/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220303.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, March 3, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 39

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Bohler Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Fagen Seeks Damages Over AFFF Product Exposure
3M COMPANY: Pavlik Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Tierney Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Wilcher Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams

3M COMPANY: Wright Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Ephraim Sues Over Mislabeled Infant Formula
ABOVE AND BEYOND: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Scott Suit Says
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: More Time for Filing Deadlines Sought
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Seeks Denial of Loschiavo Class Status Bid

ALL WAYS: Faces Bryant Suit Over Unfair Truck Lease Agreements
AMAZON.COM INC: Court Grants in Part Crosby's Bid for ESI Protocol
ANCESTRY.COM: Wilson Sues for Violation of Privacy
APPLE INC: Richards Alleges Software Update "Bricked" Speakers
ATHENA ALLERGY: Case Management Plan in Paguada Suit Due March 8

BAKER MILLS: Order on Class Certification Bid Entered
BIZQUALIFY LLC: Entry of $720K Stipulated Judgment Sought
BRAUN MEDICAL: Amended July 27, 2021 Scheduling Order Entered
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Class Certification Hearing Set for June 16
CALIBER HOME: Fourth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Morgan's Claim

CAPITAL ONE: Fitzpatrick Sues Over Unfair Charges and Interests
CARGO RUNNER: Faces Hill Suit Over Unfair Truck Lease Agreements
CENTENE CORP: Lewis Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CENTENE CORP: Williams Suit Asserts Breach of Fiduciary Duties
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS: Palm and Vine's Claims Tossed With Prejudice

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Freeze Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal
CHURCH AVE. CAR: Perez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
CIGNA CORP: Negron's Bid to Amend Scheduling Order Tossed
CLIPPER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Sanders Suit Over Unpaid Wages
COLLECTION BUREAU: Class Certification Bid Filing Due April 8

DELOITTE CONSULTING: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Nod
DESKTOP METAL: Faces Xie Suit Over Share Price Drop
ELANCO ANIMAL: Illinois Court Tosses Ambassador's Amended TCPA Suit
ELSE NUTRITION: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Tavarez-Vargas
ENVISION CREDIT: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Colston Says

ESTES EXPRESS: Bid for Leave to File Reply Brief Sought
EVA NATURALS: Gold Suit Has Class Standing, Court Says
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Court Stays Plaintiffs' Class Certification Bid
FIRSTGROUP AMERICA: McGinnes Suit Seeks Class Certification
FRANKLIN EDISON: Denial of SMI's Bid for Judgment Relief Upheld

GOOGLE LLC: Calhoun, et al. Seek to File Reply Under Seal
GWG HOLDINGS: Faces Bayati Suit Over Share Price Drop
HALSTED FINANCIAL: New Jersey Court Dismisses Pistone's FDCPA Suit
HAWK EYE: Faces Knight Suit Over Production Staff's Unpaid OT
HESS CORP: Minter Sues Over Pipeline Inspectors' Unpaid Overtime

HINGHAM, MA: Aftosmes Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
IGT GLOBAL: Initial Pretrial Conference Order Entered in Klaas
IMPERIAL FIRE: Bass Files Suit in W.D. Louisiana
INFORMATION RESOURCES: Santiago Wins Conditional Certification Bid
INTERACTIVE DATA: Parker Sues Over Illegal Background Check

ISS FACILITY: Garcia Seeks Modification of Scheduling Order
KAMALL INC: Rai Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
KAMIN HEALTH: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KYODAI SUSHI: Sparks Sues Over Illegal Tip Credit, Unpaid Wages
LIFE PACIFIC: Vikram Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

LITTLE SPOON: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Tavarez-Vargas
LITTLE SPOON: Pretrial Conference Adjourned in Tavarez-Vargas
LM GENERAL INSURANCE: Grela Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
LOUISIANA HEALTH: Every Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana
LOUISIANA HEALTH: Hurtado Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana

MATRIX ABSENCE: Loses Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Weeks Suit
MIX UNIT: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MONIN INC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
N.D.C. MARKETING: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
NATERA INC: Law Sues Over Prenatal Screening Tests' False Ads

NATURAL ORGANICS: Prenatal Vitamins Contain Heavy Metals, Suit Says
OXFORD HEALTH: Court Dismisses Mohr-Lercara ERISA-RICO Class Suit
PERRIGO CO: Prentice Sues Over Mislabeled Cough, Cold and Flu Meds
PFIZER INC: Adams Suit Transferred to S.D. Pennsylvania
PFIZER INC: Smith Suit Transferred to S.D. Pennsylvania

PORTLAND, OR: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bids in Bonneau Suit
POTTSTOWN AREA: Faces Robinson Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
PROFESSIONAL LOCKSMITH: Garcia Sues Over Locksmiths' Unpaid Wages
PROFILE DEVELOPMENT: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
PROJECT MELROSE: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

PROUD HARVEST: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PTS CRAFT COFFEE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RADIUS GLOBAL: Sussman Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
RAGAN & RAGAN: Camacho-Godoy Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Denial of Sovereign Immunity in Fox Suit Upheld

SCHMIDT BAKING: Gray Files RICO Suit in D. Maryland
SOPHIE'S CUBAN: Perez Sues Over Dishwashers' Unpaid Wages
SPEEDY STICKS: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SPROUT FOODS: Mislabels Baby/Toddler Food Products, Davidson Says
STATE FARM: Wotring Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania

STAVE PUZZLES: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STEWART'S SHOPS: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
STICKER MULE: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STROOP CLUB: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Weber Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey

TWOMAGNETS INC: Underpays Licensed Practical Nurses, Ester Says
UNITED STATES: Dismissal of Washington Federal's Claims Affirmed
UNIVERSITY HEALTH: Cansler Sues Over Illegal Collection Practices
UNUM GROUP: Troiano Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII
URGENTWAY MEDICINE: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: 3rd Party Payors' Class Deals Win Final OK
VP SUPPLY CORP: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
WALMART INC: Morris Suit Removed to D. Montana
XEROX CORP: Neala Sues Over Defective Versant Digital Presses
YOUR BIJOUX BOX: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ZR CONSULTING: Hull Sues Over Unsolicited Voice Messages
ZYNGA INC: Ferrando Files Suit in W.D. Washington

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Bohler Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dwight Darrlyn Bohler, 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-00463-RMG
(D.S.C., Feb. 14, 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
prostate 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: Fagen Seeks Damages Over AFFF Product Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------
CAROL FAGEN, as personal representative/administrator/ executor of
the estate of Jack C. Smith, deceased, Plaintiff 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; KIDDEFENWAL, 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-00525-RMG (D.S.C., Feb. 18, 2022) is a class action seeking
damages for Plaintiff's personal injury and death resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), an industrial firefighting foam
which contains toxic chemicals known to cause harmful health
outcomes in humans.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knew of the health and
environmental hazards for years and yet failed to warn consumers
and the public of the dangerous effects of PFAS chemicals.
Nevertheless, the Defendants continued to manufacture AFFF
containing PFAS chemicals including PFOA and PFOS would be released
into the environment during firefighting operations.

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

3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
          John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
          WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
          125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (732) 855-6060
          Facsimile: (732) 726-4860

3M COMPANY: Pavlik Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
--------------------------------------------------------
Roland David Pavlik, 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-00439-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
prostate 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: Tierney Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------
Sean William Tierney, 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-00454-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: Wilcher Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Allen Wilcher, 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-00450-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: Wright Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Oneal Wright, 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-00441-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


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Ephraim Sues Over Mislabeled Infant Formula
----------------------------------------------------------------
ISRAEL EPHRAIM and ZELDA BERGER, individually, and as legal
guardian of T.B., a minor child, and ISRAEL EPHRAIM and ZELDA
BERGER on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC. Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-20516 (S.D.
Fla., Feb. 20, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs,
both on their own behalf, and as legal guardian of T.B., a minor
child, and on behalf of a Class comprised of all others similarly
situated to redress Defendant's numerous unfair and deceptive acts
and practices designed to mislead the public in connection with
their promotion, marketing, advertising, packaging, labeling,
distribution and/or sale of Similac Infant Formula which violate
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants unfairly and deceptively
promoted the product during the relevant time period as containing
ingredients safe for infant consumption and being safe for use,
when, in fact, they cause bacterial infections and gastrointestinal
illnesses such as Cronobacter sakazakii, Salmonella, diarrhea,
gastrointestinal illnesses, and other serious health problems.

Mr. and Mrs. Berger purchased Similac Infant Formula, including but
not limited to, Alimentum during the class period. Had they known
that these products contained or could contain said contaminants,
they would not have purchased them, says the suit.

Abbott Laboratories, Inc. is an American multinational medical
devices and health care company with headquarters in Abbott Park,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Gdanski, Esq.
          David Silverman, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq.
          SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
          1212 Southeast 3rd Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 320-9507
          E-mail: scott@schlesingerlaw.com
                  jonathan@Schlesingerlawoffices.com
                  dsilverman@schlesingerlaw.com
                  jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com

ABOVE AND BEYOND: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Scott Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH SCOTT, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ABOVE AND BEYOND RETAIL SERVICES, INC. and
ROBERT C. ABSHER, Defendants, Case No. 5:22-cv-00019 (W.D.N.C.,
Feb. 22, 2022) arises from the Defendants' unlawful common policies
and practices involving the failure to pay for hours worked in
excess of 40 per week at a rate of not less than one and one-half
times the regular rate of pay in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and state laws including the Pennsylvania Minimum
Wage Act, the New York Labor Law, the New Jersey Wage and Hour
Laws, the Massachusetts General Laws, and the Nevada Revised
Statutes.

Plaintiff Scott worked for the Defendants as a merchandising and
fixture installer from May 2020 to the present.

Above and Beyond Retail Services, Inc. is a visual merchandising
and display firm serving retailers, fixture companies, and
manufacturers including, inter alia, Dollar General Corp. and Lowes
Companies Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
          CRUMLEY ROBERTS LLP
          2400 Freeman Mill Road
          Greensboro, NC 27406
          Telephone: (800) 288-1529
          E-mail: blkinsley@crumleyroberts.com

               - and -

          Eric Sands, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com

ADVANCED DRAINAGE: More Time for Filing Deadlines Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONNIE LOSCHIAVO & SHAWN
SELBY, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v.
ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-05069-MHW-CMV
(S.D. Ohio), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order that the
current briefing deadlines set forth in the Parties' prior Joint
Motion for Extension of Time Relating to Filing Deadlines of
Pre-Discovery Motion for Conditional Certification be
modified/extended by seven days as follows:

                                   Current        Requested
                                   Deadline       New Deadline

-- Defendant will file its      Feb. 18, 2022    Feb. 25, 2022
   response to the
   Motion for Conditional
   Certification

-- Plaintiffs will file their   March 4, 2022    March 11, 2022
   reply

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JQktBJ at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Andrew C. Smith, Esq.
          Michael J. Ball, Esq.
          Oliver D. Frey (0098479)
          52 E. Gay St.
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 464-5434
          Facsimile: (614) 719-4969
          E-mail: acsmith@vorys.com
                  mjball@vorys.com
                  odfrey@vorys.com

               - and -

          Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 704-0546
          Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
          E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com

               - and -

          Matthew B. Bryant, Esq.
          3450 W Central Ave., Suite 370
          Toledo, OH 43606
          Telephone: (419) 824-4439
          Facsimile: (419) 932-6719
          E-mail: Mbryant@bryantlegalllc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew C. Smith, Esq.
          Michael J. Ball, Esq.
          Oliver D. Frey, Esq.
          VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
          52 E. Gay St.
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 464-5434
          Facsimile: (614) 719-4969
          E-mail: acsmith@vorys.com
                  mjball@vorys.com
                  odfrey@vorys.com

ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Seeks Denial of Loschiavo Class Status Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONNIE LOSCHIAVO AND SHAWN
SELBY, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v.
ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-05069-MHW-CMV
(S.D. Ohio), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order denying
the Plaintiffs' Pre-Discovery Motion for Conditional Class
Certification and Court-Supervised Notice to Potential Opt-In
Plaintiffs Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).

The Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs fail to satisfy the
requisites for conditional certification. They have not shown they
are similarly situated to the putative class members, nor have they
shown that a collective action would be manageable.

Advanced Drainage's policies on meal break and time rounding comply
with the Fair Labor Standards Act. ADS' hourly employees are
required to work on the clock and are paid for all hours worked.
Yet Plaintiffs claim ADS violated the FLSA because their meal
breaks were supposedly "interrupted" and supervisors "threatened"
them for taking breaks, and because their punch times were rounded
to the nearest quarter hour. The two Named Plaintiffs and six
opt-ins worked as production and yard employees in nine ADS sites
across Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Utah.

From their individualized circumstances, the Plaintiffs speculate
that all of ADS' production and yard employees have similar
threatening supervisors and are subject to similar rounding
practices. From this, they seek to certify a nationwide class of
all such employees -- over 4,000 individuals.

ADS designs, manufactures, and distributes high performance
thermoplastic corrugated pipe and ancillary products such as
fittings, basins, and tanks to provide a comprehensive suite of
water management products and drainage solutions for use in
non-residential and residential construction, agriculture, and
infrastructure applications at more than 60 U.S. facilities.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 17, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35g0td9 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Andrew C. Smith, Esq.
          Michael J. Ball, Esq.
          Oliver D. Frey, Esq.
          VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
          52 East Gay Street
          Columbus, Ohio 43215
          Telephone: (614) 464-5434
          Facsimile: (614) 719-4969
          E-mail: acsmith@vorys.com
                  mjball@vorys.com
                  odfrey@vorys.com

ALL WAYS: Faces Bryant Suit Over Unfair Truck Lease Agreements
--------------------------------------------------------------
HERBERT BRYANT III, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALL WAYS AUTO TRANSPORT, LLC, an
Illinois Limited Liability Company doing business as AW TRANSPORT;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-00906 (E.D. Ill., Feb. 18, 2022) arises from the
Defendants' alleged breach of contract, breach of covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, and violations of the Truth in Leasing Act
and the Truth in Leasing Regulations.

The Plaintiff is a former truck driver for Defendants who worked
for Defendants in multiple States including but not limited to
Illinois within four years prior to the filing of the action.

According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in abusive
practices including, inter alia, applying miscellaneous and unknown
monthly charges and refusing to return escrow moneys to Plaintiff
as required by TILA.

All Ways Auto Transport, LLC is an Illinois-based bonded freight
shipping and trucking company running freight hauling
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
          111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          Facsimile: (312) 212-5919
          E-mail: katrina@lcllp.com

               - and -

          Taras Kick, Esq.
          Sam Vahedi, Esq.
          Jeffrey C. Bils, Esq.
          815 Moraga Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone: (310) 395-2988
          Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
          E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com
                  Sam@kicklawfirm.com
                  Jeff@kicklawfirm.com

AMAZON.COM INC: Court Grants in Part Crosby's Bid for ESI Protocol
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CRAIG CROSBY and CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 21-1083-JCC (W.D. Wash.), Judge John C.
Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Enter an ESI Protocol.

In a civil action, parties "may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or
defense and proportional to the needs of the case." The Court has
broad authority and discretion to manage this process. It expects
that the parties will do so efficiently and cooperatively.

The parties have been unable to come to an agreement whether to
adopt, without modification, the District's model agreement
governing Rule 34 production of electronically stored information
("ESI"). The Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter a version of the
agreement without a limit on the number of additional search terms,
without a limit on the number of custodians from whom records can
be sought, and with a longer time for a requesting party to propose
additional search terms. They also ask that the order mandate
resolution of ESI-related discovery disputes through the expedited
process provided by the local rules. The Defendant argues that the
Plaintiffs' proposed modifications to the model agreement are not
proportional to the needs of the case and would support a "fishing
expedition."

Because the parties are unable to come to an agreement regarding
all terms contained within an ESI discovery agreement, Judge
Coughenour will, in his discretion, assist the parties in doing
so.

While the Plaintiffs' case does not appear overly complex, as a
putative class action involving a high volume of purchases by
prospective class members, it is not a simple case. Therefore, 20
additional search terms, rather than the 10 propounded by the model
agreement, is appropriate. These additional terms should provide
the Plaintiffs with the ESI necessary to support merits and class
discovery. And running searches and producing the resulting
discovery based on this number of terms does not appear to be an
unduly burdensome task for the Defendant.

As to the Plaintiffs' timeframe to proposed additional terms, it
appears to Judge Coughenour that the Plaintiffs' expanded timeframe
is reasonable. The additional time sought by the Plaintiffs would
ensure that they have the time necessary to identify gaps in the
Defendant's production. And, it does not appear that this
additional time would prejudice Defendant.

