00 (the "alleged
debt"). The alleged debt does not arise from any business
enterprise of the Plaintiff. At an exact time known only to the
Defendant, the alleged debt was assigned or otherwise transferred
to the Defendant for collection.

In its efforts to collect the alleged debt, the Defendant decided
to contact the Plaintiff by written correspondence. Rather than
preparing and mailing such written correspondence to the Plaintiff
on its own, Defendant decided to utilize a third-party to perform
such activities on its behalf. As part of its utilization of the
third-party, Defendant conveyed information regarding the alleged
debt to the third-party by electronic means.

That letter, dated February 26, 2021, was received and read by the
Plaintiff (the "Letter"). At the time of the Letter, the Defendant
knew or should have known the Plaintiff was represented by counsel.
At the time of the Letter, the Defendant had knowledge of
Plaintiff's attorney's name and address. In fact, the Defendant was
served with a lawsuit filed on behalf of Ms. Klein on February 23,
2021. The foregoing litigation relates to an alleged debt owed to
Radiology Associates of Clearwater, the same alleged creditor in
the instant cause of action. Therefore, Defendant knew or should
have known at least on February 23, 2021 that Plaintiff was
represented by counsel.

The Defendant's conduct as described in this Complaint was willful,
with the purpose to either harm the Plaintiff or with reckless
disregard for the harm to the Plaintiff that could result from the
Defendant's conduct. The Plaintiff justifiably fears that, absent
this Court's intervention, the Defendant will continue to use
abusive, deceptive, unfair, and unlawful means in its attempts to
collect the alleged debt and other alleged debts, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person allegedly obligated to pay a
debt.

The Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect debts
asserted to be owed to others.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
          TENENBAUM LAW GROUP, PLLC
          1600 Ponce De Leon Blvd., 10th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Phone: (305) 402-9529
          Fax: (786) 292-1948


RICE DRILLING: Wins Leave to File Docs Under Seal in J&R Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, J&R PASSMORE, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. RICE DRILLING
D, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-1587 (S.D. Ohio),
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted Defendant
Rice Drilling's Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal.

Discussion

The Defendant moves to seal four individual documents termed
"Geosteering Updates." The Defendant argues that "these documents
contain trade secrets which, if disclosed to the general public,
would seriously injure Rice." Additionally, it seeks to file a
redacted version of the "Lease Exchange Agreement" executed with
Ascent Resources-Utica, LLC.

In particular, the Defendant seeks to redact the price terms in the
Lease, which its "competitors could use to undercut it and gain a
competitive advantage." The Plaintiffs oppose sealing the
Geosteering Updates and redacting the Lease Exchange Agreement,
arguing that Defendant has not met its burden as to either.

1. Geosteering Updates

The Defendant seeks to seal four Geosteering Updates in their
entirety: RICE_0159975-76 (Exhibit 50), RICE_0159979-80 (Exhibit
51), RICE_0159934-35 (Exhibit 52), and RICE_0159975-76 (Exhibit
53). These documents contain technical data regarding the
Defendant's directional drilling operations -- inside knowledge of
its business "developed through many years of application and
refinement." Accordingly, the Defendant argues that these documents
contain "textbook" trade secrets that meet the burden for sealing.

Judge Jolson explains that Ohio has formulated a list of six
non-dispositive factors to help determine the existence of a trade
secret: (1) the extent to which the information is known outside
the business; (2) the extent to which it is known to those inside
the business, i.e., by employees; (3) the precautions taken by the
holder of the trade secret to guard the secrecy of the information;
(4) the savings effected and the value to the holder in having the
information as against competitors; (5) the amount of effort or
money expended in obtaining and developing the information; and (6)
the amount of time and expense it would take for others to acquire
and duplicate the information.

The Geosteering Updates and the technical data they contain meet
this definition, Judge Jolson holds. The Defendant derives an
economic benefit from its proprietary technical data and does not
share this information with others outside its business. The data
took years to develop at great expense to the Defendant, and a
competitor could not easily reproduce it without expending a
similar amount of time and money. Because it would like to preserve
this economic benefit, the Defendant has "a compelling interest in
sealing" the Geosteering Updates.

Further, no countervailing public interest counsels against sealing
the records. A public interest is at its height "when public safety
is implicated," and especially in class actions, which involve "the
interests of a broader public outside of the named parties." While
the present case is a putative class action, it does not invoke any
of these "interests of public health and safety" that would
outweigh the Defendant's "compelling interest" in maintaining a
trade secret.

As a third and final consideration, Judge Jolson is satisfied that
the Defendant has met its burden to "analyze in detail" the matter
to be sealed. Each Geosteering Update contains two pages of
technical data -- the very data that the Defendant wishes to
preserve as a trade secret. The Defendant cannot effectively redact
these documents. Therefore, Judge Jolson finds that the Defendant's
request to fully seal the four Geosteering Updates is sufficiently
narrow.

2. Lease Exchange Agreement

The Defendant also seeks to redact sensitive financial information
from its Lease Exchange Agreement with Ascent Resources-Utica, LLC.
For the same reasons as above, Judge Jolson is satisfied that
Defendant has met the burden for sealing. First, she finds that the
Defendant derives an economic benefit from its competitors not
having the pricing terms of the Lease Exchange Agreement, and it
has taken measures to keep these terms secret. Moreover, no public
interest outweighs the Defendant's compelling interest in
maintaining the secrecy of the specific pricing terms.

The Plaintiffs argue no compelling interest exists here, and
Defendant has simply recited the Agreement's confidentiality as a
reason to seal: "The fact that the Defendant and Ascent agreed to
keep the terms confidential is of no consequence in considering
whether the Agreement should be filed under seal." That is not
true, Judge Jolson holds. The Defendant does not derive an economic
benefit from the pricing information in itself, but only insofar as
that information remains secret. Therefore, the independent
economic value and the confidentiality, taken together, comprise
the Defendant's compelling interest in redacting the pricing terms.
Hence, the Defendant has established a compelling interest, and no
countervailing public interest weighs against the redactions.

As above, the Defendant must also demonstrate narrow tailoring. It
proposes redacting only the pricing terms, "one paragraph of the
nine page agreement," and leaving the remainder intact. That
qualification meets the Court's high standard for sealing.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Jolson granted the Defendant's
Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal. She ordered the
Defendant to file redacted exhibits consistent with her Opinion and
Order within seven days.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2waa9ywe from Leagle.com.


ROOMMATES.COM LLC: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roommates.com, LLC.
The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Roommates.com, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01520 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2022).

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

Roommates.com LLC -- https://www.roommates.com/ -- helps find the
perfect roommate.[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


SAGINAW, MI: Tire Chalking Suit May Have Implications for Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that get hit
with a parking ticket after having your car tires chalked?

If a recent decision in Michigan is anything to go by, you could
have a class action claim -- and a chance of recovering the cost of
the ticket.

The news comes thanks to a parking ticket case in Saginaw, Michigan
that snaked its way to the 6th Circuit appeals court in 2019, where
judges ruled that tire chalking violates the Fourth Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution.

Now, the case has been certified to move forward as a class action
lawsuit, the Detroit Free Press reports.

This could have wide-ranging implications for drivers in Saginaw
and beyond, legal experts say. The class action argues that
thousands of Saginaw residents should be reimbursed for the parking
tickets they paid thanks to the "unconstitutional tire chalking
process."

"The fact that the class action has been certified cranks up the
stakes for the city. It provides the possibility of a remedy and
institutional changes that would benefit citizens," consumer law
expert Danny Karon told Top Class Actions.

The 6th Circuit has jurisdiction over district courts in Michigan,
Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, meaning its decision will apply to
similar cases in the countless municipalities across these states
that use chalking in ticket enforcement.

"If there's chalking going on there, you can bet that there will be
chalking class actions popping up all over these states," Karon
said.

We can also expect to see similar cases pop up outside of the 6th
Circuit, as the ruling was made not on Michigan law, but according
to federal law, Karon said.

"If a federal law is involved -- and the Constitution is as federal
as it gets -- you can expect the ruling to encourage litigation in
other states."

The case has also been cited by lawyers suing Los Angeles and San
Diego over a similar practice in those California cities.

However, for lawyers to take the case, there needs to be some money
in it, and it's hard to get money simply from an injunctive claim
and plaintiffs seeking parking ticket refunds.

"I don't know these lawyers' theory for monetizing the claim and
getting paid. It's tough to take a percentage of ‘stop doing
that,'" he said.

Chalking is a practice parking enforcers nationwide use to monitor
how long a car has been in a parking spot. They mark a tire with
chalk and then circle back later to see if the car has moved.

Saginaw resident Alison Taylor started putting together her case
against the city in 2016, after getting 14 parking tickets in three
years.

According to her case, one particular parking enforcer was a
"prolific chalker." Her attorneys, Outside Legal Counsel, argued
that chalking violates the Fourth Amendment's restriction on
unreasonable searches and seizures.

The case slowly made its way to the 6th Circuit, where a
three-judge panel unanimously agreed: chalking is indeed a "search"
for purposes of the Fourth Amendment because government officials
physically trespass upon a constitutionally protected area to
obtain information.

The decision came after the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that
sticking a GPS tracker to a car counted as a "search," which is
similar to marking a tire with chalk to figure out how long it has
been parked, the court wrote.

Have you got parking tickets after having your tires chalked? Let
us know your experience in the comments!

Taylor is represented by Philip Ellison of Outside Legal Counsel
PLC and by Matthew E. Gronda.

The Unconstitutional Tire Chalking Class Action Lawsuit is Alison
Patricia Taylor v. City of Saginaw, et al., Case No. 17-2126, in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. [GN]

SANT AND ABEL: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sant and Abel LLC.
The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Sant and Abel LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01521 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2022).

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

Sant and Abel -- https://santandabel.com/ -- is a collection of
beautifully crafted luxury cotton sleepwear for men, women and
children.[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


SCWORX CORP: Hearing on Class Settlement Approval Set for March 21
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE SCWORX CORP. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION, Case No.
20-cv-4554 (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 by telephone on March 21, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. (Dial-in:
(888) 363-4749, with access code 8140049) on the Plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement of the Derivative
Litigation, and on the preliminary approval of the Class Action
settlement.

Any responses were due Feb. 28, 2022. Any replies should be filed
by March 11, 2022.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 18, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bdcd7tar from Leagle.com.


SEA LIMITED: TPFRS Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sea Limited, et al.
The case is styled as City Of Taylor Police And Fire Retirement
System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Sea Limited, et al., Case No. 151344/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New
York Cty., Feb. 11, 2022).

Sea Limited -- https://www.sea.com/ -- is a leading global consumer
internet company founded in Singapore.[BN]


SLATE GROUP: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Slate Group LLC.
The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. The Slate Group LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01523 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2022).

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

The Slate Group, legally The Slate Group, LLC --
http://www.slate.com/-- is an American online publishing entity
established in June 2008 by Graham Holdings Company.[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


SOCLEAN INC: Koumantakis Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Kaliopi Koumantakis, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. SoClean, Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-02891 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 23, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00335-JFC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.

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:

          Robin E. Scully, Esq.
          MINTZ LAW FIRM, LLC
          605 Parfet Street, Suite 102
          Lakewood, CO 80215
          Phone: (303) 462-2999
          Fax: (303) 233-8999
          Email: res@4injury.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew Michael Petersen, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP-Denver
          1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 4100
          Denver, CO 80203-4541
          Phone: (303) 866-0634
          Email: matt.petersen@bryancave.com


SONY INTERACTIVE: PlayStation Prices May Prompt Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Kiya, writing for PSLS, reports that Sony could be in
trouble, as prices for Horizon Forbidden West could be grounds for
a class-action lawsuit, according to a lawyer. Despite some pretty
impressive reviews and a free upgrade to the PS5 version, one
lawyer states that the free upgrade path is intentionally
deceptive. This is due to the fact that the PS4 version of the game
costs $60, while the PS5 version is $70.

Sony's Horizon Forbidden West prices could be considered deceptive
That's not all, of course. As reported by VGC, attorney Richard
Hoeg states that the problem lies in how Sony organized the game's
pre-order page. Though both games are the same in terms of content,
Sony lists the version with a higher price tag first. Users have to
scroll down the page to see the PS4 version and its $60 price tag
in order to realize that they'd essentially be paying $10 extra
for, well, nothing.

Just last year, Sony landed faced immense backlash after fans
criticized the company's decision to not include a free upgrade for
the PS4 version of Horizon Forbidden West. Just a week later, Sony
reversed the decision with the caveat that future PlayStation
Studios titles would not feature the same upgrade entitlement.

Hoeg notes that this type of deceptive marketing could lead the
Federal Trade Commission to take action. Whether the FTC will
pursue legal action depends on if the regulator deems the game's
marketing as deliberately misleading. Unfortunately, Hoeg adds that
there's not much the FTC can do for those that have already
purchased the more expensive $70 version. The best course of action
for Sony, Hoeg says, is to reduce the price of the PS5 version to
$60.

In other news, developer Techland has stated that it will continue
to provide updates and fixes for Dying Light 2. The new CEO of
Bayonetta series developer Platinum Games recently stated that the
company is open to the idea of acquisitions, so long as it gets to
retain its independence. [GN]

SOUND SEAL: Avalos Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Arizabeth Avalos, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. Sound Seal, Inc., Onin
Group Midwest, Case No. 2022-CH-124 was removed from the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for
Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 10, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-00756 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

Sound Seal -- https://www.soundseal.com/ -- is a leading
manufacturer of industrial & architectural acoustic sound control
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Henry Beaumont, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          107 W. Van Buren, #209
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Phone: (773) 831-8000
          Email: whb@beaumontcostales.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lauren Jennifer Caisman, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
          161 North Clark Street, Suite 4300
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 602-5079
          Email: lauren.caisman@bclplaw.com

               - and -

          Erin Bolan Hines
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          111 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 704-7700
          Email: ehines@shb.com


SOUTH SHORE: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Wages for All Hours Worked
--------------------------------------------------------------
Helder Perez and Jorge Alberto Lopez Sanchez, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. SOUTH SHORE DRYWALL
INC. and JOSEPH ZANGLA, Case No. 601710/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau
Cty., Feb. 10, 2022), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, to recover from
Defendants: unpaid wages for all hours worked due to improper
rounding down of hours, unpaid wages due to improper off-the-clock
work, unpaid overtime wages, unpaid overtime
wages due to improper classification, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

Throughout his employment with Defendants, the Plaintiffs regularly
observed and spoke to his co-workers about the Defendants' pay
practices and policies. Based on the Plaintiffs' direct
observations and conversations with other employees, the
Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members were
subjected to the same unlawful employment practices of (1) their
hours also being rounded down to the nearest hour, (2) post-shift
off-the clock work, and (3) straight time, "off-the books" hours
for Saturday work. Through this policy, Defendants categorically
reduced their employees' compensable hours every week. As a result,
the Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class were not
paid proper compensation for all hours worked. The Defendants
knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of
not paying the Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class
for all regular or overtime hours worked due to Defendants' policy
of time shaving by rounding down hours worked, in violation of the
FLSA and/or the NYLL, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as a general laborer
and an insulation worker.

South Shore Drywall Inc. is a construction contractor organized
under the laws of the State of New York.[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
          Phone: (212) 465-1188
          Fax: (212) 465-1181


TARGET CORP: Faces Koenig Suit Over Mislabeled Prenatal Vitamins
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN GOODWIN-KOENIG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00212-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal., Feb. 18, 2022) is an
action the Defendants for failure to disclose the presence, or
risk, of dangerous substances in its Prenatal Vitamins, including
heavy metals.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's Prenatal Vitamins do
not have a disclaimer regarding the presence of Heavy Metals that
would inform consumers that the Products contain, or risk
containing, Heavy Metals and that Heavy Metals can accumulate over
time in a developing child's body to the point where negative
health outcomes can occur.

During the time the Plaintiff purchased and took the Prenatal
Vitamins, and due to the false and misleading claims and omissions
by the Defendant, the Plaintiff believed she was taking prenatal
vitamins to give her body the nutrients needed for a healthy
pregnancy. The Plaintiff was unaware the Prenatal Vitamins
contained, or had a risk of containing, undisclosed levels of Heavy
Metals, says the suit.

Target Corporation operates general merchandise discount stores.
The Company focuses on merchandising operations which includes
general merchandise and food discount stores and a fully integrated
online business. Target also offers credit to qualified applicants
through its branded proprietary credit cards. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          19712 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 222
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (866) 545-5505
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          Email: kctang@millershah.com

               -and-

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Megan S. Van Dyke
          Catherine A. Peterson
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                  msvandyke@locklaw.com
                  capeterson@locklaw.com


           Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
           Alexandra C. Warren
           CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
           4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
           Suite 200
           Washington, DC 20016
           Telephone: (202)789-3960
           Facsimile: (202)789-1813
           E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com
                   awarren@cuneolaw.com


          Harris L. Pogust, Esq.
          Joshua M. Neuman, Esq.
          Jordyn N. Mitzman, Esq.
          PGMBM, LLC
          161 Washington Street, Suite 250
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 941-4204
          Facsimile: (610) 941-4245
          E-mail: hpogust@pgmbm.com
                  jneuman@pgmbm.us
                  jmitzman@pgmbm.us


          James C. Shah, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          1845 Walnut St., Suite 806
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (856) 526-1100
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: jcshah@millershah.com

TYSON FOODS: Bojangles DAPs Can't Compel Deposition of Cheney
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE BROILER CHICKEN ANTITRUST LITIGATION; This
Document Relates To: All Actions, Case No. 1:16-cv-08637 (N.D.
Ill.), Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
denied the motion to compel deposition of Cheney Bros., Inc.