The Plaintiffs' remaining proposed changes -- striking the limit on
the number of custodians from whom production can be sought and
mandating the imposition of the expedited procedures provided by
the local rules for the resolution of ESI-related discovery dispute
-- are not warranted, Judge Coughenour holds. This is because (a)
the Plaintiffs provide the Court with no argument supporting a
deviation regarding the number of custodians and (b) the adoption
of an expedited dispute resolution procedure requires agreement by
all parties -- something the Defendant has not provided.
Accordingly, Judge Coughenour will leave it to the parties to
decide when to utilize such procedures.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Coughenour entered the Order
regarding the discovery of ESI in the matter.

Within 30 days of entry of the Order, or at a later time if agreed
to by the parties, each party will disclose (i) the five custodians
most likely to have discoverable ESI in their possession, custody,
or control; (ii) a list of non-custodial data sources (e.g., shared
drives, servers), if any, likely to contain discoverable ESI and,
for each such source, the extent to which a party is (or is not)
able to preserve information stored in the third-party data source;
(iii) a list of third-party data sources, if any, likely to contain
discoverable ESI; and (iv) list of data sources, if any, likely to
contain discoverable ESI that a party asserts is not reasonably
accessible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2)(B). The
parties agree to meet and confer before including custodians or
data sources subject to such laws in any ESI or other discovery
request.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8fema6 from Leagle.com.


ANCESTRY.COM: Wilson Sues for Violation of Privacy
--------------------------------------------------
JOHN WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ANCESTRY.COM OPERATIONS INC., a Virginia
Corporation; ANCESTRY.COM INC., a Delaware Corporation; and
ANCESTRY.COM LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00861-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 21, 2022) seeks
damages, an injunction, and additional relief from Defendants for
allegedly using Plaintiff's and Class members' names and personas
to promote paid subscriptions to the Ancestry website without
consent, and in violation of Ohio's right of publicity statute and
Ohio common law prohibiting misappropriation of a name or
likeness.

According to the complaint, Ancestry uses Plaintiff's and Class
members' names and likenesses in at least three advertising
techniques. In all three advertising techniques, Ancestry displays
the Plaintiff's and Class members' photographs in low-resolution or
time-limited formats to a potential customer. Allegedly, Ancestry
promises the potential customer that purchasing a paid subscription
to Ancestry.com will reveal the full versions of Plaintiff's and
Class member's photographs and personal information.

Ancestry promises that a paid subscription will also deliver many
additional services, including the ability to search for and view
billions of additional records about millions of other individuals.
Searchable records included with an Ancestry.com subscription
include yearbook photos, marriage records, baptism records, death
certificates, divorce records, photographs of grave sites, and
others, says the suit.

Mr. Wilson is a private individual who has no relationship with
Ancestry. He has never visited, used, or subscribed to
Ancestry.com.

Ancestry.com Operations Inc. provides online family genealogy
information and resources.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael C. Lueder, Esq.
          HANSEN REYNOLDS LLC
          301 N. Broadway, Suite 400
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 455-7676
          Facsimile: (414) 273-8476
          E-mail: mlueder@hansenreynolds.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

APPLE INC: Richards Alleges Software Update "Bricked" Speakers
--------------------------------------------------------------
BARRY RICHARDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:22-cv-01095-SVK (N.D. Cal., Feb. 22, 2022) is brought against the
Defendant for the manufacture, marketing, detailing, distribution,
and sale of Apple HomePods that were rendered inoperative by a
defective software update in violation of the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act, the California's Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, and
the Unfair Competition Law.

Apple first began selling HomePods, a wireless "smart speaker" for
home audio in January or February 2018. In March 2021, Apple
officially discontinued the original HomePod and began selling the
HomePod mini, which is a smaller iteration of the original HomePod.
In approximately May 2021, Apple released software update 14.6 for
original HomePods. After update 14.6 was issued, however, many
Apple HomePod owners found that the software update "bricked" their
HomePods, meaning they ceased working and were useless, says the
suit.

Through this alleged business strategy, Apple bricked the original
HomePods, or alternatively, it decided not to provide a remedy for
the problems caused by software update 14.6, because Apple had
discontinued the original HomePods and wanted consumers, including
Plaintiff, to purchase the newer HomePod minis. If owners of
original HomePods replaced their broken systems with HomePod minis,
then Apple would sell more HomePod minis and profit from those
sales, the suit added.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          Sean L. Litteral, 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: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  jsmith@bursor.com
                  slitteral@bursor.com

ATHENA ALLERGY: Case Management Plan in Paguada Suit Due March 8
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DILENIA PAGUADA, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ATHENA ALLERGY, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 21 Civ. 1245 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Katherine Polk Failla
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
ordered the Defense counsel to file a joint letter outlining the
parties' proposed schedule for the Defendant to Answer the First
Amended Class Action Complaint and submit a proposed case
management plan by March 8, 2022.

On Feb. 22, 2022, the Court denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at
docket entry 20.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4ws7hpeh from Leagle.com.


BAKER MILLS: Order on Class Certification Bid Entered
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERRIS MINOR v. BAKER
MILLS, INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02901-RS (N.D.Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order that within the next two
weeks, the parties in this action:

  -- shall meet and confer to determine if they can reach a
     stipulation as to how this matter should proceed in light
     of the Chong judgment; and

  -- shall thereafter promptly file a stipulation reflecting any
     agreements they reach and/or a joint statement setting out
     their respective positions on any matters as to which no
     agreement is reached.

The Chong decision has now issued, rejecting the analysis that
previously allowed this case to go forward and dismissing the Chong
complaint without leave to amend.

The hearing on plaintiff's motion for class certification, motion
for leave to amend, and associated evidentiary motions was vacated
pending disposition of a motion to dismiss in Chong, et al v. KIND
LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-04528-RS, which presented preemption issues
applicable to this case.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3shM0WH at no extra charge.[CC]

BIZQUALIFY LLC: Entry of $720K Stipulated Judgment Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as QIUZI HU, an individual,
EDWIN RAMIREZ, an individual, IVAN RONCERIA, an individual, WENZHI
FEI, individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. JOSE M. PLEHN-DUJOWICH, a.k.a. JOSE M. PLEHN, an
individual; BIZQUALIFY LLC, a California limited liability company;
and POWERLYTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
3:18-cv-01791-AGT (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for
entry of the Parties' joint stipulation for conditional entry of
final judgment in the amount of $720,000, post-judgment interest,
and attorneys' fees and costs against the Defendants.

Additionally, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court
award attorneys' fees to the Dhillon Law Group for the time and
costs it had to expend to enforce the Settlement Agreement, for the
time and costs it had to expend dealing with Defendants’ checks
which were returned for insufficient funds, and for the time and
costs it had to expend in drafting and filing this motion. The
Plaintiffs are requesting attorneys’ fees in the amount of
$14,760 and costs in the amount of $24 for a total of $14,784.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 17, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33Y7XAN at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harmeet K. Dhillon, Esq.
          Krista L. Baughman, Esq.
          Michael R. Fleming, Esq.
          DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
          177 Post Street, Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 433-1700
          Facsimile: (415) 520-6593
          E-mail: harmeet@dhillonlaw.com
                  kbaughman@dhillonlaw.com
                  mfleming@dhillonlaw.com

BRAUN MEDICAL: Amended July 27, 2021 Scheduling Order Entered
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TANIA NUNEZ, JOHNNY CHU,
ASHOK D. PANDYA, and DAVID E. STERN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. B. BRAUN MEDICAL, INC., BOARD OF
DIRECTORS AT B. BRAUN MEDICAL INC., THE RETIREMENT COMMITTEE OF B.
BRAUN MEDICAL INC., and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 5:20-cv-04195-EGS
(E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Edward G. Smith entered an amended July
27, 2021 scheduling order as follows:

  a. The parties shall file any dispositive    Sept. 26, 2022
     motions by:

  b. The parties shall file opposition to      Oct. 10, 2022
     any dispositive motions by:

  c. The parties shall each file a pretrial    Nov. 10, 2022
     memorandum by:

  d. The parties shall file any motions        Nov. 10, 2022
     in limine by:

  e. The parties shall file responses to       Nov. 17, 2022
     motions in limine by:

  f. Each party shall exchange exhibits in     Nov. 17, 2022
     accordance with Local Rule of Civil
     Procedure 16.1(d). Each party shall
     also provide the court with one
     exhibit binder by:

  g. The court will hold a final pretrial      Nov. 22, 2022
     conference on:

  h. A non-jury trial shall commence           Nov. 28, 2022
     before this court on:


At the suggestion of counsel for both parties, the court will
withhold resolution of the motion to certify class until the Third
Circuit has issued its decision in Boley v. Universal Health
Servs., Inc., Case No. 21-2014 (3d Cir.). The parties shall
continue to conduct discovery on the issues other than class
certification while the Boley decision is pending.

B. Braun is a German medical and pharmaceutical device company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vmzib4 at no extra charge.[CC]

BROOKDALE SENIOR: Class Certification Hearing Set for June 16
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Christopher Eidler et al
v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-03962
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S Gilliam, Jr. entered an order
on motion for extension of time to file response / reply.

The Court will hold a hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and Defendants' Daubert Motions on June 16, 2022 at
2:00 p.m.

The suit alleges violation of the Americans wth Disabilities Act
(ADA).

Brookdale Senior Living Solutions owns and operates retirement
homes across the United States.[CC]

CALIBER HOME: Fourth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Morgan's Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROGERS MORGAN; PATRICE L. JOHNSON, On behalf of
themselves individually and on behalf of a Class and Subclass of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CALIBER HOME
LOANS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 20-1745 (4th Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an Opinion:

   a. reversing and remanding for further proceedings consistent
      with its Opinion the district court's grant of the
      Appellee's motion to dismiss Plaintiff Rogers Morgan's
      claim; and

   b. affirming the district court's grant of the Appellee's
      motion to dismiss Johnson's claim.

I. Introduction

In the case, the Fourth Circuit addresses whether letters sent by
borrowers Morgan and Johnson (collectively, "Appellants") to their
loan servicer, Caliber Home Loans ("Appellee"), constitute
qualified written requests ("QWRs") under the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. Section 2601, et
seq., or the related Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB")
Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. pt. 1024, such that they triggered an
obligation for Appellee to cease providing adverse information
about the Appellants' accounts to credit reporting agencies.

II. Background

In 1994, Mr. Morgan acquired a mortgage in order to purchase a
home. Four years later, he refinanced this property with a loan
from NationsBank, NA. In 2015, Appellee purchased that loan and
became Morgan's new loan servicer.

Mr. Morgan was employed by the District of Columbia. Per the terms
of Morgan's employment agreement, the District of Columbia
periodically reviewed his credit reports. Between 2015 and 2016,
the District of Columbia expressed concerns about Morgan's credit
reports, which reflected purported overdue home loan payments.

But, Mr. Morgan did not believe he was behind on his mortgage.
Therefore, on Sept. 25, 2016, Morgan corresponded with the
Appellee. Enclosed with the letter, Morgan included a copy of a
credit report, which had been provided to his employer. This report
indicated that Morgan's account was 120 days past due and had a
past due balance of $16,806.

Mr. Morgan alleges Appellee continued to report adverse loan
information to credit agencies even after receiving the Morgan
Letter, which called this information into question.

On Aug. 2, 2016, Johnson obtained a residential mortgage directly
from Appellee. When Johnson fell behind on her mortgage payments,
Appellee began reporting this adverse information to credit
reporting agencies. In September 2018, Johnson applied for a loan
modification for lower payments. In response, the Appellee
initially placed Johnson on a trial payment plan, a preliminary
step toward approval of a loan modification. The purpose of the
trial payment plan was to provide Johnson the opportunity to
demonstrate she could make three timely, reduced payments. Although
Johnson made the payments required by the trial payment plan, in
November 2018, the Appellee nonetheless declined to finalize the
loan modification, citing the existence of a priority lien by a
solar panel company.

On Feb. 11, 2019, Johnson sent the Appellee a letter, challenging
the existence of "title issues" due to the solar panel company lien
and asking the Appellee to "conduct a reasonable investigation into
these matters and correct your errors." The Johnson Letter further
requested "an accounting of all sums you have imposed upon and
collected related to my loan including convenience fees for
accepting payment over the phone and property inspection fees."

In response, the Appellee revisited the possibility of a loan
modification, and the parties ultimately finalized a loan
modification agreement on April 26, 2019. Yet, in the interim, the
Appellee declined to stop reporting adverse information about
Johnson's purported delinquent payments on her home loan to credit
reporting agencies.

In September 2019, the Appellants filed claims against Appellee,
both individually and on behalf of a putative class of "all
residential loan borrowers" who submitted QWRs per RESPA and
Regulation X to Appellee in the preceding three years. When a loan
servicer receives a QWR, the servicer is required by RESPA and
Regulation X to temporarily stop reporting adverse information
about the borrower's loan payments to credit reporting agencies.
The Appellants contend that despite the fact that they sent QWRs to
the Appellee, the Appellee continued to report adverse information
on the Appellants' loans to credit reporting agencies in
contravention of RESPA.

Before the district court, the Appellee filed a motion to dismiss
the Appellants' claims. The Appellee argued the Morgan Letter is
not a QWR because it does not dispute a specific payment, which
Appellee contends is required by RESPA. It also argued that the
Johnson Letter is not a QWR because it only disputes a potential
loan modification, which is not protected by RESPA. On June 10,
2020, the district court granted the Appellee's motion to dismiss.
Given that the district court dismissed the Appellants' individual
claims, it also dismissed their related class action claims. The
Appellants timely appealed.

III. Discussion

The district court concluded (1) the Morgan Letter is not specific
enough to constitute a QWR; and (2) the Johnson Letter is not a QWR
because it "challenges only the Appellee's stated denial for the
loan modification," which "does not implicate servicing of the
loan."

A. Is the Morgan Letter a QWR?

The district court concluded the Morgan Letter is not a QWR.

The Fourth Circuit opines that this was error. First, the district
court erred by concluding the Morgan Letter is not a QWR and does
not "trigger RESPA's prohibition on credit reporting" because it
does not "dispute specific payments." RESPA does not limit the
reporting of overdue payments to disputes of specifically
identified payments but includes any "qualified written request
relating to a dispute regarding the borrower's payments." The
Fourth Circuit concludes that the Morgan Letter is a QWR subject to
RESPA, as it is "a written correspondence" that articulates a
"statement of reasons" in "sufficient detail" to indicate to
Appellee why Morgan believed the credit reporting was in error.

Further, the Fourth Circuit holds that the district court erred by
concluding the Morgan Letter is not a QWR due to a "lack of
specificity." It finds that the Morgan Letter is not a general or
vague complaint. To the contrary, as noted, the Morgan Letter
includes an account number, as well as a reference to an agent and
that agent's ID number related to a specific phone call Morgan had
with a representative of the Appellee to discuss the conflicting
balance information. More importantly, the Morgan Letter does not
rely solely on the alleged phone call with Appellee's
representative as the basis for the description of the problem.

Therefore, the facts taken in the light most favorable to Morgan
are sufficient at this stage to survive a motion to dismiss.
Accordingly, the Fourth Circuit reverses the district court's
dismissal of Morgan's claim and those of the related putative class
and remand for further proceedings.

B. Is the Johnson Letter a QWR?

According to the Appellee, the Johnson Letter is not a QWR because
it is merely contesting the Appellee's denial of Johnson's loan
modification. The district court agreed with the Appellee and
dismissed the complaint relative to Johnson's claim. The key
question in the case with respect to the Johnson Letter is whether
"servicing" for the purpose of RESPA includes disputes about
potential loan modifications.

The Fourth Circuit opines that the correspondence limited to the
dispute of contractual issues that do not relate to the servicing
of the loan, such as loan modification applications, do not qualify
as QWRs. A loan modification is a contractual issue, not a
servicing matter. The Johnson Letter does not relate to any dispute
of Johnson's payments, or assert an error related to the servicing
of the loan. The only error alleged in the Johnson Letter is denial
of the loan modification based on title issues regarding the solar
panel company lien. This does not fall within the ambit of
"servicing" so as to trigger RESPA's protections against providing
adverse information to credit reporting agencies.

Even taken in the light most favorable to Johnson, the Johnson
Letter cannot constitute a QWR. As a result, the Fourth Circuit
affirms the district court's dismissal of Johnson's claim.

IV. Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit concludes that where a written correspondence to
a loan servicer provides sufficient information to identify the
account and an alleged servicing error, such correspondence is a
QWR for the purpose of RESPA and Regulation X. Conversely, where
such written correspondence merely challenges a contractual issue,
it does not implicate a servicing issue and therefore is not a QWR
pursuant to RESPA or Regulation X.

Because Mr. Morgan's correspondence to the Appellee provided
sufficient detail to identify his account and the reasons he
believed account was in error, the Fourth Circuit concludes that
the correspondence meets the threshold for a QWR pursuant to RESPA
and Regulation X. Accordingly, it reversed the district court's
grant of the Appellee's motion to dismiss Morgan's claim. However,
because Johnson's correspondence did not allege a dispute related
to the servicing of her account, it is not a QWR protected by RESPA
or Regulation X. Thus, it affirmed the district court's grant of
the Appellee's motion to dismiss Johnson's claim.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/56v5s8nw from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Phillip R. Robinson -- phillip@marylandconsumer.com --
CONSUMER LAW CENTER LLC, in Silver Spring, Maryland, for the
Appellants.

Matthew Allen Fitzgerald -- mfitzgerald@mcguirewoods.com --
McGUIREWOODS LLP, in Richmond, Virginia, for the Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Melissa O. Martinez -- mmartinez@mcguirewoods.com --
Baltimore, Maryland, Brian E. Pumphrey --
bpumphrey@mcguirewoods.com -- Michael W. Stark, McGUIREWOODS LLP,
in Richmond, Virginia, for the Appellee.


CAPITAL ONE: Fitzpatrick Sues Over Unfair Charges and Interests
---------------------------------------------------------------
TANYA FITZPATRICK, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00312-MCE-DB (E.D. Cal.,
Feb. 18, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust
enrichment, and for violation of the California's Unfair
Competition Law Business and Professions Code.

According to the complaint, Ms. Fitzpatrick is Capital One's credit
card customer and has a Capital One Platinum Mastercard. Her card
is high interest (24.74%), and she must pay a $95 yearly
"membership fee" to keep the account open if she maintains a
balance. During the pandemic, she incurred late fees and interest
charges on this card after the pandemic reduced the number of hours
she could work. She contacted Capital One multiple times to ask for
a waiver of these late fees, which were running up already daunting
minimum payment amounts.

Allegedly, Capital One continued to charge late fees and interest
on her unpaid balances. It never exercised the discretion it
retained, refusing to even consider waiving or refunding late fees
or interest to give her a much-needed respite, asserts the
Plaintiff. As a result, the burden of making her minimum payments
continued to grow.

Capital One Financial Corporation is a national bank with its
headquarters and principal place of business located in Mclean,
Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
          Lauren Kuhlik, Esq.
          Glenn E. Chappell, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  agold@tzlegal.com
                  lkuhlik@tzlegal.com
                  gchappell@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com  

CARGO RUNNER: Faces Hill Suit Over Unfair Truck Lease Agreements
----------------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE HILL, DANIEL QUACA, and CHEYENNE QUACA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CARGO RUNNER
CO., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00910 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 18, 2022)
arises from the Defendant's unfair independent contractor lease
agreements with the Plaintiffs in violation of the Truth in Lending
Act.

The Plaintiffs are individuals who executed lease agreements with
Cargo Runner to provide truck driving services.

According to the complaint, Cargo Runner has violated the TIL
regulations by, inter alia, taking unspecified and excessive
deductions from drivers' earnings for such things as insurance,
fuel, and business expenses that should be borne by Cargo Runner;
improperly maintaining drivers' escrow funds; making unlawful
deductions from escrow funds; failing to return escrow funds within
45 days of termination of the drivers' lease agreements; and by
failing to include the contents, disclosures, and terms by the TIL
regulations in the drivers' lease agreements.  

Cargo Runner is a motor carrier that transports property in
interstate commerce under authority issued by the United States
Department of Transportation.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bradley Manewith, Esq.
          Marc J. Siegel, Esq.
          James D. Rogers, Esq.
          SIEGEL & DOLAN LTD.
          150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 878-3210
          Facsimile: (312) 878-3211
          E-mail: bmanewith@msiegellaw.com
                  msiegel@msiegellaw.com
                  jrogers@msiegellaw.com

               - and -

          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          Rachel Smit, Esq.
          Brant Casavant, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607-3260
          Facsimile: (617) 488-2261
          E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
                  rachel@fairworklaw.com
                  brant@fairworklaw.com

CENTENE CORP: Lewis Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
PENNY LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CENTENE CORPORATION, Case No. 4:22-cv-00228 (E.D. Mo.,
Feb. 24, 2022) arises from the Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff
overtime wages for all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arizona Wage Act.

According to the complaint, Centene's timekeeping and payroll
systems were affected by the hack of Kronos in 2021. That hack led
to problems in timekeeping and payroll throughout Centene's
organization. The suit contends that hourly and non-FLSA-exempt
workers, like Penny Lewis, were not paid for all overtime hours
worked after the onset of the Kronos hack.

Lewis brings this lawsuit to recover these unpaid overtime wages
and other damages owed by Centene to her and the hourly and
non-exempt workers like her, who were the ultimate victims of not
just the Kronos hack, but Centene's decision to make its hourly and
non-exempt workers bear the economic burden for the hack.

Plaintiff Lewis has worked for Centene as an hourly and non-exempt
employee since July 2019.

Centene is a managed care and health care corporation that operates
and serves both government sponsored and privately insured health
care programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 999-5228
          E-mail: matt@parmet.law

CENTENE CORP: Williams Suit Asserts Breach of Fiduciary Duties
--------------------------------------------------------------
RUTH WILLIAMS and LISA MAULE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTENE CORPORATION, THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CENTENE CORPORATION, THE CENTENE CORPORATION
RETIREMENT PLAN INVESTMENT COMMITTEE and JOHN DOES 1-30,
Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00216-SEP (E.D. Mo., Feb. 22, 2022) is
a class action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 against the Centene Management Corporation
Retirement Plan's fiduciaries, which include Centene Corporation
and the Board of Directors of Centene Corporation and its members
during the class period and the Centene Corporation Retirement Plan
Investment Committee and its members during the class period.

The Plaintiffs contend that during the putative class period,
Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined
under ERISA, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to
Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter
alia, (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's
investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment
option was prudent, in terms of cost; and (2) failing to control
the Plan's recordkeeping and administration costs.  

Based on this alleged conduct, Plaintiffs assert claims against
Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and failure to monitor
fiduciaries.

The Plaintiffs participated in the Plan, investing in the options
offered by the Plan, and were subject to the alleged excessive
administration and recordkeeping costs during their employment,
says the complaint.

Centene Corp. is the Plan sponsor and a named fiduciary with a
principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen F. Gaunt, Esq.
          STEELMAN GAUNT CROWLEY
          901 Pine Street, Suite 110
          Rolla, MO 65401
          Telephone: (573) 341-8336
          Facsimile: (573) 341-8548
          E-mail: sgaunt@steelmanandgaunt.com

               - and -

          Donald R. Reavey, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          2933 North Front Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17110
          Telephone: (717) 233-4101
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103  
          E-mail: donr@capozziadler.com

               - and -

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
          312 Old Lancaster Road  
          Merion Station, PA 19066
          Telephone: (610) 890-0200
          Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
          E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS: Palm and Vine's Claims Tossed With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PALM AND PINE VENTURES, LLC, and MDH GLOBAL, LLC,
Plaintiffs v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON, UNDERWRITERS
AT LLOYD'S LONDON KNOWN AS SYNDICATE XLC 2003, CNP 4444, NVA 2007,
QBE 1886, ARG 2121, and ASC 1414, and HDI GLOBAL SPECIALTY SE.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00077-M (E.D.N.C.), Judge Richard E.
Myers, II, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina, Northern Division, granted the Defendants' motion
to dismiss.

I. Background

The matter comes before the Court on the Defendants' motion to
dismiss. The Plaintiffs suspended operations during the COVID-19
pandemic and seek declarations that their commercial property
insurance policies cover the resulting economic losses. Courts
across the country have grappled with similar claims, and the
parties have fully briefed their positions on these policies.

The Plaintiffs operate vacation rental businesses. In February
2020, they renewed commercial property insurance policies with the
Defendants on two properties in Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina.
Aside from insuring different premises, the Policies match in all
material respects. At all relevant times, the Policies were in
effect, and the Plaintiffs complied with their contractual
obligations.

The Plaintiffs characterize the Policies as "all-risk" agreements
under which "all risks of loss are covered unless they are
specifically excluded." The Policies provide: "We will pay for
direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the
premises described in the Declarations caused by or resulting from
any Covered Cause of Loss." The Plaintiffs submitted business
interruption insurance claims under the Policies' Vacation Rental
Business Income Coverage.

The Plaintiffs believe three provisions cover the economic losses
they sustained after suspending their operations -- the Business
Income, Extra Expense, and Civil Authority provisions. The Business
Income and Extra Expense provisions cover economic losses sustained
when the insured's operations are suspended because of a "direct
physical loss to property" at the insured premises.

The Plaintiffs also seek relief under the Civil Authority
provision. The Civil Authority provision covers lost business
income and extra expenses incurred when government actions deny
access to the insured premises as a result of a "direct physical
loss to property" somewhere else.

The Plaintiffs' claims are physical substances -- coronavirus
particles -- cause COVID-19. These viral particles can be
transmitted through droplets in the air and contact with
"contaminated surfaces." In spring 2020, civil authorities
responding to the COVID-19 "public health emergency" issued orders
"restricting and prohibiting access to the Plaintiffs' insured
properties" and the surrounding areas. The Plaintiffs emphasize the
adverse effect of Governor Cooper's March 2021 "stay-at-home" order
on their businesses. The "presence of COVID-19" rendered the
Plaintiffs' properties "physically uninhabitable." They also allege
the virus limited the properties' functions, reduced the
properties' values, and "forced physical alterations."

As a result of the coronavirus' "presence" and government orders,
the Plaintiffs suspended their business operations, lost income,
and incurred extra expenses. The Defendants denied the Plaintiffs
claims under the Policies.

The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action seeking declarations
that the three mentioned provisions of the Policies cover their
claimed losses and that the Defendants are thus obligated to pay.
The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs responded
in opposition, and the Defendants replied, DE 29. In essence, the
parties dispute whether the Plaintiffs' inability to use their
rental properties triggers coverage under the Policies. The parties
have also submitted scores of decisions from courts throughout the
country addressing similar suits.

II. Discussion

The phrase "direct physical loss to property" operates as a
triggering condition for coverage under the contested provisions.
The Business Income and Extra Expense provisions cover only those
claims resulting from a "direct physical loss to property" at the
insured premises. Similarly, the Civil Authority provision covers
only those claims resulting from government responses to a "direct
physical loss to property" elsewhere. The phrase thus functions as
a gatekeeper to the Plaintiffs' recovery.

The Plaintiffs' allegations must support plausible inferences that
these provisions cover the claimed losses. Deciding whether they do
so requires first looking to North Carolina law to determine what
constitutes a "direct physical loss to property" under the
Policies. The Plaintiffs' pleadings must then be measured against
that requirement. The parties' disagreement flows from differing
interpretations of this triggering condition.

Put simply, the crux of the case is whether the inability to use
property can trigger coverage under the Policies without
accompanying alterations. The Plaintiffs say it does, arguing that
they experienced a direct physical loss when they "lost the
physical use" of their rental properties. The Defendants disagree,
arguing that controlling precedent requires physical alterations
unalleged.

Judge Myers agrees with the Defendants and holds that the
Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged any physical damage
requiring that property be repaired, rebuilt, or replaced.

A. Interpretation of "direct physical loss to property" under the
Policies

The parties dispute whether a "direct physical loss to property"
requires tangible alterations to that property. The Policies do not
define that phrase, nor has the Supreme Court of North Carolina
spoken on the issue.

The North Carolina Court of Appeals interpreted similar business
interruption insurance provisions in Harry's Cadillac-Pontiac-GMC
Truck Co. v. Motors Ins. Corp., 126 N.C. App. 698, 486 S.E.2d 249
(1997). Applicable interpretations by the Court of Appeals control
absent convincing evidence that the Supreme Court of North Carolina
would decide differently today. The Defendants argue Harry's
Cadillac controls and requires dismissal, while the Plaintiffs
consider it distinguishable -- or at least compatible with their
loss-of-use theory.

Judge Meyers holds that Harry's Cadillac controls because the
policy language it interpreted does not meaningfully differ from
the provisions at issue in the instant case. He says Harry's
Cadillac governs the Policies' materially indistinguishable "direct
physical loss to property" requirement. No convincing evidence
suggests that the Supreme Court of North Carolina would discard
this interpretation. Thus, the Plaintiffs must allege some physical
damage or destruction requiring that property be repaired, rebuilt,
or replaced.

B. Application of this interpretation to Plaintiffs' complaint

As pleaded, the Plaintiffs' claims stand or fall with their
loss-of-use theory. When evaluating cursory allegations of
"damage," common sense and judicial experience caution against
inferring an alternative theory of coverage requiring alterations
the Plaintiffs argue at length are unnecessary.

Judge Myers holds that most of these allegations pertain only to
the Plaintiffs' loss-of-use theory, and the remainder lack the
necessary factual enhancements to support plausible claims. To
start, naked assertions that coronavirus particles somehow "damaged
the property" and "forced physical alterations" are "merely
consistent with" coverage. Moreover, he says, the Plaintiffs'
argument that these allegations preclude dismissal relies on the
cramped reading of Harry's Cadillac rejected -- that it bars only
claims based on "mere inaccessibility." The complaint contains no
factual content that pushes the inference of the damage required by
Harry's Cadillac at the covered premises from possible to
plausible, so the Plaintiffs' claims under the Business Income and
Extra Expense provisions must be dismissed.

Similarly, Judge Myers holds that the Plaintiffs have not plausibly
alleged that any government orders affecting their business were
issued in response to such damage elsewhere. The Plaintiffs
identify no property outside the insured premises that had to be
repaired, replaced, or rebuilt. Instead, their complaint and the
executive order to which they refer suggest that government
responses were issued to slow the spread of the coronavirus among
people. Thus, the Plaintiffs' claim under the Civil Authority
provision must also be dismissed.

III. Conclusion

In sum, Judge Myers concludes that the Plaintiffs' pleadings do not
present allegations plausibly suggesting the "direct physical loss
to property" necessary to trigger coverage under the Policies.
Thus, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted and the
Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court
is directed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2m5jzt7t from Leagle.com.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Freeze Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs JAMES LEE FREEZE, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled JAMES LEE FREEZE and GARY
PFLASTER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 8:21-cv-01212, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Santa Ana.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Texas Labor Code
and the California Labor Code including failure to pay appropriate
minimum wages, failure to pay overtime/double-time wages, failure
to timely pay wages due, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, and unfair competition.

On January 26, 2022, Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. entered an order
granting in part and denying in part Defendant Charter
Communications, LLC's motion for sanctions and contempt order. The
Court ordered that: (1) the Freeze action is dismissed without
prejudice to the Freeze plaintiffs refiling their claims with
separate, unaffiliated counsel; and (2) Plaintiffs' counsel are
required to pay Defendant's reasonable attorney's fees and costs in
filing this motion and defending the Freeze action.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as James Freeze, et al. v. Charter
Communications, LLC, Case No. 22-55197, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 24, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants James Lee Freeze and Gary Pflaster Mediation
Questionnaire is due today, March 3, 2022;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by March 25, 2022;

   -- Transcript is due on April 25, 2022;

   -- Appellants James Lee Freeze and Gary Pflaster opening brief
is due on June 3, 2022;

   -- Appellee Charter Communications, LLC answering brief is due
on July 5, 2022; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants JAMES LEE FREEZE, on behalf of himself and a
class of employees and/or former employees similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Aris Edmund Karakalos, Esq.
          Michael Strauss, Esq.
          STRAUSS & STRAUSS, APC
          226 W. Ojai Avenue #101-325
          Ojai, CA 93023
          Telephone: (805) 641-6600
          E-mail: aris@strausslawyers.com
                  mike@strausslawyers.com

Defendant-Appellee CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC is represented by:

          Joseph Scott Carr, Esq.
          KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP
          515 S. Flower Street, 36th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (404) 213-3987
          E-mail: scarr@kcozlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph W. Ozmer, II, Esq.
          KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP
          171 17th Street NW, Suite 1550
          Atlanta, GA 30363
          Telephone: (470) 447-0603
          E-mail: jozmer@kcozlaw.com

CHURCH AVE. CAR: Perez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA VIVIANA PEREZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHURCH AVE. CAR SERVICE INC.
(D/B/A CHURCH AVENUE CAR SERVICE), CARLOS BETANCOURT, and PAOLO
BETANCOURT, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00964 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 22,
2022) is a class action brought against the Defendants for unpaid
minimum, overtime and spread of hours wages, and for failure to
provide wage notices and statements in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Ms. Perez was employed as an operator and a dispatcher by the
Defendants from October 2014 until December 13, 2019.

Church Ave. Car Service Inc. operates a car service located in the
Prospect Park section of Brooklyn in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CIGNA CORP: Negron's Bid to Amend Scheduling Order Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kimberly A. Negron v.
CIGNA Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01702 (D. Conn.), the
Hon. Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer entered an order denying plaintiffs'
motion to amend the scheduling order to permit the filing of an
amended class certification motion.