The matter is before the Court on Direct Action Plaintiffs
Bojangles' Restaurants, Inc. and Bojangles OPCO, LLC's Motion to
Compel 30(b)(6) Deposition of Cheney.

I. Background

Bojangles Restaurants, Inc. and Bojangles OPCO, LLC (together,
"Bojangles DAPs") and Cheney Bros., Inc. are direct action
Plaintiffs ("DAPs") that opted out of one of the class actions that
are part of the In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation, which
has been pending in the District since September 2016. Cheney along
with other DAPs filed a complaint against Defendants Tyson Foods,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-06693, on Oct. 3, 2018, which case
was reassigned to this docket on Oct. 16, 2018. After Cheney's
lawsuit had been pending for over two years, Bojangles DAPs filed
their own opt out complaint against Defendants Tyson Foods, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-07734, which was reassigned to this docket
on Dec. 28, 2020.

After Bojangles DAPs filed their complaint, they say they learned,
presumably in late 2020 or early 2021, that Cheney already had
asserted a claim for damages arising from purchases of Broiler
chickens that allegedly included some of the same purchases of
Broiler chickens that underlie Bojangles DAPs' claim. Specifically,
Bojangles DAPs assert that Cheney included within its damage claim
purchases of proprietary Broiler products that Bojangles DAPs'
distributor, Pate Dawson (which had been acquired by Cheney in
2016), had made on behalf of the Bojangles DAPs during the relevant
period.

To better understand the basis for Cheney's damage claim, Bojangles
DAPs served Cheney with a Rule 45 subpoena to produce documents on
Jan. 27, 2021, followed by a second Rule 45 subpoena to produce
documents on Feb. 10, 2021. Cheney served objections and responses
to those subpoenas but also produced responsive documents on Feb.
26, 2021, and March 19, 2021. Bojangles DAPs did not pursue any
further discovery from Cheney for nearly four months.

Then, on July 14, 2021, more than one month after the applicable
June 11, 2021, fact discovery deadline in the In re Broiler
Chickens Antitrust Litigations case, Bojangles DAPs sent Cheney a
Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition via e-mail to Cheney's counsel
seeking the deposition of a Cheney corporate witness. Cheney
objects to the requested deposition on several grounds.

II. Discussion

A.

Cheney first contends the Bojangles DAPs' notice of deposition is
procedurally defective because Cheney is not a party to Bojangles
DAPs' lawsuit against the Tyson Defendants, et al. It says that
Bojangles DAPs should have served a Rule 45 subpoena for the Rule
30(b)(6) deposition just like they did when they served Rule 45
subpoenas for the documents they previously requested from Cheney.
Since Bojangles DAPs did not serve Cheney with a subpoena, Cheney
argues that the Bojangles DAPs' motion to compel is procedurally
improper and should be denied.

As a threshold matter, Judge Gilbert agrees with Cheney that
Bojangles DAPs were required to serve a subpoena to take a Rule
30(b)(6) deposition of a Cheney corporate representative absent
Cheney's agreement to appear voluntarily for such a deposition. It
is well-settled law that a party cannot compel the presence of a
non-party at a deposition without serving a subpoena.

Cheney and the Bojangles' parties each filed separate lawsuits, and
their individual cases have been reassigned to this In re Broiler
Chicken Antitrust Litigation docket because they are related to
other such cases that have been filed. Bojangles DAPs and Cheney
have no pending claims against each other, and they asserted their
own claims against various Defendants in separate complaints after
they opted out of the direct purchaser class action. Cheney's
position is simple -- a subpoena is required because Cheney is not
a party to the Bojangles DAPs' individual case even though both
Cheney and Bojangles DAPs are plaintiffs in the In re Broiler
Chicken Antitrust Litigation.

Judge Gilbert agrees. Bojangles DAPs' prior service on Cheney of
two Rule 45 subpoenas for documents confirms their acknowledgement
that Cheney is a third-party to Bojangles DAPs' individual case. He
is not persuaded by Bojangles DAPs' argument to the contrary.
Bojangles DAPs' motion to compel, therefore, could be denied on
this ground alone, but will address the remaining arguments made by
the parties.

B.

Cheney next argues that Bojangles DAPs' notice of deposition and
their motion to compel are untimely under Scheduling Order No. 16.
See Scheduling Order No. 15 (entered on May 13, 2021) and
Scheduling Order No. 16 (entered on June 17, 2021).

Judge Gilbert agrees with Cheney that Bojangles DAPs' notice of
deposition and their subsequent motion to compel are untimely.
Bojangles DAPs did not serve Cheney with a notice of a Rule
30(b)(6) deposition until July 14, 2021, more than one month after
the June 11, 2021 fact discovery deadline in the case. The Court
had extended fact discovery to July 30, 2021, solely to allow
parties to complete discovery that already had been served or was
then at-issue as the fact discovery close date was fast
approaching. That "extension" was not an invitation to serve new
discovery that could have been served timely during the period
allowed for fact discovery.

Bojangles DAPs served timely Rule 45 subpoenas on Cheney earlier in
the discovery period. They should have raised the issue of a Cheney
Rule 30(b)(6) deposition months before they did so, and their
desire to take that deposition now, and to compel it in the
eleventh hour, comes too late.

C.

Finally, putting aside the procedural defects of an untimely notice
of deposition, Judge Gilbert also finds Bojangles DAPs have not
shown that the discovery they are seeking is relevant or
proportional to the needs of their case within the meaning of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26((b)(1). In his view, the
discovery Bojangles DAPs are seeking is not relevant to a claim or
defense in their case or, importantly, proportional to the needs of
that case at this time within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(b)(1). If the information Bojangles DAPs are seeking
becomes relevant to a claim or defense in the future, and discovery
of that information is proportional to the needs of the case at
that time, the Court can address the issue in that context.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, for all these reasons, Judge Gilbert denied Bojangles
DAPs' Motion to Compel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 16, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd4np7yy from
Leagle.com.


VERO BEACH, FL: Averts Police Video Monitoring Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Hawkins, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that the city
of Vero Beach, Fla., defeated a privacy lawsuit brought by a spa
customer who claims he was illegally video recorded as part of a
police investigation into prostitution, with a Florida federal
judge rejecting constitutional and other claims.

But claims against individual officers involved in the surveillance
may proceed.

The proposed class action lawsuit was brought by Keith Taig, who
maintains that he, and customers who visited East Spa in Vero
Beach, suffered an "invasion of privacy, arrest and prosecution"
after they were video recorded without their consent. [GN]


WARNER BROS: Keebaugh Sues Over In-Game Purchases' False Discounts
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHARISSA KEEBAUGH, STEPHANIE NEVEU, and HEATHER MERCIERI, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-01272
(C.D. Cal., February 24, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendant for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of
the California's Unfair Competition Law, the California's False
Advertising Law, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the
New Hampshire's Regulation of Business Practices for Consumer
Protection Act, and the Washington's Consumer Protection Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false advertising
price discounts for in-game purchases in its mobile application
game, Game of Thrones Conquest (GOTC). The Defendant deceived
consumers by offering specific limited-time bonuses that purported
to massively discount the price of its in-game goods. It used
strikethrough pricing and statements like "Limited Time! 2000%
Bonus Gold!" or "Black Friday Sale" to trick consumers into
believing they were benefitting from limited-time promotions that
substantially increased the value of their in-game purchases,
especially in relation to purchases made by competing players.
These purported savings were false, however, because the original
pricing that these ads referenced were fabricated. The Defendant
has fraudulently concealed from and intentionally failed to
disclose to the Plaintiffs and Class members the truth about its
advertised price discounts and former prices, says the suit.

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. is an American diversified
multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate, with its
principal place of business in Burbank, California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Karl S. Kronenberger, Esq.
         Katherine E. Hollist, Esq.
         KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP
         150 Post Street, Suite 520
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Telephone: (415) 955-1155
         E-mail: karl@KRInternetLaw.com
                 kate@KRInternetLaw.com

                 - and –

         Raphael Janove, Esq.
         Adam Pollock, Esq.
         POLLOCK COHEN LLP
         60 Broad St., 24th Fl.
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 337-5361
         E-mail: rafi@pollockcohen.com
                 adam@pollockcohen.com

                 - and –

         Jay Kumar, Esq.
         JAY KUMAR LAW
         73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 100
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Telephone: (312) 767-7903
         E-mail: jay@jaykumarlaw.com

WENTZVILLE R-IV: Faces Class Action for Banning Eight Books
-----------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a Missouri
school district finds itself facing a proposed class action lawsuit
after removing from circulation in school libraries eight
critically acclaimed books due to officials' apparent "dislike of
the ideas" contained in the publications.