The Court denies plaintiffs' motion to amend the scheduling order
to permit the filing of an amended class certification motion.

The Court concludes that the filing of an amended class
certification motion is not consistent with the parties'
stipulation, that there is not "good cause" shown to amend the
scheduling order, that any amended class could and should have been
proposed at an earlier time, that there is still uncertainty about
the scope of the proposed amended class, and that CHLIC would be
unfairly prejudiced.

The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

Cigna is an American multinational managed healthcare and insurance
company based in Bloomfield, Connecticut.[CC]

CLIPPER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Sanders Suit Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA SANDERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CLIPPER INTERNATIONAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY,
INC; and DOES through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
22CV394515 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Feb. 22, 2022) is a
putative class action brought against the Defendants for their
alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the California
Business and Professions Code.

The complaint contends that the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
all wages including minimum wages and overtime wages, to provide
lawful meal periods, to authorize or permit lawful rest breaks, to
reimburse necessary business—related costs, to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, and to pay all wages due upon separation
of employment.

The Plaintiff brought this complaint on behalf of a11 California
citizens currently or formerly employed by the Defendants as
non-exempt employees in the state of California at any time between
August 28, 2017 and the date of class certification.

The Defendants are engaged in the construction and/or labor
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
          Kashif Haque, Esq.
          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, P
          9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250
          Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
          E-mail: jcampbell@aegis1awfirm.com

COLLECTION BUREAU: Class Certification Bid Filing Due April 8
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Clifford J. Church, et al.
v. Collection Bureau of the Hudson Valley, Inc., Case No.
2:20-cv-03172-SDW-LDW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Leda Dunn Wettre
entered an order granting the following proposed briefing
schedule.

  -- Motion for class certification           April 8, 2022
     due  by:

  -- Opposition papers due by:                May 2, 2022

  -- Reply papers due by:                     May 31, 2022

The Defendant is collection agency.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 17, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BYdqEm at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          Continental Plaza
          411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Tel & fax: (201) 273-7117

DELOITTE CONSULTING: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL CULBERTSON, KATHY
NEAL, KELLY ALLISON-PICKERING, JESSICA HAIMAN, ALEXANDER CABOT,
BRIANA JULIUS, NICHELLE NEWLAND, BERNADETTE NOLEN and ALEXANDRIA
POLICHENA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP, Case No. 1:20-cv-03962-LJL
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order granting
unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement,
certifying settlement class, application for class representatives
service award payments, and motion for attorneys' fees, cost, and
service awards:

  -- Final Approval of Settlement

     The provisions of the Settlement Agreement are hereby
     finally approved. Upon review of the record, including the
     Preliminary Approval Order, the arguments and information
     presented at the January 31, 2022 Final Approval Hearing,
     the supplemental memorandum and declaration of counsel
     filed on February 10, 2022, and the findings made as a
     result of the January 31, 2022 Final Approval Hearing,
     including on February 15, 2022, the Court concludes that
     the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate within the
     meaning of Federal Rule 23 and in the best interests of the
     Settlement Class based on analysis of the factors set forth
     in City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d
     Cir. 1974)

  -- Certification of the Settlement Class

     The Court certified the following Settlement Class:

     The 237,675 individuals identified on the Settlement Class
     List, in Illinois, Colorado, and Ohio who were notified via
     letter or email by the State Agencies between approximately
     May 18, 2020 and May 21, 2020 that certain personal
     information they submitted to the PUA systems in their
     respective states in connection with applying for pandemic-
     related unemployment claims may have been inadvertently
     exposed in the Data Security Incident.

     Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the judges
     presiding over this Action, and members of their direct
     families; (2) Defendant, its subsidiaries, parent
     companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in
     which the Defendant or its parents have a controlling
     interest and their current or former officers, directors,
     and employees; and (3) Settlement Class Members who
     submitted a valid Request for Exclusion prior to the Opt-
     Out Deadline.

  -- Service Awards, Fee Award and Costs

     Class Counsel provided adequate Notice of the Fee
     Application to the potential class members in a reasonable
     manner, and such Notice complies with Federal Rules of
     Civil Procedure 23(h)(1) and due process. The Notice
     provided to all potential class members stated that Class
     Counsel could seek attorneys’ fees up to 33.33% of the
     Settlement Fund plus reimbursement of expenses not to
     exceed $25,000.00, and further directed Settlement Class
     Members to a case-specific settlement website on which was
     activated on October 15, 2021.

     Settlement Class  Members were given the opportunity to
     object to the Motion in compliance with Rule 23(h)(2),
     however the only conclusory objection is hereby overruled.

     The Court hereby awards $1,649,835.00 in attorneys’ fees
     (33.33% of the Settlement Fund) to Class Counsel.

Deloitte provides industry-leading audit, consulting, tax, and
advisory services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JSaWKj at no extra charge.[CC]

DESKTOP METAL: Faces Xie Suit Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------
YICHUN XIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DESKTOP METAL, INC., RIC FULOP, JAMES HALEY,
and ALI EL-SIBLANI, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-10297-IT (D.
Mass., Feb. 22, 2022) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff
and all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Desktop Metal securities between January 15, 2021 and November 15,
2021, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Class Period begins on January 15, 2021, when Desktop Metal
issued a press release entitled, "Desktop Metal to Acquire
EnvisionTEC, Entering Market for Volume Production Polymer Additive
Manufacturing." Thereafter, on February 16, 2021, the Company
completed its acquisition of EnvisionTEC.

On November 15, 2021, after the market closed, the Company stated
that it would notify the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of
"compliance issues with certain shipments of EnvisionTEC's Flexcera
dental resins and its PCA4000 curing box."

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that there were deficiencies
in EnvisionTEC's manufacturing and product compliance practices and
procedures; (2) that the foregoing deficiencies presented a
material risk to the commercialization of EnvisionTEC's products;
(3) that Desktop Metal conducted insufficient due diligence into
EnvisionTEC's manufacturing and product compliance practices and
procedures; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

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

Desktop Metal Inc. purports to offer additive manufacturing
technologies focused on the production of end use parts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

ELANCO ANIMAL: Illinois Court Tosses Ambassador's Amended TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Ambassador Animal Hospital, Ltd., individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Elanco Animal Health, Incorporated and Eli Lilly and
Company, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-2886 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Mary M.
Rowland of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Ambassador Animal brings the putative class action
against Elanco and its former parent company, Eli Lilly and Co.,
for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and
Illinois conversion law. In its original complaint, the Plaintiff
claimed that the Defendants sent her faxes without her consent for
commercial purposes. The Defendants did not deny sending the faxes
but maintained that the complaint failed to plausibly allege that
the faxes constituted unlawful commercial advertisements. The Court
agreed and granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss and allowed
the Plaintiff an opportunity to amend. The Plaintiff timely filed
an amended complaint, which the Defendants have again moved to
dismiss.

II. Background

Defendant Elanco provides products and services for the animal
health and food-animal production industries. As of April 2018,
Elanco was a division of Defendant Lilly; in September 2018, Lilly
spun off part of its stake in Elanco, and then disposed of its
other shares in 2019.

The Plaintiff alleges, on information and belief, that the
Defendants have sent thousands of advertisements via fax to
targeted recipients. They sent two of those faxes to the Plaintiff
in April 2018. The faxes invited veterinarians or veterinary
practice owners to attend and participate in programs on topics of
interest to veterinarians. The faxes sent to the Plaintiff
prominently feature the Elanco logo and say they are "Fm: Elanco
Animal Health." The faxes also appear to offer a free meal and "CE
Credit" in exchange for attendance.

The Plaintiff did not expressly invite or give permission to anyone
to receive these faxes. The Plaintiff did not respond to either
program invitation and did not attend any of the offered programs.
The Plaintiff alleges, on information and belief, that Elanco used
the program invitations and programs to market its animal health
goods and services. The first fax directed recipients to RSVP by
calling Jim Archer, Senior District Manager at Elanco, and the
second directed recipients to call either a Taylor Johnson or
Elanco's Executive Territory Manager, Nicole Cochran.

As it did in its original complaint, the Plaintiff brings a
two-count amended complaint for violations of the TCPA (Count I)
and conversion (Count II).

III. Analysis

A. TCPA and the Court's First Opinion

TCPA liability rests upon showing that a defendant used a facsimile
machine, computer, or other device to send to a facsimile machine
an "unsolicited advertisement," which means "any material
advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property,
goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that
person's prior express invitation." Courts in this district
determine whether a fax constitutes an unsolicited advertisement by
assessing whether the "fax, on its face, constitutes an
advertisement," or alternatively, whether the "fax is a pretext to
an advertisement."

B. Amended TCPA Allegations

Like the first round of motion to dismiss briefing, the sole
dispute as to the TCPA claim concerns whether the Defendants' faxes
constitute such an "unsolicited advertisement" within the meaning
of the TCPA. In its prior opinion, the Court determined that they
are not. It held that the faxes do not constitute advertisements on
their face because they mention Elanco's name and logo but do not
mention any of the company's products or services. The amended
complaint also did not plausibly plead that the faxes serve as a
pretext to an advertisement because the Plaintiff admitted that it
did not know the content or purpose of the Defendants' free
seminars and could only state, upon information and belief, that
Elanco used the seminars to market its goods and services.

Judge Rowland finds that the amended complaint falls short of
curing the factual deficiencies the Court previously identified.
The faxes are the same, so on their face, they are not
advertisements as they do not advertise the Defendants' goods or
services. Nor does the amended complaint allege any new facts
raising an inference that the faxes served as a pretext for
marketing the Defendants' goods or services.

The Plaintiff also contends that the Defendants "showed the
commercial purpose" of their seminars by requiring fax recipients
to RSVP to senior or executive managers, not ministerial employees.
On this point, the Plaintiff points to its new allegations that the
faxes directed recipients to RSVP to Jim Archer, Senior District
Manager at Elanco, and Nicole Cochran, Elanco's Executive Territory
Manager.

Missing from the amended complaint, however, according to Judge
Rowland, are further facts from which the Court could conclude that
the Defendants' RSVP request served as anything other than what it
was -- an RSVP mechanism to a free seminar for continuing education
credit -- rather than a way to elicit business. Indeed, because the
Plaintiff continues to admit that it did not respond to either
program invitation and did not attend any of the offered programs,
it necessarily could not have known about the nature of the offered
programs nor what an Elanco employee would have said on the phone
to a recipient who RSVP'd to one of the faxes.

And in contrast to other cases where courts have declined to
dismiss a complaint, Judge Rowland holds that the Plaintiff does
not and cannot allege that registration for the Defendants'
programs required consent to receive future marketing emails to
have its information sold. In short, she says, the Plaintiff simply
has not alleged further facts that plausibly suggest a commercial
purpose to Defendants' faxes; it has not raised a right to relief
above the speculative level. For these reasons, she dismisses Count
I, this time with prejudice.

C. The Conversion Claim in Count II

Generally, when a district court dismisses all of a plaintiff's
federal claims, it should relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over
state-law claims rather than resolve them on the merits. Because
she dismisses the federal claim in Count I, Judge Rowland declines
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's
state-law conversion claim in Count II.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons she explained, Judge Rowland granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. She dismissed
Count I with prejudice and declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Count II. The Clerk is directed to enter a
judgment of dismissal with prejudice on Count I and dismissal
without prejudice on Count II. Defendant Lilly's motion to strike
in part the proposed class and class definition is denied as moot.
The civil case is terminated.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/t4pwsb2b from
Leagle.com.


ELSE NUTRITION: CMP & Scheduling Order Entered in Tavarez-Vargas
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tavarez-Vargas v. Else
Nutrition USA, Inc., Case No. e 1:21-cv-09824-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered a civil case management plan
and scheduling order as follows:

-- All fact discovery shall be completed      June 23, 2022
    no later than:

-- All expert discovery, including            Aug. 8, 2022
    reports, production of underlying
    documents, and depositions, shall
    be completed no later than:

-- Initial requests for production of         March 25, 2022
    documents shall be served by:

-- Interrogatories pursuant to Rule           March 25, 2022
    33.3(a) of the Local Civil Rules of
    the Southern District of New York
    shall be served by:

-- Depositions of fact witnesses shall        May 24, 2022
    be completed by:

-- Requests to admit shall be served by:      July 7, 2022

Else Nutrition operates as a baby food company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pdTzvC at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William J. Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          www.mizrahikroub.com
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: (212) 595-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
          E-mail: Wdownes@mizrahikroub.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew C. Heerde, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW C. HEERDE
          48 Wall St, New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (347) 460-3588


ENVISION CREDIT: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Colston Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH COLSTON and CATHY CLEMONS, individually and on behalf all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ENVISION CREDIT UNION,
Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-00073-AW-MAF (N.D. Fla., Feb. 18, 2022)
is a class action seeking redress from the Defendant's unlawful
conduct and asserting claims for negligence, negligence per se,
breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of
confidence.

According to the complaint, Envision discovered that an
unauthorized individual accessed its computer network system,
including customers' private information that includes names,
Social Security numbers, financial account information, payment
card information, driver's license and/or state identification
numbers, passport numbers, military identification numbers, and/or
similar numbers issued on a government document. Envision allegedly
delayed more than six months before it informed customers,
including the Plaintiffs, that their private information was
subject to unauthorized access in the data breach.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit on behalf of those
similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding
of Class Members' private information that Defendant collected and
maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice
to Plaintiffs and other Class Members that their information had
been subject to the unauthorized access of an unknown third party
and precisely what specific type of information was accessed.

Envision Credit Union serves as a financial partner for residents
and employees across multiple counties in North Florida and South
Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Katherine Earle Yanes, Esq.
          KYNES, MARKMAN & FELMAN, P.A.
          P.O. Box 3396
          Tampa, FL 33601-3396
          Telephone: (813) 229-1118
          Facsimile: (813) 221-6750
          E-mail: Kyanes@kmf-law.com

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com

ESTES EXPRESS: Bid for Leave to File Reply Brief Sought
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEMARCUS ST. CLOUD, STEVEN
BUTLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, v. ESTES EXPRESS LINES, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00456
(M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for leave to file a
reply brief in response to Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional class certification and court-authorized
notice.

On January 14, 2022, the Plaintiffs submitted a motion for
conditional class certification and court-authorized notice.

On February 11, 2022, Defendant filed a response and additional
attachments to the court regarding Plaintiffs' motion. The
Plaintiffs move to allow a reply in conformity with this
District's Local Rule 7.01(a)(4)

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 16, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pdoSqq at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan Street, Esq.
          Jonathan A. Street, Esq.
          Cullen D. Hamelin, Esq.
          1720 West End Ave., Ste., 402
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 850-0632

The Defendant is represented by:

          Tim K. Garrett, Esq.
          BASS, BERRY, & SIMS PLC
          150 Third Avenue South Suite 2800
          Nashville, TN 37201
          E-mail: tgarrett@bassberry.com

               - and -

          David L. Woodward, Esq.
          David L. Terry, Esq.
          POYNER SPRUILL, LLP
          301 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1900
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          E-mail: dwoodward@poynerspruill.com
                  dterry@poynerspruill.com

EVA NATURALS: Gold Suit Has Class Standing, Court Says
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WENDY GOLD, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EVA NATURALS,
INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-02842-GRB-ARL (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Gary R. Brown finds that the plaintiff has class standing with
respect to all 25 Eva Naturals products at this juncture.

The Defendant may renew its arguments regarding class standing at
the class certification stage, Judge Brown says.

Wendy Gold brings this class action suit against Eva Naturals Inc.
after she purchased one of 25 products allegedly falsely advertised
as "naturals" by defendant in violation of New York General
Business Law ("GBL") Sections 349 and 350.

Eva Naturals moves to dismiss, in light of TransUnion LLC v.
Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021), on the issue of standing as to the
twenty-four products the named plaintiff has not purchased. For the
reasons stated below, the Court finds that at this juncture
plaintiff has standing to bring this action as a representative
plaintiff on behalf of purchasers of all 25 products.

On April 19, 2021, plaintiff filed this class action in Nassau
County Supreme Court. On May 19, 2021, defendant removed this case
to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.

On July 19, 2021, the Court held a telephonic pre-motion conference
regarding defendant's anticipated motion to dismiss.

Eva Naturals is a skincare company based in Duson, Louisiana that
sells a line of products throughout the US.

Eva Naturals sells 25 skincare products. Although the brand name
"Eva Naturals" is prominently displayed on product labels, the
ingredient list purportedly reveals a number of synthetic
ingredients, the lawsuit says.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35nrVoY at no extra charge.[CC]

FIRSTENERGY CORP: Court Stays Plaintiffs' Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the three class action lawsuits filed against FirstEnergy Corp.
et al., the Hon. Judge Kimberly A. Jolson entered an order granting
the Parties joint Motion to stay filed February 15, 2022.