The 23-page lawsuit against the Wentzville R-IV School District
over its removal of the following titles from libraries argues that
the books were banned by the defendant "with the intent and purpose
to prescribe what is generally or traditionally accepted as right
or true in matters of opinion," and in violation of students'
rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution:


The Bluest Eye, by Toni Morrison;
Fun Home: A Family Tragicomic Paperback, by Alison Bechdel;
All Boys Aren't Blue, by George M. Johnson;
Heavy: An American Memoir, by Kiese Laymon;
Lawn Boy, by Jonathan Evison;
Gabi, A Girl in Pieces, by Isabel Quintero;
Modern Romance, by Aziz Ansari; and
Invisible Girl, by Lisa Jewell.

Each of the banned books features and presents the perspective of
an author or protagonist, or both, who is non-white, LGBTQ+ or
otherwise identifies as a minority, the lawsuit stresses. The
complaint alleges the removal of books from Wentzville school
libraries is part of a targeted campaign by the St. Charles County
Parents Association and No Left Turn in Education's Missouri
Chapter to "remove particular ideas and viewpoints about race and
sexuality from school libraries."

The lawsuit contends that the above-listed books engage readers
with "a diversity of ideas and minority viewpoints" with regard to
race, gender and sexual identity. The Wentzville R-IV School
District, which has roughly 17,400 students, banned the titles over
the "ideological disagreement" members of the district's school
board had with certain "vocal" community members, the suit says.

"Defendant deprived Plaintiffs and the Class of access to the
Banned Books and the ideas contained therein, uniformly preventing
students who might wish to access the books from doing so while
stigmatizing the ideas and viewpoints expressed by the books," the
lawsuit alleges.

Within the district, Board Policy 6310 provides that the Wentzville
School Board believes that the district's library and media centers
are responsible for providing materials that "reflect the ideals
and beliefs of religious, social, political, historical and ethnic
groups, and their contributions to American and world cultures,"
and thereby enable students to "develop an intellectual integrity
in forming judgments," the lawsuit states. Among the obligations
outlined in Board Policy 6310 is the responsibility of the
Wentzville District Board to ensure "maximum accessibility" to
materials and provide materials that will "encourage growth in
knowledge and that will develop literary, cultural and aesthetic
appreciation, and ethical standards," the complaint relays.

Moreover, Board Policy 6310 stipulates that the librarian, with
approval of the school principal, is to make the final selection
decisions with regard to books included in school libraries, the
suit says. The same regulation, according to the lawsuit, specifies
that library materials can be "weeded" out or removed by a
librarian because they are soiled, damaged or torn beyond repair;
in excess of age sensitivity; or have been found to contain
unreliable information.

The proposed class action alleges the defendant has wrongfully gone
outside of the procedure outlined by Board Policy 6310 for making a
complaint against library materials a student or parent considers
"objectionable." One guideline for the consideration of challenged
materials orders that books or other materials shall not be
excluded on the basis of the writer's racial, nationalistic,
political or religious views, or on the basis of partisan or
doctrinal approval or disapproval, the lawsuit says.

According to the complaint, the defendant's decision to remove The
Bluest Eye from libraries was due to the fact that the book
contains "Pediphilla [sic], incest, [and] rape." Although an 8-1
majority of the committee responsible for reviewing the book voted
to retain it, the Wentzville Board nevertheless chose not to retain
The Bluest Eye, and even shot down a motion to restrict access to
the title to only students in advanced placement (AP) classes, the
lawsuit says.

Further, the suit contends that the removal of Fun Home, All Boys
Aren't Blue and Heavy was done "outside of the ordinary course and
procedures for the consideration of weeding" described in Board
Policy 6310. Lawn Boy, Gabi, Modern Romance and Invisible Girl were
immediately removed from school library shelves in the wake of
formal challenges and pending review, the case adds.

The lawsuit charges that the Wentzville District's failure to use
established, regular and facially unbiased procedures for the
removal of books demonstrates that the eight titles at issue have
been removed "on an arbitrary basis and not in a viewpoint-neutral
manner." As a result, students throughout the district face the
threat of future harm, and additional books are likely to be
removed from district libraries over "officials' and community
members' desire to deny students access to ideas with which they
disagree," the filing says.[GN]

XPO LOGISTICS: Final Order & Judgment Entered in Alvarez Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge R. Gary Klausner of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Western Division, entered Final Order and
Judgment in the case, ANGEL OMAR ALVAREZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. XPO
LOGISTICS CARTAGE, LLC dba XPO LOGISTICS, et al., Defendants. AND
CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS, Case No. 2:18-cv-03736-RGK-E, Related with
Case No.: 2:18-CV-08220-RGK-E (C.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to the Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement, Approving Form and Manner of Notice, and Setting Date
for Fairness Hearing, entered on Oct. 8, 2021, the Court scheduled
the Fairness Hearing for Dec. 18, 2021, at 9:00 a.m.

The Court ordered that the Notice of Proposed Class Action
Settlement be mailed within 15 days after the date of entry of the
Preliminary Approval Order ("Notice Date") to all Class Members
identified through reasonable effort. The Notice of Proposed Class
Action Settlement advised the Class Members of the date, time,
place and purpose of the Fairness Hearing, and further advised that
any objection to the Settlement was required to be filed with the
Court, and served on the Settlement Administrator, CPT Group, on or
before Dec. 6, 2021.

On Dec. 13, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved for Final Approval of the
Settlement, as set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order. The
Fairness Hearing was duly held before the Court on Jan. 10, 2022.

The Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement
includes a request for final approval of the settlement of claims
under the California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act
("PAGA"), as required by California Labor Code section 2699,
subdivision (1), for the civil penalties sought as part of the
Settlement.

Judge Klausner has duly considered the Plaintiffs' Motion, all
papers and evidence submitted in connection therewith, the
Settlement, and all of the submissions and arguments presented at
the Fairness Hearing with respect to the proposed Settlement. In
light of the substantial benefits provided to the Class by the
Settlement, the complexity, expense and possible duration of
further litigation of the Action, and the costs of continued
litigation, he fully and finally approved the settlement as set
forth in the parties' Class Action Settlement Agreement in all
respects.

Judge Klausner finds that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair,
reasonable and adequate, and in the best interests of the
Plaintiffs, the Class, and the Class Members. He further finds that
the Settlement is the result of arms-length negotiations conducted
under the supervision of a neutral mediator by highly experienced
counsel representing the interests of their respective parties.

The Plaintiffs and the Defendants (collectively, the "Settling
Parties") are ordered to consummate the Settlement in accordance
with the terms and provisions therein, except with respect to the
attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive payments, on which the Court
separately ruled on Feb. 8, 2022. In accordance with the Court's
Feb. 8, 2022 order, the Court has approved attorneys' fees to the
class counsel in the amount of $6,666,660, with 90% of the award
allocated to counsel for the Alvarez and Martinez Plaintiffs to be
divided per their agreement and the remaining 10 of the award
allocated to counsel for the Mendoza Plaintiff. Also in accordance
with the Court's Feb. 8, 2022 order, the Court has approved an
award of litigation costs in the amount of $386,225.67 to the
Alvarez counsel and $14,800.16 to the Martinez counsel, and the
Court has approved incentive payments in the amount of $15,000 to
each Alvarez Plaintiff, $10,000 to each Martinez Plaintiff and
Mendoza, and $2,000 to each Active Class Member.

The settlement of the PAGA claims released in the Settlement is
approved on behalf of the "aggrieved employees," as that term is
used in California Labor Code section 2698, et seq. Settlement of
the PAGA claims is binding on the parties, aggrieved employees, and
the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, including
all members of the Class as well as those that opted out.

The operative Fourth Amended Complaint in the Action, filed on Dec.
13, 2019, is dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice, and without
costs to any party, except as otherwise provided in the
Settlement.

Upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, Plaintiffs and all other
Class Members, on behalf of themselves and each of their respective
heirs, executors, trustees, administrators, predecessors,
successors, and assigns, will be deemed to have fully, finally and
forever waived, released, discharged, and dismissed each and every
one of the Released Claims as against each and every one of the
Releasees, and will forever be barred, enjoined and restrained from
commencing, instituting, prosecuting or maintaining any and all of
the Released Claims against any and all of the Releasees.