Accordingly, the Court stays for 30 days from the date of this
Order consideration and determination of the following pending
motions:

   -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

   -- FirstEnergy Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the
      Pleadings; and

   -- Defendant James F. Pearson's Motion to Dismiss the
      Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

Additionally, and relatedly, the Court stays Plaintiffs' deadline
to submit their reply in support of their Motion for Class
Certification for 30 days from the date of this Order.

The three lawsuits are captioned as:

   "JACOB SMITH v. FIRSTENERGY CORP. AND FIRSTENERGY SERVICE
   CO., Case No. 2:20-cv-03755 (S.D. Ohio);"

   BRIAN HUDOCK AND CAMEO COUNTERTOPS, INC., v FIRSTENERGY
   CORP., et al. , Case No. 2:20-cv- 03954 (S.D. Ohio); and

   JAMES BULDAS v. FIRSTENERGY CORP., et al. , Case No. 2:20-cv
   03987 (S.D. Ohio)."

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JPWWkr at no extra charge.[CC]

FIRSTGROUP AMERICA: McGinnes Suit Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jeffrey McGinnes, Wendy
Berry, Lorri Hulings, and Kathleen Sammons, individually and as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on
behalf of the FirstGroup America, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan, v.
FirstGroup America, Inc., FirstGroup America, Inc. Employee
Benefits Committee, and Aon Hewitt Investment Consulting, Inc.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-00326-TSB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the following proposed class in this action (or
      in the alternative, such other class(es) as the Court may
      determine to be appropriate):

     "All participants and beneficiaries of the FirstGroup
      America, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan at any time on or
      after October 1, 2013 who had any portion of their account
      invested in Aon Hewitt Funds, excluding Defendants, any of
      their directors, and any officers or employees of
      the Defendants with responsibility for the Plan's
      investment or administrative functions;" and

   2. appointing them as the class representatives for the
      classes, and Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel (Nichols
      Kaster, PLLP as lead counsel and Freking Myers & Reul as
      local counsel).

FirstGroup provides transportation services. The Company offers
leasing, transit contracting, management, maintenance, and
ancillary services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 16,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3seg71k
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          George M. Reul, Jr., Esq.
          FREKING MYERS & REUL
          600 Vine Street, Suite 900
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 721-1975
          Facsimile: (513) 651-2570
          E-mail: greul@fmr.law

FRANKLIN EDISON: Denial of SMI's Bid for Judgment Relief Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CE Design Ltd., Individually and on behalf of a
certified class, as assignees, Plaintiff-Appellee and
Cross-Appellant v. FRANKLIN EDISON CORPORATION, HOMEGROWN
ADVERTISING, INC., MONTY LOREE, and LISA LOREE, Defendants,
(Saskatchewan Mutual Insurance Company, Third-Party Respondent,
Third-Party Appellant and Cross-Appellee), Case No. 2-19-0130 (Ill.
App.), the Appellate Court of Illinois for the Second District
affirmed the circuit court's decision.

The decision denied Saskatchewan Mutual Insurance Co. (SMI)'s
section 2-1401 petition and dismissed CE Design LTD (CED)'s
cross-appeal as moot. The Appellate Court concludes that SMI's
petition for relief from judgment was properly denied.

I. Introduction

Following the circuit court's granting summary disposition in favor
of Plaintiff, CED, third-party respondent, SMI, appeals. SMI
contends that the court erred in finding for CED, and in denying
SMI's petition for relief from judgment under section 2-1401 of the
Code of Civil Procedure (the Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2008)).
CED cross-appeals, arguing the court made procedural errors
throughout the course of litigation and should have found in its
favor much earlier in the litigation process.

II. Background

The case, a post-judgment satellite to a class-action lawsuit that
has spanned some 15 years of litigation, has generated a common law
record more than 18,000 pages, or one of the largest records in the
Appellate Court's collective memory. Despite the sheer volume of
the common law record however, the parties have supplied the
Appellate Court with no transcripts or alternative reports of
proceedings from the circuit court, and no statement of agreed
facts. Those transcripts or other reports might have shed light on
matters that are otherwise unclear to the Appellate Court, such as
why the circuit court repeatedly granted the parties leave to file
multiple responsive pleadings and sur-replies, or why exactly the
parties and the circuit court bifurcated consideration of two
groups of SMI's potential coverage defenses.

These shortcomings do not seriously endanger the Appellate Court's
ability to review the limited issues that are properly before it,
but the lack of transcripts and the parties' shared habits of
talking cross-purposes, returning to already-resolved matters,
citing to boilerplate without explaining its application, filing
documents well in excess of page limits, and citing to entire
pleadings and exhibits without providing pinpoint cites, needlessly
complicated its review. Courts are entitled to have issues clearly
defined and presented for our careful consideration.

In December 2004 CED, an Illinois company with a long history of
litigating junk-fax cases, filed a three-count class action suit
against Franklin Edison, a Florida company. The suit alleged that
Franklin Edison sent an unsolicited one-page fax, advertising a
two-day seminar on electrical power, during a four-day cruise from
Miami to the Bahamas, to CED and thousands of other recipients in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) (42
U.S.C. Section 227 (2002)), the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Practices Act, (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 2002)) and
an Illinois criminal statute prohibiting such behavior (720 ILCS
5/26-3(b) (West 2002)). The complaint also contained a common law
conversion claim, but the primary basis for the Plaintiffs' claims
was the TCPA. In May 2005 CED filed an amended complaint which also
impleaded the same claims against Homegrown, and its principals,
Monty and Lisa Loree.

Homegrown is a Canadian company, based in Regina, Saskatchewan,
which specializes in marketing and advertising. At all times
relevant, Homegrown had a commercial insurance policy through SMI.
It was served with the complaint in May 2005 but did not contact
SMI regarding the suit until May 2006. Shortly thereafter, an SMI
claims adjuster sent a letter to Homegrown disclaiming all coverage
under an exclusion for intentional acts. Subsequently, Homegrown
negotiated with CED to settle the suit, and to assign its rights
under SMI's insurance policy to CED. In other words, the judgment
could only be satisfied by SMI's insurance policy.

On Nov. 28, 2006, the circuit court entered an order certifying the
class and preliminarily approving the class-action settlement.
Then, on Feb. 15, 2007, the court approved the settlement agreement
and entered a $5 million judgment against Homegrown to be satisfied
by SMI.

On March 20, 2007, CED filed a third-party citation to discover
assets pursuant to section 2-1402 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-1402
(West 2006)). The citation named SMI as the entity receiving the
citation, care of its vice president, R.J. Wotherspoon, and
contained the "return or appear date" of April 26, 2007. SMI
contacted its local Canadian attorney, Rod Rath, who sent a letter
to the circuit court.

At the hearing on CED's citation to discover assets, SMI did not
appear and CED filed a motion for turnover. The notice for the
turnover motion was again directed to SMI, care of R.J.
Wotherspoon. On May 3, 2007, the court held a hearing on the motion
for turnover and ordered SMI to pay $5 million in principal and
$94,931.50 in interest for the judgment against it.

CED attempted to register the May 3 judgment in October 2007 by
filing a motion before the Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan. The
Queen's Bench denied the motion because SMI had not received any
notice of the request for judgment against it. Subsequently, CED
received leave from the circuit court to file a second citation to
discover assets in December 2007. On Jan. 25, 2008, SMI's Illinois
counsel filed an appearance and a motion to dismiss the citation to
discover assets for lack of personal jurisdiction as well as a
petition for relief from judgment pursuant to section 2-1401 of the
Code (735 ILCS 5/2-1401 (West 2008)). In April 2010 the circuit
court found that it did not have personal jurisdiction over SMI and
dismissed the December 2007 citation. In January 2011, the court
granted SMI's section 2-1401 petition and vacated the May 3, 2007,
judgment against SMI for lack of personal jurisdiction.

CED appealed and the Appellate Court reversed the circuit court's
order dismissing the citation. It determined that Rath's April 2007
letter to the court constituted a responsive pleading under section
2-301(a-5) of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-301(a-5) (West 2008)), which
in turn waived SMI's objection to personal jurisdiction. The
Illinois Supreme Court denied SMI's petition for leave to appeal.

After the case was remanded, on July 18, 2013, the circuit court
granted CED's motion to reinstate the May 2007 judgment against SMI
and gave SMI leave to file a new section 2-1401 petition against
the reinstated judgment. SMI filed a section 2-1401 petition in
August 2013, and an amended section 2-1401 petition in November
2013. The amended petition alleged that SMI had 21 meritorious
coverage defenses -- labeled "a" through "u" -- that would have
prevented entry of the judgment against it.

CED filed a motion to dismiss the amended supplemental petition,
arguing, in part, that it was untimely. The circuit court denied
CED's motion, finding that the amended supplemental petition
related back to the original timely filed (April 2009) section
2-1401 petition. CED subsequently filed its answer to and
affirmative defenses for the amended supplemental petition. Shortly
thereafter, both parties submitted motions for judgment on the
pleadings. SMI based its motion on Canadian law while CED's motion
was predicated on Illinois law.

On May 12, 2015, the circuit court denied SMI's motion because "SMI
had the burden to prove that there is an outcome-determinative
conflict of law between Illinois and Saskatchewan and failed to do
so." CED's motion was granted in part and denied in part. The court
disposed of SMI's coverage defenses "a" through "u."

On July 15, 2015, SMI filed a motion to reconsider the May 12 order
arguing, inter alia, that the court erred in determining that
Illinois law applied and attached a 33-page affidavit from M. Kim
Anderson, a Saskatchewanian attorney, averring that under
Saskatchewan law and the particular facts of the case, SMI had no
duty to defend or indemnify Homegrown. The motion to reconsider was
denied.

On Nov. 20, 2015, CED filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant
to section 2-1005 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-1005 (West 2018)) on
SMI's "reasonableness" defense, which asserted that the underlying
settlement agreement between CED and Homegrown was reasonable under
the analysis developed by our supreme court in Guillen ex rel.
Guillen v. Potomac Insurance Co. of Illinois, 203 Ill.2d 141
(2003). Further, CED argued that SMI never pled "unreasonableness"
as a defense, and thus the argument was waived.

On April 17, 2017, SMI filed a motion for summary judgment on its
amended supplemental petition, which argued that, under Guillen,
SMI had a meritorious defense because the settlement was
unreasonable. On June 15, 2017, CED filed a cross-motion for
summary judgment. The circuit court denied both motions on Aug. 10,
2017, but the written order does not articulate its reasoning.

On Oct. 20, 2017, SMI filed its second amended supplemental
petition with leave of court, which included the previously pleaded
21 coverage defenses, "a" through "u," and two additional defenses,
"v" and "w." CED filed a combined motion to strike SMI's second
amended supplemental petition for violating the court's order
granting leave, and combined motions to dismiss under sections
2-615 (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2016)) and 2-619 (735 ILCS 5/2-619
(West 2016)) of the Code.

On Nov. 28, 2017, the circuit court entered an order, which in
pertinent part read: "The 2-615 motion is granted as to defense 'v'
(reasonableness) and denied as to defense 'w,' [recovery was more
than the limits of the policy] and the Court notes that its earlier
rulings on defenses [1-21] stand ***; The Court defers ruling on
the issues raised under 2-619 (in anticipation of an amended
petition and further motion practice; the parties' positions on
those questions, and applications of the mend-the-hold doctrine,
are preserved for further argument)***."

SMI filed its final amended supplemental petition on Jan. 18, 2018.
The final petition was similar to its immediate predecessor, albeit
with more detail. SMI also filed a second motion to reconsider the
May 12, 2015, order, again arguing that Saskatchewan law should be
applied. CED filed a motion to dismiss SMI's January 2018 amended
supplemental petition.

On June 5, 2018, the circuit court issued an 18-page memorandum
opinion and order denying both SMI's motion to reconsider and CED's
motion to dismiss. Then, on July 17, 2018, the circuit court
entered an agreed order, which stated in pertinent part: "The
parties have agreed to submit this matter to the Court at this time
for summary disposition of the final amended supplemental petition.
The parties will focus only on those matters which were not
resolved by the Court's earlier Orders *** the parties' submissions
will address only issues related to the newly[ ]pleaded defenses
'v' and 'w' alleged in'SMI's final amended supplemental petition."

Pursuant to the July 17, 2018, order, both parties filed written
motions for summary judgment in accordance with section 2-1005 of
the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-1005 (West 2018)) about the remaining two
defenses in SMI's final amended supplemental petition.

On Jan. 25, 2019, after reviewing the parties' submissions, the
circuit court issued a 37-page memorandum opinion and order. It
found that the settlement was reasonable under Guillen, and that
the settlement was not in excess of SMI's policy's limits. Put
differently, the court found that neither defense "v" nor defense
"w" were meritorious, and they could not suffice as a basis for
vacating the judgment entered against SMI. Accordingly, the court
granted summary judgment in favor of CED and against SMI. SMI
timely appealed and CED filed a timely notice of cross-appeal.

III. Analysis

SMI contends that the circuit court should have granted SMI's
motion for summary judgment on its section 2-1401 petition and
reopened the $5 million judgment against it. CED's response and
cross-appeal contend that the circuit court properly granted
summary judgment in CED's favor on SMI's section 2-1401 petition,
and further asserts that the circuit court should have granted
judgment in CED's favor sooner.

The Appellate Court rejects SMI's assertions that the settlement
agreement was unreasonable or collusive. A reasonably prudent
uninsured person facing a potential $34.5 million suit, and an
$11.5 million initial demand, for sending 23,000 unsolicited faxes,
and with no viable defense, would seriously consider a settlement
for $5 million. Therefore, defense "v" asserting the settlement's
unreasonableness, was not meritorious and did not warrant relief
from the judgment under section 2-1401 of the Code.

With respect to defense "w" -- that the settlement exceeded the
policy's limits -- SMI has forfeited this argument, the Appellate
Court holds. It finds that SMI devotes a mere four sentences in its
49-page brief to this issue, one of which states as follows: "In
denying CED's motions for judgment on the pleadings and first two
motions for summary judgment on this issue, the circuit court ruled
that SMI sufficiently pled a meritorious defense based on the
settlement amount exceeding the policy's limits." The brief then
goes on to cite three of the circuit court's minute orders.

In each of the orders SMI refers to, the circuit court denied CED's
motion for summary judgment on the issues of both defenses "v" and
"w." However, each of the cited minute orders denied CED's motion
for summary judgment, an interlocutory ruling, citing Pence v.
Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter R.R. Corp., 398 Ill.App.3d 13,
16 (2010) (noting that a trial court may deny a motion for summary
judgment and later change its position and grant the same motion).

The Appellate Court holds that none of the cited minute orders
reflect the trial court's judgment in favor of SMI's policy-limits
defense. SMI's assertion to the contrary is a misrepresentation of
the record and will not be entertained by the Appellate Court.
Furthermore, SMI's failure to develop this issue in its brief, or
cite any authority for its position, results in this issue being
forfeited. And forfeiture aside, the circuit court's rationale for
rejecting SMI's policy limits argument was consistent with both
precedent as well as the policy's plain language. Accordingly,
defense "w" was not meritorious.

SMI also asks that the Appellate Court takes judicial notice of the
fact that Canadian courts have refused to enforce the underlying
judgment against SMI, finding, inter alia, that CED failed to
properly notify SMI of the suit under Canadian law. The Appellate
Court holds that it can take notice of the fact, but it does not
impact its analysis. It says, it does not sit in judgment of
Canadian courts or of its own nation's federal courts. Again, its
task is to apply Illinois law in reviewing the judgment at hand,
and under that law, it agrees with the circuit court's conclusion
that SMI failed to present a meritorious defense pursuant to
section 2-1401 of the Code.

IV. Conclusion

The Appellate Court concludes that SMI's petition for relief from
judgment was properly denied. It also dismissed CED's cross-appeal
as moot, as it is duplicative of its general position that it
should affirm. For the reasons stated, the Appellate Court affirmed
the judgment of the circuit court of Lake County.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mr3fa5s3 from Leagle.com.


GOOGLE LLC: Calhoun, et al. Seek to File Reply Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK CALHOUN, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-05146-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
submit an administrative motion to seal portions of the following
documents:

             Document                Text Sought to be Sealed

-- Plaintiffs' Reply in Support      Page 4 n.6: portion of
   of Motion for Class               first sentence after "For
   Certification and Appointment     example,"
   of Class Representatives and
   Class Counsel

-- Exhibit CCC (Expert Rebuttal      par. 34: portion of last
   Report of Leslie John, Ph.D.,)    sentence on page 22 after
   to the Supplemental Declaration   "Specifically, she said:
   of Lesley E. Weaver in Support    "and portion of first
   of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class   full sentence on
   Certification                     page 23 between "That is
                                     very private" and "it was
                                     shocking."