Each Class Member is bound by the Judgment, including, without
limitation, the release of claims set forth. The persons listed in
Exhibit 2 to the Settlement have validly and timely requested
exclusion from the Class, such that those persons are excluded from
the Class and are not Class Members but remain bound by the
Settlement with respect to the resolution of the PAGA claim.

Without further order of the Court, the Settling Parties may agree
to reasonable extensions of time to carry out any of the provisions
of the Settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 18, 2022 Final Order &
Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8zuudb from
Leagle.com.


[*] Consumers Eligible for U.S. Class Action Rebates Discussed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that in
January, numerous settlements began allowing consumers to submit
claims to receive class action rebates.

The settlements resolved a variety of claims, including
contamination, false advertising, inaccurate billing and Telephone
Consumer Protection Act violations, among other things.

It is common for a company to deny wrongdoing when agreeing to a
settlement; however, it still chooses to do so to provide relief to
consumers and avoid further litigation.

Browse through the below list to see if you qualify for any open
class action settlements. If you don't find any that apply, be sure
to head to Top Class Actions' settlement directory to find other
class action rebates you may be eligible for.

Welch's Juice Agrees To Pay $1.5 Million To Resolve Claims
Consumers who purchased certain Welch's Juice products may be
eligible to benefit from a $1.5 million settlement agreement made
to resolve claims the company misleadingly labeled the products as
supporting heart health.

Eligible class members could claim up to $12 without proof of
purchase of Welch's 100% Grape Juice Concord Grape, Welch's 100%
Juice Red Sangria or Welch's 100% Black Cherry Concord Grape Juice
products.

Consumers must have purchased the product between March 23, 2016,
and Oct. 1, 2021, to be eligible.

3M, Daiken Paying $12 Million Over Water Contamination Claims
3M and Daiken have agreed to pay a combined $12 million to resolve
claims the companies contaminated residential water sources in
Alabama.

Those eligible to receive benefits include residential customers of
the Town Creek Water System, the West Morgan-East Lawrence Water
and Sewer Authority, the V.A.W Water System, the Trinity Water
Works, or the West Lawrence Water Cooperative.

Customers must have either received services from the companies
and/or paid fees for them between the periods of Oct. 5, 2013, and
Sept. 26, 2016, to be eligible.

Atriple, Evotaz HIV Drug Purchasers Benefit From Settlement
Consumers who purchased generic or brand name Atripla or Evotaz
medicine for HIV may be eligible to benefit from a $10 million
settlement agreed to by Bristol-Myers Squibb.

The settlement was made to resolve claims Bristol-Myers inflated
the cost of the drugs by engaging in anti-competitive practices.

Eligible class members include patients, purchasers and other
entities that purchased generic or brand name Atripla or Evotaz HIV
drugs between May 14, 2015, and Oct. 13, 2021.

Those who want to be included in the settlement must submit a valid
claim by 60 days of final approval with a final hearing scheduled
for Apr. 28, 2022, and an estimated claim deadline of June 27,
2022.

Artech To Pay Up To $10,000 To Those Affected By Data Breach
Artech has agreed to pay as much as $10,000 to each individual who
was impacted by a January 2020 data breach.

Consumers the company previously notified will be eligible to
benefit from the settlement.

Potential class members must submit a valid claim form by Feb. 26,
2022, to receive cash benefits as compensation.

Indian Residential School Day Scholars Receive Up To $10,000
Former day scholars who suffered abuse while attending Indian
residential schools in Canada may be eligible to receive up to
$10,000 in compensation.

Survivors eligible to receive benefits are those who attended the
school during the day before returning home at night.

Descendants of eligible survivors who have passed away are also
qualified to receive compensation.

Eligible class members will have until Oct. 4, 2023, to file a
valid claim to be included.

JPMorgan Chase Agrees To Pay $11.5 Million In Settlement
JPMorgan Chase Bank customers who applied for a mortgage loan with
the bank may be eligible to benefit from a $11.5 settlement meant
to resolve claims it mismanaged escrow balances.

Individuals who serviced a mortgage loan through Chase for a
property in Maryland, New York, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Rhode Island
or Connecticut could be eligible.

Customers in Rhode Island must have serviced a loan between Jan. 1,
2010, to April 9, 2021, while Connecticut, Minnesota, Wisconsin and
New York customers must have serviced a loan between Jan. 1, 2014
to April 9, 2021. Maryland customers must have serviced a mortgage
loan between Jan. 1, 2017, to April 9, 2021.

The deadline for exclusion and objection for the settlement is Feb.
21, 2022.

Caterpillar Agrees To Pay $8 Million To Canadian Purchasers
In Canada, Caterpillar has agreed to pay $8 million to resolve
claims it sold defective diesel engines that fail to meet emissions
standards.

Canadians who purchased or leased vehicles with Caterpillar EPA
2007 Compliant C13 and C15 diesel engines with Advanced Combustion
Emissions Reduction Technology that were manufactured between 2005
and 2009 are eligible to benefit.

Eligible class members may collect up to $30,000 in compensation,
depending on how many repairs their engines required.

Class members must file a valid claim form by May 18, 2022, to be
eligible to benefit.

Plaid To Pay $58 Million To Resolve Data Privacy Law Claims
Consumers who had their financial accounts accessed by Plaid may be
eligible to benefit from a $58 million settlement meant to resolve
claims the company violated data privacy laws.

U.S. residents who either own or owned a financial account accessed
by Plaid or which the company obtained the login information for
between Jan. 1, 2013, and Nov. 19, 2021, are eligible to benefit.

Consumers hoping to be included in the settlement must submit a
valid claim form by Apr. 28, 2022.

Flint Water Crisis Leads To $641.25 Million Settlement Agreement
Residents of Flint, Michigan, who were exposed to polluted water
may be eligible to benefit from a $641.25 million settlement
agreement made by city and state officials, among other entities.

Eligible class members include Flint residents who paid for or were
exposed to water that came from the Flint Water Treatment Plant
between Apr. 25, 2014, and Nov. 16, 2020.

The deadline to file a claim to be included in the settlement is
May 12, 2022.

Navient Agrees To Pay Student Loan Borrowers $1.85 Billion
Student loan processor Navient has agreed to pay $1.85 billion to
settle claims it engaged in predatory practices.

As part of the settlement, borrowers will be eligible for either
restitution or private loan debt cancellation with the possibility
for both.

Borrowers eligible for restitution are those who entered repayment
on a Direct of FFEL Program loan before January 2015, in addition
to several other requirements.

Those eligible for debt cancellation are borrowers who were
delinquent for more than seven months on their loan payments after
taking out a private subprime loan from Sallie Mae, Navient's
predecessor, between 2002 and 2014.

Honda Agrees To Settlement Over Defective Takata Airbags
In Canada, Honda has agreed to a settlement to resolve claims the
car manufacturer used defective Takata airbags in its vehicles.

Former Canadian owners and lessees of certain model year 2001 to
2017 Acura and Honda vehicles are eligible to be included in the
settlement.

Class members must file a valid claim form by Apr. 14, 2022, to be
eligible for compensation.

Rady Children's Hospital Data Breach Leads To Settlement
Rady Children's Hospital has agreed to a settlement stemming from
allegations it failed to prevent a 2020 data breach.

Patients or guardians of radiology patients who were treated at the
San Diego hospital or its related locations before Jan. 3, 2020,
and who received a notice that they may have been impacted by the
breach dated Feb. 21, 2020, are eligible for compensation.

Class members must submit a valid claim form by Mar. 30, 2022, to
be included in the settlement.

Infinity Diagnostics Settles Claims Over Defective COVID Tests
Infinity Diagnostics agreed to a settlement to resolve allegations
it distributed defective rapid COVID-19 antibody tests to New
Jersey residents.

New Jersey consumers who received an Infinity finger-stick COVID-19
blood test since Mar. 1, 2020, were eligible for compensation.

The final date to submit a claim to be included in the settlement
was Feb. 12, 2022.

Employee Bag Checks Leads To $30 Million Apple Settlement
Apple employees in California who were subjected to bag checks may
be eligible to receive compensation after the company agreed to pay
$30 million to resolve claims it violated state law.

Non-exempt employees who worked at an Apple retail store in
California between July 25, 2009, and Dec. 26, 2015, are eligible
for compensation.

Eligible employees will not need to submit a claim form to be
included in the settlement.

Mitsubishi, DENSO, Others Agree To Pay $13 Million Over
Price-Fixing Allegations
Consumers who made direct purchases of fuel injection systems made
by several companies, including Mitsubishi, may be eligible to be
included in a $13 million antitrust settlement aimed to resolve
allegations of price fixing.  

The settlement benefits consumers who purchased fuel injection
systems directly from Mitsubishi Electric, Mitsuba, Denso, Hiams,
Mikuni, Aisan, Keihin and/or Maruyasu between Jan. 1, 2000, and
Mar. 12, 2018.