-- Exhibit EEE (Expert Rebuttal      par. 212: last two
   Report of Zubair Shafiq,          sentences of the paragraph,
   Ph.D.,)   to the Supplemental     after "In one example."
   Declaration    of Lesley E.       The Plaintiffs do not seek
   Weaver in Support of              to seal Bates numbers in
   Plaintiffs' Motion for            the paragraph.
   Class Certification

Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, which
include a search engine, online advertising technologies, cloud
computing, software, and hardware.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated Feb. 16,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35lwyjo
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lesley Weaver, Esq.
          Angelica M. Ornelas, Esq
          Joshua D. Samra, Esq
          BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
          555 12th Street, Suite 1600
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (415) 445-4003
          Facsimile: (415) 445-4020
          E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com
                  aornelas@bfalaw.com
                  jsamra@bfalaw.com

               - and -

          Jason 'Jay' Barnes, Esq.
          An Truong, Esq.
          Eric Johnson, Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
          112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 784-6400
          Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
          E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com
                  atruong@simmonsfirm.com
                  ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com

               - and -

          David A. Straite, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          One Grand Central Place
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (646) 933-1000
          E-mail: dstraite@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Amy Keller, Esq.
          Adam Prom, Esq.
          Sharon Cruz, Esq.
          Ten North Dearborn St., Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: akeller@dicellolevitt.com
          aprom@dicellolevitt.com
          scruz@dicellolevitt.com


GWG HOLDINGS: Faces Bayati Suit Over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------
SHIRIN BAYATI and MOJAN KAMALVAND, on behalf of themselves and a
proposed class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GWG
HOLDINGS, INC., BRAD K. HEPPNER, ROY W. BAILEY, PETER T. CANGANY,
JR., DAVID F. CHAVENSON, THOMAS O. HICKS, DENNIS P. LOCKHART, BRUCE
W. SCHNITZER, DAVID H. DE WEESE, MURRAY T. HOLLAND, and TIMOTHY L.
EVANS, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00410-B (N.D. Tex., Feb. 18,
2022) is a securities class action that seeks remedies under the
Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all persons
who purchased GWGH bonds (L Bonds) directly in GWGH's L Bond
Offering (LBO) pursuant to a registration statement that became
effective on June 3, 2020.

According to the complaint, the Defendants materially
misrepresented in the June 2020 Registration Statement that GWGH
intended to use the net proceeds from the LBO to grow its
"alternative asset exposure" -- including through investments in
Ben LP and its subsidiaries in the form of equity investments and
loans -- to "create a unified platform uniquely positioned to
provide an expanded suite of products, service and resources for
investors," and to better position Ben LP's "balance sheet, working
capital and liquidity profile to satisfy anticipated Texas
Department of Banking regulatory requirements."

GWGH was forced to discontinue the LBO in April 2021 when it was
unable to timely file its 2020 annual report. With the LBO
discontinued, GWGH immediately ran into liquidity problems. By
August 2021, GWGH had pledged its entire portfolio of life
insurance policies -- with a fair market value of approximately
$790 million -- as collateral for loans to keep GWGH afloat. In
November 2021, GWGH spun Ben LP off as an independent entity, says
the suit.

After it received the SEC subpoena in October 2020, but before it
disclosed the SEC investigation in November 2021, GWGH sold over
$200 million of L Bonds. In January 2022, GWGH missed a payment of
interest and principal due and owing to L Bond holders, and
announced its hiring of restructuring counsel. In February 2022,
GWGH disclosed that it was unable to continue making payments on
the L Bonds. The bonds now lack value on account of GWGH's
inability to service them.

As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the steep decline in the value of the L Bonds, Plaintiffs and other
Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, which
they seek to recover through this action.

Headquartered in Dallas Texas, GWG Holdings, Inc. conducts its life
insurance secondary market business through a wholly-owned
subsidiary, GWG Life, LLC and GWG Life's wholly-owned
subsidiaries.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Warren T. Burns, Esq.
          Spencer Cox, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP
          900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (469) 904-4550
          Facsimile: (469) 444-5002
          E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
                  scox@burnscharest.com

               - and -

          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          Jordan Elias, Esq.
          Sean Greene, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com
                  jelias@girardsharp.com
                  sgreene@girardsharp.com

               - and -

          Paul D. Malmfeldt, Esq.
          Mark D. Liston, Esq.
          MALMFELDT LAW GROUP P.C.
          120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 606-8625
          E-mail: pdm@malmfeldt.com
                  mdl@malmfeldt.com

               - and -

          Scott L. Silver, Esq.
          SILVER LAW GROUP
          11780 W. Sample Road
          Coral Springs, FL 33065
          Telephone: (954) 755-4799
          E-mail: ssilver@silverlaw.com

HALSTED FINANCIAL: New Jersey Court Dismisses Pistone's FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RENEE PISTONE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HALSTED FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 21-4167 (MAS) (LHG) (D.N.J.), Judge
Michael A. Shipp of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey granted Halsted's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Renee
Pistone's Complaint.

I. Background

The matter arises out of a putative class action for alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15
U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. Prior to March 4, 2020, Pistone
incurred a debt with Synchrony Bank. That debt became past due with
a balance of $744.05.

Sometime later, Synchrony Bank assigned the debt to LVNV Funding
LLC, which subsequently assigned it to Halsted. On March 4, 2020,
Halsted sent Pistone a letter which sought to collect the amount of
the debt. Various aspects of that Collection Letter are the subject
of the Complaint.

To begin, the Collection Letter states in large, bolded print, "20%
off your balance." The body of the Collection Letter, however,
provides two options of repayment in relevant part: "1) We are
offering a compromise of $595.24 to resolve this debt. That's a
savings of $148.81! 2) If you cannot take advantage of the above
offer, we can offer you a compromise of $669.65 in three payments
of $223.21, $223.21, and $223.23 over three consecutive months.
That's a savings of $74.40! This office is not obligated to renew
these offers after 4/21/2020."

The parties do not dispute that the first option constitutes a
savings of 20%, while the second option does not. Because the
second option does not amount to 20% off the balance, Pistone
alleges that the Collection Letter is false, deceptive, or
misleading.

The Collection Letter also discloses that Halsted "is not obligated
to renew these offers after 4/21/2020." That disclosure, however,
does not specify whether the settlement payment must be sent by the
consumer or received by Halsted by that date. Without that
specification, Pistone alleges that the Collection Letter is open
to more than one reasonable interpretation, at least one of which
is inaccurate and, thus, deceptive.

II. Discussion

Halsted argues that Pistone fails to state a claim under Sections
1692e, 1692g, or 1692f. For the reasons below, the Court agrees and
holds that Pistone's FDCPA claims fail.

A. Pistone's Section 1692e Claims Fail to State a Plausible Basis
for Relief.

Section 1692e of the FDCPA prevents a debt collector from using
"any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in
connection with the collection of any debt." The statute provides
several non-exhaustive examples including falsely representing "the
character, amount, or legal status of any debt"; falsely
representing "any services rendered or compensation which may be
lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a
debt"; and "the use of any false representation or deceptive means
to collect or attempt to collect any debt."

With that in mind, Judge Shipp finds that Pistone's Section 1692e
claims fail. The Complaint alleges two Setion 1692e violations.
First, Pistone alleges that the offer of a 20% discount while
simultaneously providing two settlement options would mislead a
debtor. Second, Pistone alleges that the Collection Letter is
deceptive because it does not clarify whether payment must be
mailed or received by April 21, 2020 in order to accept the offer.

Judge Shipp holds that the statement is not susceptible to more
than one reasonable interpretation. He holds that Pistone has not
sufficiently alleged that Halsted is using any false
representations or deceptive means to secure a debt. For these
reasons, the Complaint has not sufficiently alleged facts that show
a plausible claim for relief.

B. Pistone's Section 1692g Claim Also Fails as the Settlement Offer
Does Not Overshadow the Validation Notice.

The Complaint alleges that the Collection Letter's settlement offer
overshadowed the validation notice in violation of Section 1692g.
Halsted counters that Pistone's Section 1692g claim fails as a
matter of law because Halsted's offer to keep the settlement
options open for more than 30 days does not "contradict or
overshadow" the validation notice.

Judge Shipp finds that there is no overshadowing in the Collection
Letter. He says, the validation notice is the same font, size, and
color as the rest of the Collection Letter. Furthermore, the
validation notice immediately follows the settlement deadline on
the same page. In fact, this is far less overshadowing than the
letter in D'Addario, where the court found no Section 1692g
violation for overshadowing the validation notice. Likewise, Judge
Shipp finds that nothing in the Collection Letter contradicts the
validation notice because Halsted did not emphasize one option over
the other or demand payment, let alone demand payment within the
validation notice. Judge Shipp, therefore, holds that Pistone has
failed to allege facts sufficient to support a claim under Section
1692g.

C. The Complaint's Section 1692f Claim Also Fails As Pistone Does
Not Allege Any Additional Misconduct.

Lastly, Halsted argues that the Complaint does not state a
cognizable claim under Section 1692f because Pistone does not
allege any additional misconduct in violation of the statute. The
Complaint alleges Halsted violated Section 1692f by using "unfair
or unconscionable means" to collect a debt and Section 1692f(1) by
attempting to collect an amount "not expressly authorized by the
agreement creating the debt." Halsted cites to numerous cases to
argue that because Pistone had not alleged any conduct specific to
Pistone's Section 1692f claim, the Section 1692f claim must be
dismissed.

Ms. Pistone makes two arguments in her response: (1) that the
Section 1692f(1) claim is distinct from the Section 1692e claims,
and (2) that because New Jersey District Courts have imposed a
materiality requirement to Section 1692e and not Section 1692f, the
claims are distinct.

Judge Shipp finds that the Complaint makes no attempt to identify
any conduct that solely violates Section 1692f rather than Section
1692e. Moreover, Pistone has not alleged that Halsted is attempting
to collect money beyond what was authorized by the original debt.
In fact, Halsted is attempting to collect less than what was
authorized and has not included any extra fees in the Collection
Letter. Because Pistone has not alleged facts indicating the
attempt to collect an amount beyond what was authorized, Judge
Shipp finds this claim too must be dismissed.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Shipp granted Halsted's Motion to
Dismiss based on failure to state a claim. The Court will enter an
Order consistent with the Memorandum Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yuccuuxb from Leagle.com.


HAWK EYE: Faces Knight Suit Over Production Staff's Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bryson Knight, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Hawk Eye Flowback, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-00035-ARS (D.N.D., Feb. 24, 2022) seeks damages for
Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff time and one-half the regular
rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each seven day
workweek while working for Defendant, and paid on a day rate basis,
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Portal-to-Portal Act.

The Plaintiff is a current employee of the Defendant working as oil
and/or natural gas production personnel in connection with its oil
and/or natural gas production operations. His primary job duties
involve overseeing oil production.

Hawk Eye Flowback, LLC engages in oil and/or natural gas production
operations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

HESS CORP: Minter Sues Over Pipeline Inspectors' Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON MINTER, individually and for others similarly situated v.
HESS CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-01538 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2022)
arises from the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Dakota Wage
Laws.

Mr. Minter was employed by the Defendant as a pipeline inspector
from October 2019 through February 2020 and again from June 2021 to
October 2021.

Hess Corporation is an American global independent energy company
involved in the exploration and production of crude oil and natural
gas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
          Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-037

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
          Rachael Rustmann, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  rrustmann@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

HINGHAM, MA: Aftosmes Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
JAMES AFTOSMES, CAMERON ALLEGRA, JAMES ARENA, III, KEVIN BISHOP,
JOHN BUTMAN, MIKE CARLSON, SCOTT CHAPELLE, WILLIAM CROSIER, MANUEL
DASILVA, DANIEL DEMPSEY, STEPHEN DEMPSEY, DENNIS DRISCOLL, CHARLES
GATTEREAU, JEFF HANDRAHAN, BRETT HOXIE, EDWARD HUNNEFELD, JAMES P.
KENNEY, JEFFREY MADDEN, JOHN MADDEN, MICHAEL MCAULIFFE, PATRICK
MCGORMAN, AWNAS MILISAUKSAS, WILLIAM MODESTINO, MICHAEL MULLIN,
ERIC TEDESCHI, NICK TRINCHERA, JOE TRINCHERA and THOMAS VIOLETTE,
Plaintiffs v. TOWN OF HINGHAM, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-10314
(D. Mass., Feb. 24, 2022) is a class action arising from the
Defendant's failure to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Massachusetts Wage
Act.

The Plaintiffs and all similarly situated employees have been
represented in collective bargaining by Teamsters, Local 25, and
the terms and conditions of their employment, including their hours
of work, wages for straight time work, and wages for work performed
outside their regularly scheduled hours of work, have been
established by collective bargaining, and set forth in duly
bargained for collective bargaining agreements.

The Plaintiffs are employed by Defendant Hingham in the Hingham
Public Works Department, in supervisory and non-supervisory jobs.

Town of Hingham is a municipality formed under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, located in Plymouth County.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel W. Rice, Esq.
          HARRINGTON & RICE, P.C.
          738 Main Street
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (781) 964-8377
          E-mail: dwr@harringtonrice.com

IGT GLOBAL: Initial Pretrial Conference Order Entered in Klaas
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FREDERICK KLAAS v. IGT
GLOBAL SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, Case No. 3:21-cv-00820-jdp (W.D.
Wisc.), the Hon. Judge Stephen L. Crocker entered a preliminary
pretrial conference order as follows:

  -- Motion & Brief To Certify Classes:        Dec. 2, 2022

  -- The deadline for plaintiffs to
     seek certification of a Rule 23
     Class or for Defendant to seek
     decertification of a conditional
     Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
     Class:

                           Responses:          Jan. 6, 2023

                           Replies:            Jan. 23, 2023

  -- Deadline for filing dispositive           July 28, 2023
     motions:

  -- Discovery Cutoff:                         Jan. 5, 2024

  -- Settlement Letters:                       Jan. 5, 2024

  -- Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures                 Jan. 12, 2024
     and all motions in limine:

                         Objections:           Jan. 26, 2024

  -- Final Pretrial Conference:                Feb. 7, 2024

  -- Trial:                                    Feb. 12, 2024

IGT Global manufactures and supplies gaming equipment. The Company
offers games, lottery, digital, and sports betting equipment.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3sZixjm at no extra charge.[CC]

IMPERIAL FIRE: Bass Files Suit in W.D. Louisiana
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Imperial Fire &
Casualty Insurance Company. The case is styled as Dana Bass,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Imperial
Fire & Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-00550 (W.D.
La., Feb. 24, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract.

Imperial Fire and Casualty Insurance Company operates as an
insurance company. The Company's line of business include auto,
property, and flood insurance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen J Herman, Esq.
          HERMAN HERMAN & KATZ
          820 O'Keefe Ave
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Phone: (504) 581-4892
          Fax: (504) 561-6024
          Email: sherman@hhkc.com


INFORMATION RESOURCES: Santiago Wins Conditional Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRYSTAL SANTIAGO, et al.,
v. INFORMATION RESOURCES INC., et al., Case No. 20-CV-7688-AT-SN
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah Netburn entered an order granting
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification as to female
consultants who worked for the Defendants in New York during at
least one workweek since September 18, 2017.

The statute of limitations will be tolled from the date of the
filing of Plaintiff's motion, which is August 6, 2021, until the
date of this Order. Within seven days, the parties' counsel is
ordered to complete the meet and confer process regarding the form
of notice and disclosure of potential collective members' contact
information. Should the parties fail to agree, they are to file
their competing versions of the notice for the Court's review. The
parties' proposed notice or submission explaining their
disagreement is due by February 25, 2022, the Court says.

The Plaintiff Krystal Santiago, proceeding individually, and
Plaintiff Scarlett Osorio, proceeding individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, bring this action against IRI and Jeff
Neuman alleging various forms of employment discrimination,
including individual violations of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights
Act of 1866, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New
York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights
Law, the New York State Pay Equity Law, N.Y. Lab. Law section 193
et seq., and violations of the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. section 206
et seq. (EPA).

Osorio brings her EPA claim on her own behalf and on behalf of a
collective. Osorio moves to conditionally certify a collective
action under the EPA comprised of all female analysts, consultants,
principals, vice presidents, and senior vice presidents who worked
for IRI in New York or out of IRI's New York office for at least
one work week since September 18, 2017. She also seeks equitable
tolling, and proposes a notice and reminder notice of conditional
certification for the Court's authorization. Finally, Osorio
requests discovery of putative collective members' contact
information to facilitate the notice process.