Class members hoping to be included in the settlement must submit a
valid claim form by Mar. 25, 2022.

Homeowners Affected By 2011 Lake Manitoba Flooding To Benefit From
$85.5 Million Settlement
Manitoba homeowners who were affected by flooding after Lake
Manitoba overflowed in 2011 may be eligible to benefit from a
settlement worth $85.5 million.

Individuals who owned real or personal property that was off
reserve and within 30 kilometers of Lake Manitoba that was damaged
by flooding during the 2011 incident are eligible for compensation.


Class members must submit a valid claim form by Apr. 14, 2022, to
be included in the settlement.

Apple Agrees To Pay $100 Million To Resolve App Store Monopoly
Claims
Apple has agreed to a $100 million settlement to resolve claims it
violated antitrust laws by creating a monopoly with its App Store.


App developers who earned less than $1 million per year they had a
developer account while selling their applications or in-app
purchases on Apple's App Store between 2015 and 2021 are eligible
to benefit.

Eligible app developers must submit a valid claim form by May 20,
2022, to be included in the settlement.

Saint-Gobain To Pay $34 Million To Resolve Claims It Contaminated
Vermont Communities With ‘Forever Chemicals'
Residents of several Vermont communities may be eligible for
compensation after Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics agreed to pay
$34 million to resolve claims it contaminated the community with
"forever chemicals."

The settlement benefits two classes of individuals: a property
class and an exposure class.

Eligible property class members are individuals who owned property
in the area of concern — Bennington, North Bennington and
Shaftsbury, Vermont — on or after Mar. 14, 2016.

Individuals eligible to be included in the exposure class are those
who lived in a zone of concern prior to Aug. 23, 2019, ingested
water contaminated with perfluorooctanoic acid and subsequently had
a confirmed perfluorooctanoic acid blood level greater than 2.1
ppb.

The deadline to submit a valid claim form in order to be included
in the settlement is Aug. 21, 2022.

Seattle City Light To Pay $3.5 Million To Resolve Claims It
Inaccurately Billed
Washington residents who were charged for electricity by Seattle
City Light may be eligible for compensation after the company
agreed to pay $3.5 million to resolve claims it inaccurately billed
them.

Residential customers of Seattle City Light who received at least
one estimated electricity usage bill before receiving an actual
usage bill between Aug. 21, 2015, and June 8, 2020, are eligible to
benefit from the settlement.

Class members must submit a valid claim form by Feb. 28, 2022, to
be eligible for compensation.

voestalpine Texas Pays $88 Million Over Nuisance Dust Claims
voestalpine Texas agreed to pay more than $88 million to resolve
claims that it failed to keep dust from its La Quinta facility from
making its way onto surrounding residential properties.

The now-closed settlement will benefit individuals who owned or
occupied residential property in an affected area between August
2016 and Oct. 28, 2021.

Class members needed to submit a valid claim form by Feb. 11, 2022,
to be eligible for compensation.

Mercedes-Benz Settles Over BlueTEC II Vehicle Emissions
In Canada, Mercedes-Benz has agreed to a settlement which will
compensate current and former owners of certain diesel vehicles
found to produce more emissions than expected.

Current and former owners of Mercedes-Benz BlueTEC II vehicles with
a model year between 2009 to 2016 are eligible to benefit from the
settlement.

Former owners and lessees must submit a valid claim form by Mar.
23, 2022, to be eligible for compensation, while current owners and
lessees have until May 1, 2023, to have a field measure installed
in their vehicle and submit a valid claim form.

First Advantage Settles To Resolve Claims It Conducted Unauthorized
Background Checks
Consumers who had background checks run by First Advantage may be
eligible for compensation after the company agreed to a settlement
aimed at resolving claims it ran checks without first receiving
prior authorization.

Individuals who, without giving prior authorization, had a
background check conducted by First Advantage and given to an
employer between Aug. 17, 2012, and Nov. 20, 2020, are eligible for
compensation.

Class members will be able to redeem discounts the settlement
provides until Feb. 7, 2024, and have until Feb. 7, 2025, to redeem
nine free file disclosures First Advantage is offering.

Wells Fargo To Pay $3 Million Over Bankruptcy Credit Reporting
Mishandling Claims
Wells Fargo has agreed to pay $3 million to resolve claims it
mishandled customers' bankruptcy credit reporting.

Customers who, before Mar. 16, 2020, had a credit card account,
direct auto account, personal line account or home equity line of
credit account with Wells Fargo that was charged off and sold by
the bank to a third-party debt buyer on or after Jan. 1, 2009, and
discharged in Chapter 7 bankruptcy after it was sold are eligible
to benefit.

Class members must submit a valid claim form by Mar. 21, 2022, to
be eligible for compensation.

National Grid To Pay $38.5 Million Over TCPA Violation Claims
National Grid companies agreed to pay $38.5 million to resolve
claims that prerecorded phone calls they placed violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Individuals who received either a prerecorded phone call or a phone
call using an artificial voice from a National Grid entity from
between Mar. 9, 2011, to Oct. 29, 2021, are eligible to benefit.

National Grid has eight entities spread out in New York,
Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

Class members must submit a valid claim by May 12, 2022, to be
included in the settlement.

3M, Others, Pay $5 Million To Resolve Tennessee River Contamination
Claims
Alabama residents and property owners may be eligible for
compensation after 3M and other companies agreed to pay $5 million
to resolve claims they contaminated the Tennessee River with per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

Individuals who live and/or own property in Alabama's Morgan,
Lawrence, Limestone, Franklin, Lauderdale or Colbert counties
between Apr. 21, 2003, and Dec. 17, 2021, are eligible to benefit.


Eligible residents must submit a valid claim form by May 5, 2022,
to be included in the settlement.

Cellco Partnership, Verizon Pay $3.95 Over Prerecorded
Debt-Collection Calls
Cellco Partnership, while doing business as Verizon, has agreed to
pay $3.95 million to resolve claims it placed prerecorded debt
collection calls that violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Individuals with phone numbers listed as allowed to be contacted by
Verizon who, within the last four years, received a prerecorded
debt collection phone call and, while on the call, indicated that
the company had a wrong number yet later received another phone
call, are eligible for compensation.

Class members who want to be included in the settlement must submit
a valid claim form by Mar. 7, 2022.

Ford Reaches Settlement Over 2016-17 Explorer Exhaust Issues
Ford Explorer owners who had issues with their vehicles' exhaust
systems may be eligible for compensation following a recent
settlement.

All entities and individuals in the United States, its territories
and the District of Columbia who either currently or previously
owned or leased a model year 2016-17 Ford Explorer that was sold in
the United States are eligible to benefit.

Class members will have until June 30, 2022, or 120 days after a
Technical Service Bulletin repair, whichever comes later, to file a
valid claim.

Global Tel Link Pays $87 Million To Resolve Claims It Retained
Inmates' Funds Following Inactivity
Global Tel Link has agreed to pay $67 million to resolve claims the
inmate telephone service company unlawfully kept funds in
AdvancePay accounts that were no longer active.

Individuals who had an account balance in a prepaid GTL account
that was later reduced to zero following 180 days of inactivity
between Apr. 3, 2011, and Oct. 6, 2021, are eligible to benefit.

Current GTL customers will not need to file a claim to be included
in the settlement. Former customers must submit a valid claim form
by June 14, 2022.

Jaguar Settles With Land Rover SUV Owners Over Defective Timing
Chain Claims
Lessees of Jaguar Land Rover SUVs could be set to benefit after
Jaguar settled to resolve claims the vehicles were equipped with
defective timing chains.

Individuals who, as of Aug. 6, 2021, were current or former lessees
of Jaguar model year 2012-14 Land Rover LR4 and/or Range Rover
Sport vehicles are eligible to benefit.

The estimated date for class members to submit a valid claim to be
included in the settlement is June 9, 2022. [GN]

[*] Morgan Lewis Discusses Bill on Sexual Misconduct Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley J. Hale, Esq., Samuel S. Shaulson, Esq., E. Pierce Blue,
Esq., and Elizabeth Martin, Esq., of Morgan Lewis, disclosed that
the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual
Harassment Act of 2021 passed by voice vote in the US Senate on
February 10. The US House of Representatives approved the same
measure with bipartisan support on February 7. President Joseph
Biden has signaled his support for the bill and is expected to sign
it into law.

H.R. 4445, developed in the wake of the #MeToo movement, is
designed to address concerns that arbitration agreements are used
to shield allegations of sexual harassment and assault from public
disclosure and protect those accused of harassment and abuse. If
signed into law, the bill renders mandatory arbitration agreements
and joint-action waivers unenforceable in disputes involving
allegations of sexual assault or harassment.

The bill specifically prohibits enforcement of pre-dispute
arbitration agreements or joint-action waivers in cases filed under
federal, tribal, or state law that relate to sexual assault or
sexual harassment, unless the person challenging the conduct or the
named representative of a class or collective action elects to
enforce the agreement or waiver. The bill defines pre-dispute
arbitration and joint-action waivers as any agreement to arbitrate
a dispute that had not yet arisen at the time of making the
agreement; and any agreement that prohibits or waives the right of
one of the parties to participate in a joint, class, or collective
action in a judicial, arbitral, administrative, or other forum.

While some in Congress expressed an intention for the bill to
prohibit enforcement of any arbitration agreement or joint-action
waiver, the bill only applies to disputes or claims "that arise[]
or accrue[] on or after the date" the bill is enacted. Thus, the
scope of the bill and whether it applies retroactively to
agreements or waivers that pre-date the bill's enactment is
unclear.

The bill further requires that courts -- not arbitrators -- resolve
all disputes relating to the applicability of the bill to an
action, regardless of whether the arbitration agreement states that
such determinations must be made by an arbitrator.

IMPLICATIONS FOR EMPLOYERS
Arbitration agreements and joint-action waivers are widely used by
employers as they reduce litigation costs and tend to result in
quicker decisions than claims tried in federal or state court. The
bill does not prohibit employers from using these tools, but likely
creates a gap in their enforcement.

Assuming the bill is signed into law by President Biden, it is not
clear yet how courts will apply the enforcement prohibitions to
cases or class actions that allege other employment claims in
addition to sexual harassment or assault claims. In the instance of
a class action, it is unclear if a named plaintiff's individual
sexual harassment or assault allegation will be sufficient to
invalidate arbitration agreements or joint-action waivers otherwise
applicable to an entire class, where the class claims are void of
any sexual harassment or assault allegations. Until the courts
provide further clarity on this issue, employers should anticipate
that the bounds of the bill will be tested in the near future
through the incorporation of individual sexual harassment or
assault claims in otherwise unrelated employment class actions.

Employers should evaluate their policies and practices in light of
the bill, including their procedures for responding to employee
complaints of sexual harassment and assault. The bill underscores
the importance of effective sexual harassment prevention training
and protocols. Employers should focus their efforts on addressing
and correcting the behaviors that can lead to sexual harassment
claims in the first instance.

NAVIGATING THE NEXT.
Sharing insights and resources that help our clients prepare for
and address evolving issues is a hallmark of Morgan Lewis. To that
end, we maintain a resource center with access to tools and
perspectives on timely topics driven by current events such as the
global public health crisis, economic uncertainty, and geopolitical
dynamics. Find resources on how to cope with the globe's
ever-changing business, social, and political landscape at
Navigating the NEXT. to stay up to date on developments as they
unfold. Subscribe now if you would like to receive a digest of new
updates to these resources. [GN]

[*] Morrison Foerster Attorney Discusses H.R. 445 Requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew R. Turnbull, Esq., of Morrison Foerster, disclosed that on
Thursday, February 10, 2022, the United States Senate passed H.R.
4445, which will amend the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to ban all
pre-dispute arbitration agreements and class and collective action
waivers covering sexual harassment and sexual assault claims.
President Biden has already announced that he will sign the bill
into law once it reaches his desk.

H.R. 4445's Requirements
Once signed into law, H.R. 4445 will amend the FAA to prohibit
employers from enforcing predispute arbitration agreements and
waivers of class and collective actions relating to claims of
sexual harassment and sexual assault. H.R. 4445 contains the
following key definitions:

A "sexual assault dispute" is "a dispute involving a nonconsensual
sexual act or sexual contact . . . including when the victim lacks
capacity to consent."

A "sexual harassment dispute" is "a dispute relating to conduct
that is alleged to constitute sexual harassment under applicable
Federal, Tribal, or State law."

A "predispute arbitration agreement" is "any agreement to arbitrate
a dispute that had not yet arisen at the time of the making of the
agreement."

A "predispute joint waiver" is "an agreement, whether or not part
of a predispute arbitration agreement, that would prohibit, or
waive the right of, one of the parties to the agreement to
participate in a joint, class, or collective action in a judicial,
arbitral, administrative, or other forum, concerning a dispute that
has not yet arisen at the time of the making of the agreement."

H.R. 4445 will only apply to claims that arise or accrue on or
after the date H.R. 4445 is enacted. It will not retroactively
apply to existing claims of sexual harassment and sexual assault.
Arbitration agreements or class and collective waivers covered by
H.R. 4445 will be invalid or unenforceable as to claims of sexual
assault or harassment. H.R. 4445 also mandates that any dispute
over its provisions will be determined under federal law and by a
court rather than an arbitrator, regardless of language in an
arbitration agreement electing otherwise.

Implications
H.R. 4445 comes on the heels of numerous states passing similar
legislation over the last several years, largely in response to the
#MeToo movement. Some of those laws not only ban or limit the use
of arbitration for sexual harassment and assault claims for
employees, but also prohibit use of arbitration agreements for
discrimination, hostile work environment, and other claims.[1]
Although there is an existing federal law banning the use of
predispute arbitration agreements for sexual harassment and assault
claims for companies holding federal contracts with the Department
of Defense,[2] H.R. 4445 will be the first federal law to ban such
agreements for all U.S. employers.

Over the last several years, the U.S. Supreme Court has generally
found that the FAA preempts attempts to curb the enforceability of
arbitration agreements, given the strong presumption under the FAA
in favor of arbitration. Through the passage of H.R. 4445, Congress
has now expressly limited the scope of the FAA, at least relating
to sexual harassment and assault claims. And the Biden
administration has indicated that it supports expanding limitations
to preclude predispute arbitration agreements for claims regarding
"discrimination on the basis of race, wage theft, and unfair labor
practices."[3] It remains to be seen whether H.R. 4445 will be a
harbinger of other federal legislation that will further chip away
at the enforceability of arbitration agreements.

Practical Takeaways
Although H.R. 4445 will bar employers from using predispute
arbitration agreements covered by the FAA to mandate arbitration of
sexual harassment and assault claims or use class or collective
action waivers for such claims, there are a few notable limitations
to H.R. 4445:

Employers operating solely within an individual state might be able
to have arbitration agreements that would not be covered by the
FAA, since the FAA generally applies only to agreements in
interstate commerce.

Employees may voluntarily elect to arbitrate claims after a dispute
has arisen.

Sexual harassment and assault claims that arise or accrue before
H.R. 4445 becomes law, including claims currently being disputed or
litigated, will not be covered.

H.R. 4445 does not preclude predispute arbitration agreements or
class or collective action waivers of other claims, including
discrimination, retaliation, and wage-and-hour claims.

For now, employers should consider whether they need to revise or
overhaul their employment agreements that contain predispute
arbitration or class action waivers covered by H.R. 4445. The
limitations in H.R. 4445 will presumably apply to all agreements
with predispute arbitration and class action waivers, including
employment agreements and separation agreements. In reviewing their
agreements, employers should consider whether existing provisions
that already carve out claims that cannot be arbitrated or waived
under federal law may be sufficient for compliance with H.R. 4445.
Given the trend of state and local laws banning arbitration of
sexual harassment and assault claims, employers should also
consider whether to include specific carve-outs for those claims.

Keep in mind that H.R. 4445 only invalidates enforcement of any
arbitration or class action waivers covering sexual harassment and
assault claims. It does not provide plaintiffs with rights to
recover damages or attorneys' fees if they are subject to
provisions that violate H.R. 4445.

Employers should also consider the impact of H.R. 4445 on their
litigation strategies and budgets. There may be an uptick in the
number of court filings of sexual harassment and assault claims.
Where plaintiffs pursuing such claims have other employment claims,
such as discrimination, hostile work environment, or retaliation
claims, that are covered by arbitration agreements or class or
collective action waivers, it might result in the employer
defending claims against the same employee in two forums. [GN]

[*] Netherlands Became EU Jurisdiction of Choice for Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Linda A. Thompson, writing for Law.com, reports that in the past
two years, several foundations whose sole aim is to bring class
action lawsuits have been incorporated in the Netherlands. These
claim vehicles have taken aim at the anti-competitive behavior of
Apple and Google, the data collection practices of TikTok,
Salesforce and Oracle, the company misconduct of Airbus and the
service charges of Airbnb.

International law firms have taken note. U.S. litigation law firm
Scott+Scott went first, opening an office in the country's capital
in 2019. Global boutique litigation firm Hausfeld established a
base in Amsterdam a little later through a tie-up with local firm
Zippro Meijer, while global litigation firm PGMBM launched its
first office in the Netherlands this past December.

In the space of only two years, the Netherlands appears to have
become the European jurisdiction of choice for class action
lawsuits.