IRI is a data analytics and market research company. The company is
organized by separate divisions and its clients operate in a wide
variety of industries, such as consumer packaged goods or beer,
wine, and spirits.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35n8lZZ at no extra charge.[CC]

INTERACTIVE DATA: Parker Sues Over Illegal Background Check
-----------------------------------------------------------
TABITHA PARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INTERACTIVE DATA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
9:22-cv-80282-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 22, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act which imposes several important requirements on consumer
reporting agencies that sell employment-related consumer reports
such as the Defendant.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff lost a job opportunity
because of a background check generated by the Defendant, and
because Defendant has unilaterally (and illegally) decided the
reports it sells do not qualify as "consumer reports." Thus,
neither Plaintiff nor the putative class members were provided with
any of the rights afforded them under the FCRA, not the least of
which are the notification requirements mandated by law, where a
consumer reporting agency like Defendant must notify consumers when
it furnishes derogatory information to be used as part of an
employer's hiring process, says the suit.

Interactive Data, LLC is a company that used automated processes to
webscrape criminal histories from court websites, or purchased such
records in bulk, and assign them to specific consumers - largely
based on name alone.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8719
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  gnichols@wfclaw.com

               - and -

          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: craig@clalegal.com

ISS FACILITY: Garcia Seeks Modification of Scheduling Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA GARCIA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ISS
FACILITY SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; ISS FACILITY
SERVICES CALIFORNIA, INC.; a Delaware corporation; BROADRIDGE
SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-07807-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order modifying the Court's Scheduling
Order, issued February 2, 2022, that sets forth the class
certification motion briefing schedule.

The Plaintiff seeks a 30-day extension of her deadline to file a
motion for class certification -- from February 17, 2022 to March
17, 2022. This request is based upon Defendants' ISS Facility
Services, Inc. and ISS Facility Services California, Inc. recent
refusal to present an appropriate and adequate F.R.C.P. 12 30(b)(6)
corporate representative for a deposition examination.

The Scheduling Order was issued in response to Plaintiff's first
Local Rule 6 motion, dated January 28, 2022, which sought a
continuance of the class certification hearing date (and all
corresponding motion deadlines) by virtue of, inter alia,
Defendants' ISS Facility Services, Inc. and ISS Facility Services
California, Inc. failure to produce an adequate F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6)
corporate representative for a deposition examine, as well as
Plaintiff's calendaring error that caused her to miss her original
stipulated-to class certification motion deadline. In consideration
of the “policy in favor of deciding matters on the merits, the
Court granted Plaintiff's motion and continued Plaintiff's motion
deadline to February 17, 2022, or fourteen days from the February
2, 2022 date of the Scheduling Order.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 16, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JQMybX at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Tagore O. Subramaniam, Esq.
          Aaron M. Schue, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  tagore@maternlawgroup.com
                  aschue@maternlawgroup.com


KAMALL INC: Rai Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kamall, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Gurpreet Singh Rai, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kamall, Inc., Amvee
Corporation, Amvee Corporation 2, Venus Kam, Inc., Wekam, Inc.,
Case No. BCV-22-100366 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Feb. 14,
2022).

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

Kamall Inc. -- http://kamallimited.com/-- is a subchapter
corporation located in Bakersfield, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fawn F. Bekam, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
          Irvine, CA 92618-4375
          Phone: 949-379-6250
          Fax: 949-379-6251
          Email: fbekam@aegislawfirm.com


KAMIN HEALTH: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kamin Health LLC. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Kamin Health LLC doing business
as: Kamin Health, Case No. 1:22-cv-01565 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24,
2022).

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

Kamin Health -- https://www.kaminhealth.com/ -- is an urgent care
center in New York City, offering short wait times, onesite x-rays,
and a courteous and friendly staff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 392-4772
          Fax: (212) 444-1030
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


KYODAI SUSHI: Sparks Sues Over Illegal Tip Credit, Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Madison Sparks, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Kyodai Sushi Rock Cafe, Inc., Tae N. Oh,
individually, and Kyung Eun Oh, individually, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-00205-MMH-PDB (M.D. Fla., Feb. 22, 2022) arises from the
Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated
restaurant servers federal minimum wages and overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum
Wage Act.

The complaint alleges that Defendants committed state and federal
minimum wage violations because they required restaurant servers to
share a portion of their tips with employees who do not
traditionally receive tips. The Defendants also violated the
minimum wage requirements under Florida and federal law because
they compensate restaurant servers at the reduced "tip credit" wage
notwithstanding that servers are required to spend more than 20% of
their shifts performing non-tipped duties and responsibilities.
Further, the Defendants have failed to properly compensate
Plaintiff and similarly situated servers in accordance with the
federal overtime laws when servers work in excess of 40 hours per
week, says the suit.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a restaurant server from
November 2021 until January 15, 2022.

Kyodai Sushi Rock Cafe, Inc. owns, operates and controls the Kyodai
Sushi Rock Hibachi Restaurant and Grill in Orange Park,
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

LIFE PACIFIC: Vikram Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Life Pacific
University. The case is styled as Peters Vikram a/k/a individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Life Pacific
University, Case No. 22STCV06988 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., Feb. 24, 2022).

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

Life Pacific University -- https://www.lifepacific.edu/ -- is a
private Christian bible college endorsed by the International
Church of the Foursquare Gospel and located in San Dimas,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julian Hammond, Esq.
          HAMMONDLAW, PC
          11780 W. Sample Rd., Ste. 103
          Coral Springs, FL 33065-3141
          Phone: 310-601-6766
          Fax: 310-295-2385
          Email: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com


LITTLE SPOON: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Tavarez-Vargas
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tavarez-Vargas,
Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
LITTLE SPOON, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-09832-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla enterered a civil case management plan
and scheduling order as follows:

-- All fact discovery shall be completed      June 23, 2022
    no later than:

-- All expert discovery, including            Aug. 8, 2022
    reports, production of underlying
    documents, and depositions, shall
    be completed no later than:

-- Initial requests for production of         March 25, 2022
    documents shall be served by:

-- Interrogatories pursuant to Rule           March 25, 2022
    33.3(a) of the Local Civil Rules of
    the Southern District of New York
    shall be served by:

-- Depositions of fact witnesses shall        May 24, 2022
    be completed by:

-- Requests to admit shall be served by:      July 7, 2022

Little Spoon, Inc. distributes food products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3527f6i at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William J. Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          www.mizrahikroub.com
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: (212) 595-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
          E-mail: Wdownes@mizrahikroub.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Karla Del Pozo García, Esq.
          DENTONS
          E-mail: karla.delpozogarcia@dentons.com


LITTLE SPOON: Pretrial Conference Adjourned in Tavarez-Vargas
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tavarez-Vargas v. Little
Spoon, Inc., Case No. e 1:21-cv-09832-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order that the initial
pretrial conference in this matter is adjourned sine die.

The Court will issue the parties' case management plan and a
mediation referral order under separate cover. If Plaintiff wishes
to file a motion for class certification following mediation or
discovery, he may file a pre-motion letter in accordance with Rule
4.A of this Court's Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases.

The Plaintiff brings this action, on both an individual basis and
on behalf of a nationwide class, against defendant Pearl Banyan
Capital LLC for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA") and New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL").

Specifically, the Defendant failed to design the website that it
owns and operates, www.banyanbotanicals.com, to be equally
accessible to the visually impaired as it is to sighted
individuals. The Defendant's website offers an array of products
that consumers can purchase online such as different herbs, oils,
and formulas. Defendant's website also provides information about
itself and the products it sells.

The Plaintiff is legally blind and uses a screen-reader. The
Defendant's website is not properly designed and operated to be
read by screen-reading software. Because of this, Plaintiff
encountered multiple barriers that denied Plaintiff access to the
website equal to the access sighted individuals enjoy. The
Plaintiff could not, for example, learn about the goods and
services offered for purchase on Defendant's website.

The Defendants' position is that a website without a brick and
mortar store is not covered under the ADA. In addition, it is the
Defendant's contention that the plaintiff is not a bona fide
customer and therefore entitled to an injuction. Finally, the
Defendants do not believe that a class of sight impaired
individuals would be ascertainable.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 16, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hfk8fz at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William J. Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          www.mizrahikroub.com
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: (212) 595-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
          E-mail: Wdownes@mizrahikroub.com


LM GENERAL INSURANCE: Grela Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Theresa Grela, Michael Jackson, Lauren
Huffman, Nichole Holland, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LM General Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual
Fire Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company,
Case No. 2020-CH-04911 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Chancery Division, to the U.S. District Court for Northern
District of Illinois on Feb. 14, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-00806 to the
proceeding.

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

LM General Insurance Co. -- https://www.libertymutualgroup.com/ --
operates as an insurance company. The Company provides insurance
services for auto, boats, equipment breakdowns, inland marine,
bonds, property, and home.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (202) 975-0477
          Email: gklinger@masonllp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James A. Morsch, Esq.
          SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
          161 North Clark Street, Suite 4200
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 876-7100
          Email: jim.morsch@saul.com


LOUISIANA HEALTH: Every Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Adam Every, as representative of Cornell
Every, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Louisiana Health Care Consultants, LLC, Bob G Dean, Jr., Maison
De'Ville Nursing Home of Harvey, L.L.C., Case No. 824-038, Div. G
was removed from the 24th JDC, Parish of Jefferson, to the U.S.
District Court for Eastern District of Louisiana on Feb. 14, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00376-SSV-KWR to
the proceeding.

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

Louisiana Healthcare -- https://lacchc.org/ -- is a
clinically-based consulting company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

          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


LOUISIANA HEALTH: Hurtado Suit Removed to E.D. Louisiana
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Hercilia Hurtado, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Louisiana Health Care
Consultants, LLC, Bob G Dean, Jr., Maison De'Ville Nursing Home of
Harvey, L.L.C., Case No. 824-040, N was removed from the 24th JDC,
Jefferson Parish, to the U.S. District Court for Eastern District
of Louisiana on Feb. 14, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00378-EEF-JVM to
the proceeding.

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

Louisiana Healthcare -- https://lacchc.org/ -- is a
clinically-based consulting company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

          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


MATRIX ABSENCE: Loses Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Weeks Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Tina Weeks, et al., Plaintiffs v. Matrix Absence
Management Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. CV-20-00884-PHX-SPL
(D. Ariz.), Judge Steven P. Logan of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona denied the Defendant's Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings.

I. Background

On May 6, 2020, Plaintiffs Tina Weeks, Michael McDonald, and
Cassandra Magdaleno filed a Complaint alleging they and other
similarly situated employees of the Defendant were improperly
classified as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act and had
therefore been denied overtime wages. On Oct. 15, 2020, the Court
conditionally certified a collective class of employees and granted
the Plaintiff's Motion for Step-One Notice under the FLSA. The
Plaintiff was ordered to notify all members of the class within 21
days, and the members then had 63 days to opt in to the action.

On Feb. 16, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved to amend the Complaint to
add an additional named plaintiff, Plaintiff Samantha Stocklein
(hereinafter "Plaintiff"), seeking to bring a claim for failure to
pay overtime under Oregon law for herself and other putative class
members employed by Defendant in Oregon, in addition to the FLSA
claim. On April 22, 2021, the Court granted the Motion to Amend,
and the Plaintiff subsequently filed the First Amended Complaint,
alleging both the FLSA claim and the Oregon state-law claim.

On Jan. 18, 2022, Defendant filed the instant Motion for Judgment
on the Pleadings.

II. Discussion

The issue before the Court is straightforward: Is the Plaintiff's
Oregon state-law claim for failure to pay overtime preempted by the
FLSA? The case law that answers this question, however, is
nonbinding and at times contradictory. The Court's first task,
therefore, is to identify the most persuasive authority.

The Defendant's argument in favor of preemption relies primarily on
Colson v. Avnet, Inc., 687 F.Supp.2d 914 (D. Ariz. 2010). Colson
was a class action lawsuit alleging, among other claims, that an
employer violated O.R.S. Section 653.055 by denying misclassified
employees overtime wages—a claim identical in all relevant
respects to the claim at issue in the present case. The court in
Colson held that the Oregon state-law claim was preempted by the
FLSA because it "essentially sought to piggy-back thirty days'
wages worth of waiting-time penalties onto any alleged FLSA
violation.

Judge Logan explains that in Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., 623
F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 2010), vacated on other grounds, 565 U.S. 801
(2011). Specifically, the Ninth Circuit wrote: "Our decision in
Williamson contained somewhat contradictory statements. On the one
hand, we suggested in dicta that claims that are directly covered
by the FLSA (such as overtime and retaliation disputes) must be
brought under the FLSA. On the other hand, we rejected as incorrect
the district court's assumption that FLSA is the exclusive remedy
for claims duplicated by or equivalent of rights covered by the
FLSA."

Wang was a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the FLSA and
California's Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiffs alleged a
variety of labor violations, including wrongful denial of overtime
pay. Notably, the plaintiffs' state-law unfair competition claim
was derivative of the FLSA claim. Still, the Ninth Circuit held
that the state-law claim was not preempted because it was obviously
possible to comply with both the federal and state laws
simultaneously given that the FLSA requirements applied to both,
and because allowing the state-law claim to proceed "furthers
FLSA's central purpose of protecting employees."

Judge Logan holds that Wang highly persuasive in the case. He finds
that Wang's holding that the California state-law claim was not
preempted by the FLSA applies squarely to the Oregon state-law
claim in the present case. In Wang, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that
preemption did not apply where the state-law claim borrowed the
FLSA standard making it obviously possible to comply with both
laws, and where the state-law claim furthered the FLSA's purpose of
protecting employees. In addition, the Oregon law furthers the goal
of protecting employees by penalizing employers who improperly
withhold wages. Following Wang, then, the Plaintiff's Oregon
state-law claim is not preempted.

III. Disposition

For these reasons, Judge Logan denied the Defendant's Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4xbc39ab from Leagle.com.


MIX UNIT: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mix Unit, LLC. The
case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Mix Unit, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01552
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2022).

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

MixUnit -- https://www.mixunit.com/ -- is an online shop for
hip-hop shirts, hand-selected streetwear brands, urban clothing,
mix tapes, sneaker tees, hip hop clothing, urban gear &
apparel.[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



MONIN INC: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monin, Inc. The case
is styled as Juan Ortega, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Monin, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01545
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2022).

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

MONIN -- https://www.monin.com/ -- is the leader in premium
flavorings for cocktails, coffees, culinary applications 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


N.D.C. MARKETING: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against N.D.C. Marketing,
LLC. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. N.D.C. Marketing, LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-01019 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2022).

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

N.D.C. Marketing is a creative marketing communications agency who
work on projects ranging from logo design to international,
integrated cross media campaigns.[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


NATERA INC: Law Sues Over Prenatal Screening Tests' False Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA LAW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATERA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-01162 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2022) is brought against the
Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty, unjust enrichment, fraud, fraudulent omission and
violation of the Florida Deceptive And Unfair Practices Act, the
California's Unfair Competition Law, the California's False
Advertising Law, and the California's Consumers Legal Remedies
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant markets and sells
Panorama Tests as genetic, prenatal screening tests for pregnant
women that screen for various chromosomal and genetic conditions
affecting a baby's health. The Defendant markets these tests as
accurate. However, unbeknownst to consumers, Panorama Test results
indicating a genetic disorder are incorrect approximately 85
percent of the time. Thus, the Tests are worth far less than their
market price. In addition, as a result of these false results,
expecting mothers are often unnecessarily subjected to further
diagnostic testing, genetic counseling, and the even erroneous
termination of a viable pregnancy, alleges the suit.

The Plaintiff decided to purchase Defendant's Panorama Test in
September 2018 during the first trimester of her pregnancy, because
Defendant described the Test as accurate.

Natera, Inc. is a clinical genetic testing company based in Austin,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, 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: ltfisher@bursor.com

               - and -

          Rachel L. Miller, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          701 Brickell Ave., Suite 1420
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 330-5512
          Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
          E-mail: rmiller@bursor.com

               - and -

          Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
          Max S. Roberts, Esq.
          Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com
                  mroberts@bursor.com
                  jdiamond@bursor.com

NATURAL ORGANICS: Prenatal Vitamins Contain Heavy Metals, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jasmine Barnes, Plaintiff v. Natural Organics, Inc., d/b/a
NaturesPlus, Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-00314 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 18,
2022) is brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, arising from the Defendant's alleged
violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the
California False Advertising Law, the California Unfair Competition
Law and for breach of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust
enrichment, and fraud by omission.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to fully disclose
the presence or risk of arsenic, cadmium, lead, or mercury, known
as heavy metals, in its NaturesPlus Prenatal Vitamins.