Approximately 50 class-action suits -- most of them focused on the
climate, privacy, securities, anti-trust and corporate misconduct
-- have currently been lodged, according to a public central
register. "I would expect at least 30 new claims this year," said
Isabella Wijnberg, counsel in Houthoff's Amsterdam office. "There's
[been] an exponential growth."

Wijnberg added she expected more international litigation-focused
firms to establish bases in the Netherlands in the coming years and
for firms that are already present to beef up their litigation
practices.

Along with the U.K. and Portugal, the Netherlands has long been
seen as a claimant-friendly jurisdiction in Europe due to the low
costs associated with initiating legal action, low adverse cost
risks and the speed of the courts.

But the recent, unprecedented proliferation in both claim vehicles
and class action suits can be traced back to an overhaul of the
country's three-decades-old collective redress system in 2020. The
changes were meant to make proceedings more effective and efficient
and to encourage claimants and corporations to settle, once
liability has been established.

Previously, the standard operating procedure for claims vehicles
was to take legal action to get a court to rule on the unlawfulness
of a company's actions. The representative organizations could not
claim compensation themselves -- only individuals could. Once a
court had established liability, they would in a second phase try
to obtain a collective settlement with the company.

Under the new law, any representative organization can claim
damages for an entire class of claimants on an opt-out basis.

This has made the law a game-changer for data protection class
action suits especially, where individual damages are usually very
small, said Patrick Haas, a partner in AKD's Rotterdam office.
"It's one of the few jurisdictions in Europe where such a case can
be pursued in an economically viable way," said Haas, adding that
there had been a sharp increase in such cases since 2020.

Though Portugal and the U.K. have some form of collective redress
opt-out systems, they are more limited in scope. The U.K. only
allows opt-out actions for competition law breaches before the
country's Competition Appeals Tribunal, while Portugal's opt-out
system is restricted to consumers.

"What's unique for the Dutch class action is that it's broad; it's
for any type of claim and for any type of underlying claimant,"
said Branda Katan, a partner in Stibbe's Amsterdam office. "The
persons [the claim vehicles] can be acting for can be consumers,
institutional investors."

Money has been another big factor behind the Netherlands' rise as a
jurisdiction for the litigation and settlement of major class
actions.

In the past, she said, organizations wanting to bring consumer or
investor claims would typically ask consumers to contribute funding
to finance the legal proceedings against a company. "What you now
see is that litigation funders have really discovered the Dutch
markets and are financing claims," Katan said.

She said litigation funders' new interest in the Netherlands had
enabled a number of genuine, meritorious class actions to proceed.
"But there are also investors who think, ‘Oh, there's a chance
here,'" she said. "And they'll take the initiative to start the
proceedings and find their damage sufferers as they go along, and
that's particularly true for U.S. plaintiff firms."

The third-party funders bankrolling some of the recently launched
class lawsuits include major international players like Omni
Bridgeway, Innsworth, Therium and the Jersey-incorporated newcomer
BPGL Funding I Limited.

The recent Google v. Lloyd case -- seen as a major blow to data
protection class actions in the U.K. -- has only further whet
funders' appetite for the Netherlands. "You immediately [saw] a
shift toward the Netherlands, where they say, ‘Well, if we can't
do the case in the U.K., let's do it in the Netherlands,'" Haas
said.

Most foundations acting for claimants are, with a few exceptions,
being advised by smaller local firms, who in turn are often
assisted and sometimes also funded by U.S. firms that specialize in
class actions. "[These are] U.S. firms that either come to the
Netherlands or use a Dutch firm to bring the claims that they've
researched and done a lot of work on already in the U.S.," Wijnberg
said.

U.S. plaintiff firm Lieff Cabraser, for example, is assisting with
a class action suit against Facebook; a foundation that has
targeted Airbus has teamed up with securities law firm DRRT; and a
claim vehicle that has taken aim at car manufacturers like Mercedes
and Renault has enlisted the help of U.S. plaintiff law firm Hagens
Berman.

Rogier Meijer, a partner in Hausfeld's Amsterdam office, said the
U.S. claimant firm launched in the Netherlands in 2020 because it
wanted to fill what he described as "the gap for a
plaintiff-focused international law firm." On Feb. 15, the firm
announced it would assist a local claim vehicle with two class
action suits it has filed against Apple and Google over alleged
anti-competitive behavior in their respective app stores. If
successful, the combined damages could be as high as a billion
euros, according to the firm's estimates.

"COVID notwithstanding, the last two years have shown that there
indeed are a lot of opportunities in the Dutch market for plaintiff
litigation," Meijer said, adding that it had "huge potential."

"The developments in the coming years promise to be interesting
with a new collective action regime and new players on the
market."­­

Large law firms, both independent and international, typically work
on the defendant side -- their traditional client base. The
increase in collective redress actions has already prompted some
firms to beef up their litigation practices. Clifford Chance, for
instance, recently poached Daan Lunsingh Scheurleer, a long-time
partner, from independent rival NautaDutilh for its litigation
practice.

"Further growing the litigation practice globally and in Amsterdam
has been a top priority for Clifford Chance in anticipation of the
trend towards more class actions in the Netherlands, together with
other trends such as increasing ESG related litigation," said
Dirk-Jan Duynstee, head of the firm's litigation practice in
Amsterdam.

With many more class actions on the horizon, Houthoff's Wijnberg
said global law firms with clients active in the Netherlands would
do well to familiarize themselves with the country's collective
redress system and to act quickly when trouble arises.

"If you solve issues early on, they usually do not get to the stage
of a class action. Because the whole fuel of a commercial class
action is normally the funding," she said. "Once there are claim
vehicles that try to get as much bad publicity for you as they can,
and [once they] have a funder on board, it will be much, much more
expensive." [GN]


[*] U.S. Securities Class Action Filings Down in 2021
-----------------------------------------------------
Shawn R. Obi, Esq., Dana L. Cook-Milligan, Esq., and Peter T.
McKeon, Esq., of Winston & Strawn LLP, in an article for Mondaq,
report that 2021 was a light year for new securities class actions.
According to reports by NERA Economic Consulting and Cornerstone
Research and the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action
Clearinghouse, plaintiffs filed only 218 securities class action
cases in federal and state court in 2021 - a 35% drop from 333
cases filed in 2020.

Both reports suggest this decline was fueled by a substantial
decrease in mergers and acquisitions class actions. The
Cornerstone/Stanford report identifies decreases in (1) federal
insider trading filings and (2) state court filings under the
Securities Act of 1933 as contributing factors. Additionally, the
maximum dollar value of the claims filed saw a 41% decline in 2021.
Professor Joseph A. Grundfest, director of the Stanford Law School
Securities Class Action Clearinghouse and a former commissioner of
the Securities and Exchange Commission, told the National Law
Review that "[t]he decline is attributable largely to a dearth of
'mega filings' -- claims with theoretical damages exceeding $10
billion."1 According to Grundfest, the "dollars at stake" decrease
is a more useful statistic for investors and plaintiffs' lawyers
than the number of new cases, since it indicates the monetary risk
at issue for current cases. He also posited that the decrease in
activity could be explained by the strength of the stock market
during 2021.

Despite this drop, experts anticipate the decline to reverse in
2022, predicting a busy year of securities litigation based on two
indicators:

First, while state court filings asserting claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 fell, federal-only filings rose. Overall,
the number of filings under Section 11 of the Securities Act stayed
about the same year-over-year. Further, the NERA report notes that,
although the 2021 numbers are a departure from 2017-2020 highs,
they are still well within the pre-2017 historical range.

Second, there is an increase in special purpose acquisition company
("SPAC") mergers, which have become a focus of the plaintiffs' bar.
New cases with SPAC allegations also increased, despite the
decrease in overall cases. According to Alexander Aganin, coauthor
of the Cornerstone/Stanford Report and a Cornerstone Research
senior vice president, "Over the last three years, roughly 13% of
SPAC mergers were followed by securities litigation, typically
within less than six months. This is slightly above the cumulative
core litigation rate that recent newly public issuers face in the
first two years after traditional IPOs."2 Along with this increase,
federal SPAC filings increased more than six times from 5 in 2020
to 32 in 2021. Aganin predicts the increase in SPAC mergers, in
conjunction with stock market volatility, will lead to a busy
securities litigation season in 2022.

For now, it is too early to tell whether this decrease in
securities class actions will continue in 2022, or simply reflects
a calm before the storm. But with the stock market on less sure
footing recently and more SPAC mergers on the horizon, it is likely
to become clear soon.

Key Takeaways:
New securities class actions were down by 35% in 2021 compared to
2020.

Despite this drop, several SPAC mergers will close in the coming
months, which may result in a busier securities litigation season
in 2022. [GN]


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***