The Plaintiff seeks both injunctive and monetary relief on behalf
of the proposed Class including requiring full and accurate
disclosure of all dangerous substances in its marketing,
advertising, and labeling, and restoring monies to the members of
the proposed Class.

Ms. Barnes purchased the Prenatal Vitamins for her pregnancy at
Riteaid in Riverside, California. She last purchased and took the
Prenatal Vitamins from approximately October 2019 to February
2020.

Natural Organics, Inc. manufactures, markets, advertises, packages,
and labels several prenatal vitamin products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - 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
          E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com
                  awarren@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          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

               - and -

          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

OXFORD HEALTH: Court Dismisses Mohr-Lercara ERISA-RICO Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANNA MOHR-LERCARA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OXFORD HEALTH INSURANCE,
INC.; OPTUM, INC.; and OPTUM RX, INC., Defendants, Case No. 18 CV
1427 (VB) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Vincent L. Briccetti of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

I. Background

Mohr-Lercara brings the putative class action against Defendants
Oxford, Optum, and OptumRx, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001,
and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. Section 1961.

The Plaintiff participated in an employer-sponsored health
insurance plan subject to ERISA from Oct. 4, 2010, to Dec. 31,
2014, and again from Aug. 1, 2015, to Aug. 31, 2016. The plan was
offered and underwritten by Oxford. Optum was an affiliate of
Oxford, and one of its subsidiaries, OptumRx, was Oxford's pharmacy
benefit manager starting in October 2013.

From 2010 to 2013, the Plaintiff's prescription drug coverage under
the plan was outlined in a rider to the plan's Certificate of
Coverage. The Drug Rider set forth the Plaintiff's payment
obligations for covered outpatient prescription drugs, which
differed depending on how she purchased them.

First, for covered prescription drugs purchased from a "Network
Pharmacy," the Plaintiff was "responsible for paying the lower of":
(i) "the applicable Out-of-Pocket Expense," meaning the amount set
forth in the plan's "Summary of Benefits"; or (ii) "the Network
Pharmacy's Usual and Customary Charge," meaning "the usual fee that
a pharmacy charges individuals for a Prescription Drug Product
without reference to reimbursement to the pharmacy by third
parties." Second, for covered prescription drugs purchased from
Oxford's mail order supplier, she was "responsible for paying the
lower of": (i) "the applicable Out-of-Pocket Expense"; or (ii) "the
Prescription Drug Cost for that Prescription Drug Product," meaning
the rate Oxford agreed to reimburse its Network Pharmacies (the
"Pharmacy Rate"). In addition to the Certificate of Coverage and
Drug Rider, from 2011 to 2013 Oxford also circulated a "Member
Handbook" to plan members.

For those years, "Network Provider" was defined in the Certificate
of Coverage as: "A Physician, Certified Nurse Midwife, Hospital,
Skilled Nursing Facility, Home Health Care Agency, or any other
duly licensed or certified institution or health professional under
contract with Us to provide Covered Services to Members. A list of
Network Providers and their locations is available to you upon
enrollment or upon request. The list will be revised from time to
time by Us."

From 2014 to 2016, the Plaintiff's prescription drug coverage was
outlined in the plan's Certificate of Coverage, not a rider. The
"Prescription Drug Coverage" section of the Certificate set forth
her payment obligations for covered outpatient prescription drugs,
which again differed depending on how plaintiff purchased them.

First, for covered prescription drugs purchased from a
"Participating Pharmacy," the Plaintiff was "responsible for paying
the lower of:" (i) "the applicable Cost-Sharing"; or (ii) "the
Participating Pharmacy's Usual and Customary Charge (which includes
a dispensing fee and sales tax) for the Prescription Drug." The
Plaintiff's "applicable Cost-Sharing" amount was set out in the
"Schedule of Benefits." Second, for covered prescription drugs
purchased from Oxford's mail order supplier, she was "responsible
for paying the lower of": (i) "the applicable Out-of-Pocket
Expense"; or (ii) "the Prescription Drug Cost for that Prescription
Drug Product." A separate section of the Certificate of Coverage.

The Plaintiff commenced the action on Feb. 16, 2018. She alleges
the Defendants violated the terms of the plan by overcharging her
for prescription drugs. Specifically, she claims she purchased
covered prescription drugs from Network and Participating
Pharmacies and, pursuant to the plan, she should have paid the
"lesser-of-three" amounts: (i) her cost-sharing obligation such as,
for example, a co-payment; (ii) the Usual and Customary Charge for
that drug; or (iii) the Pharmacy Rate. The Plaintiff alleges
instead she was charged the "lesser-of-two" amounts for covered
prescription drugs: (i) her co-payment; or (ii) the Usual and
Customary Charge.

According to the Plaintiff, the Pharmacy Rate was lower than her
co-payments or the Usual and Customary Charge, and she was thus
consistently overcharged for covered prescription drugs. Further,
she asserts the Defendants conspired together and with the
pharmacies to overcharge her, to conceal their scheme from plan
members, and ultimately to pocket the overcharges for themselves.

In her amended and operative complaint, the Plaintiff asserted two
categories of claims.

First, on behalf of a putative subclass of all enrolled in a health
plan issued or administered by Oxford and subject to ERISA and who
overpaid for prescription drugs, she asserted six ERISA claims: (i)
a claim for benefits pursuant to ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B) (Count
I); (ii) causing a prohibited transaction in violation of ERISA
Section 406(a)(1)(C)-(D) (Count II); (iii) breach of fiduciary duty
in violation of ERISA Section 406(b) (Count III); (iv) breach of
the duties of loyalty, care, skill, and prudence in violation of
ERISA Sections 404, 409 (Count IV); (v) breach of fiduciary duties
by co-fiduciaries pursuant to ERISA Section 405(a) (Count V); and
(vi) liability for knowing participation in breach of fiduciary
duties pursuant to ERISA Section 502(a)(3) (Count VI).

Second, on behalf of a nationwide class of all enrolled in a health
plan issued or administered by Oxford and who overpaid for
prescription drugs, she asserted three RICO claims: (i) violation
of RICO Section 1962(c) against Oxford (Count VII); (ii) violation
of RICO Section 1962(c) against Optum (Count VIII); and (iii)
conspiracy to violate RICO against all the Defendants (Count IX).

On March 28, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Specifically,
it dismissed Count VII in its entirety, dismissed Count IX as to
OptumRx only, and permitted all other claims to proceed.

II. Discussion

A. ERISA Claims

The Defendants contend they are entitled to summary judgment on all
of the Plaintiff's ERISA claims because, among other things, there
is no genuine dispute of material fact that the Defendants complied
with the negotiated terms of the plan.

Judge Briccetti agrees. He opines that there is no genuine dispute
of material fact that the Defendants complied with the terms of the
plan. As a result, they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law
on the Plaintiff's ERISA claims. At all times, the Plaintiff's
Certificate of Coverage included a New York choice-of-law
provision. As a result, Judge Briccetti concludes (and the parties
agree) that New York contract law applies to its interpretation.
Under New York law, contract interpretation is the determination of
the intent of the parties, the "best evidence" of which is the
parties' written agreement.

With respect to the 2010 to 2013 Plan, Judge Briccetti opines that
the Defendants have shown they complied with the plan from 2010 to
2013. That is, the Defendants have established the Plaintiff was
not entitled to pay the Pharmacy Rate for covered prescription
drugs purchased from Network Pharmacies and thus they did not
violate the plan terms when charging her the lesser of her
cost-sharing obligation or the Network Pharmacy's Usual and
Customary Charge. Thus, the Defendants have shown they complied
with the terms of the plan from 2010 to 2013 as a matter of law.

Regarding the 2014 to 2016 Plan, Judge Briccetti also opines that
the Defendants have also shown they complied with the plan from
2014 to 2016. That is, the Defendants have established the
Plaintiff was not entitled to pay the Pharmacy Rate for covered
prescription drugs purchased from Participating Pharmacies and thus
they did not violate the plan by charging the Plaintiff the lesser
of her cost-sharing obligation or the Participating Pharmacy's
Usual and Customary Charge. Thus, the Defendants have shown they
complied with the terms of the plan from 2014 to 2016 as a matter
of law.

Because the Defendants have shown they complied with the terms of
the plan, Judge Briccetti concludes that the Plaintiff's claims
that the Defendants breached the duties imposed by ERISA (Counts
II-V) must be dismissed. Moreover, the Plaintiff's ERISA benefit
claim (Count I) and derivative claim (Count VI) must also be
dismissed. First, the Plaintiff's claim for benefits fails because
she was not entitled to the benefits she sought, namely, the
Pharmacy Rate for covered prescription drugs. Second, the
Plaintiff's claim that the Defendants "knowingly participated" in
breaches of fiduciary duty fails in the absence of any underlying
breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's ERISA claims must all be
dismissed.

B. RICO Claims

The Defendants contend that the Plaintiff's RICO claims must be
dismissed because there is no genuine dispute of material fact
respecting the Defendants' adherence to plan terms.

Judge Briccetti agrees. He explains that the RICO claims are
predicated on various forms of fraud. Specifically, the Plaintiff
contends the plan entitled her to pay the Pharmacy Rate for covered
prescription drugs from certain pharmacies, and instead the
Defendants intentionally overcharged her and schemed together with
those pharmacies to hide the overcharges and claw back them back
for their own benefit. However, the Plaintiff was not entitled to
pay the Pharmacy Rate for covered prescription drugs and was not
overcharged for those drugs. As a result, there is no evidence of
any underlying fraud by the Defendants and the Plaintiff's
substantive RICO claims must be dismissed.

Because the Plaintiff's substantive RICO claims must be dismissed,
the Plaintiff's RICO conspiracy claim must also be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's RICO claims must all be dismissed.

III. Conclusion

Judge Briccetti granted the motion for summary judgment. The Clerk
is directed to terminate the motion and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2s38bc7a from Leagle.com.


PERRIGO CO: Prentice Sues Over Mislabeled Cough, Cold and Flu Meds
------------------------------------------------------------------
KIM PRENTICE and CHASTITY KELLY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PERRIGO COMPANY and
PERRIGO RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-00170-PLM-SJB (W.D. Mich., Feb. 24, 2022) is a class action
brought against the Defendants for breach of express warranty,
breach of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and intentional
misrepresentation.

According to the complaint, the Defendants make, sell, and market
"GoodSense" over-the-counter cough, cold and flu medicine (the
"Non-Drowsy GoodSense Products"), including generic GoodSense
versions of brands like DayQuil and Robitussin. Like the branded
versions, these medicines contain the active ingredient
Dextromethorphan Hydrobromide (DXM), an ingredient that causes
drowsiness.

The Defendants' Non-Drowsy GoodSense Products state prominently on
the front of their label that they are "Non-Drowsy" and "Daytime"
products (juxtaposed against Defendants' "Nighttime" versions). But
the truth is that products containing DXM -- and thus the
Non-Drowsy GoodSense Products -- do cause drowsiness, and that
drowsiness is a known side effect of DXM. In reality, the Products
cause drowsiness, which in effect destroys the primary reason for
purchasing the "Daytime" Products in the first place - for use
during the day, when consumers do not want to be drowsy, says the
suit.

Allegedly, the Defendants misled Plaintiffs and other consumers
about the effects of the Non-Drowsy GoodSense Products. Had
Defendants been truthful, Plaintiffs and other consumers would not
have purchased the products or would have paid less for them, says
the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nick Suciu, III, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          6905 Telegraph Road Suite 115
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
          Telephone: (313) 303-3472
          E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com

               - and -

          Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
          Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ykrivoshey@bursor.com
                  bscott@bursor.com
  
               - and -

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

PFIZER INC: Adams Suit Transferred to S.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ida Adams, Virginia Aragon, Golbenaz Bakhtiar,
Jonathan Ferguson, Michael Galloway, Alberta Griffin, Ronda
Lockett, Ricardo Moron, Richard Obrien, Jeffrey Pisano, Chris
Troyan, Gustavo Velasquez, Joshua Winans, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Pfizer Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00747 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, 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.

Pfizer Inc. -- https://www.pfizer.com/ -- is an American
multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology corporation
headquartered on 42nd Street in Manhattan, New York City.[BN]


PFIZER INC: Smith Suit Transferred to S.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Tammy Smith, Andy Green Jr., Bakhtiar Golbenaz,
Richard Obrien, Virginia Aragon, Jeffrey Pisano, Angel Cordero,
Gustavo Velasquez, Joshua Winans, Richardo Moron, Roy Armstrong,
Sonia Diaz, Kathy Jeffries, Earlene Green, Charles Longfield, Janet
Asbury, Randy Jones, Alberta Griffin, Ida Adams, Jerry Hunt,
Lakisha Wilson, Donald Northrup, John Scholl, Beverly Crosby, John
Rachal, Gaylord Stauffer, Benny Fazio, Mary McCullen, Dennis
Robbins, Chris Troyan, Michael Galloway, Nicholas Hazlett, Gloria
Colon, Dale Hunter, Kenneth Hix, Sylvia Yoshida, Ronda Lockett,
Marianella Villanueva, Dan Zhovtis, Jonathan Ferguson, Steve
Fischer, Wendy Quezaire, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated v. Pfizer Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00746 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, 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-80288-RLR to the
proceeding.

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

Pfizer Inc. -- https://www.pfizer.com/ -- is an American
multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology corporation
headquartered on 42nd Street in Manhattan, New York City.[BN]


PORTLAND, OR: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bids in Bonneau Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MERRICK BONNEAU, Plaintiff v. CITY OF PORTLAND, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-518-SI (D. Or.), Judge Michael H.
Simon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon granted
the Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment and dismissed the
Plaintiff's claims with prejudice.

I. Background

Plaintiff Bonneau brings the lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
against the City of Portland and five Portland Police officers
(collectively, the City Defendants). Mr. Bonneau alleges that
Portland police officers unlawfully stopped, arrested, and searched
him at a drug checkpoint at Union Station in downtown Portland in
violation of the Fourth Amendment. The City Defendants move for
summary judgment.

In April 2016, the Plaintiff travelled by train from Portland to
New York City to visit a friend for one week. He returned home on
the morning of April 13, 2016 at Union Station in Portland. The
Plaintiff's luggage contained a vaporizer pen to smoke marijuana
extract. As tbe Plaintiff stepped off the train and walked down the
platform, he saw two police officers. One officer, Officer Michael
Jones, was searching a passenger's luggage and the other officer,
Officer Scott Groshong, stood nearby with a police dog, named
"Rex." Officer Groshong stood a few feet behind Rex. These officers
were part of Portland Police Bureau's Drugs and Vice Division and
assigned to the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Interdiction
Taskforce (HIT).

As the Plaintiff approached the officers, the Plaintiff altered his
path and walked closer to the outer edge of the platform rather
than straight ahead directly towards the officers. When the
Plaintiff passed Officer Groshong, Rex turned his head toward the
Plaintiff and began to follow him. The Plaintiff had with him a
roller suitcase with a backpack strapped on top.

Rex walked up to the Plaintiff's luggage and placed his nose at the
base of the Plaintiff's backpack and sniffed. As Rex sniffed the
Plaintiff's backpack, Officer Groshong did not make any commands or
signals to Rex. Seeing that Rex continued to sniff at the base of
the Plaintiff's backpack, Officer Groshong informed Officer Jones
of Rex's alert. Officer Groshong then called Rex off the
Plaintiff's luggage.

Officer Jones and another officer, Officer Randy Castaneda, stopped
the Plaintiff and informed him that Rex had alerted to the presence
of drugs in his luggage. The Plaintiff appeared nervous and evasive
and pulled the luggage closer to him. Based on Rex's alert, the
Plaintiff's nervous behavior, and his short trip by train, Officers
Jones and Castaneda believed that the Plaintiff likely either
possessed illegal drugs or proceeds from the sale of illegal drugs
in his luggage. The Plaintiff refused.

Officer Christopher Devlin then joined the discussion and made the
decision to handcuff and arrest the Plaintiff. Officer Groshong
transported the Plaintiff to the Portland Police Bureau Central
Precinct. When they arrived at the Central Precinct, Officer
Groshong unhandcuffed the Plaintiff and placed him in a holding
cell.

After his conversation with District Attorney Sewell, Officer
Devlin informed the Plaintiff that Sewell had approved the
affidavit and warrant for submission to a judge. Officer Devlin
asked the Plaintiff if he would consent to a search of his luggage.
The Plaintiff agreed to the search as long as he could hold up each
item for the officers' inspection and then place each item back in
his bags. The officers agreed to this manner of search.

The Plaintiff then opened his bags and pulled out each item,
allowing Officer Castaneda to inspect. The search revealed no
illegal drugs or proceeds from the sale of illegal drugs. Officer
Devlin immediately released the Plaintiff at the completion of the
search. Plaintiff was held in custody for a total of five to six
hours.

Originally represented by counsel, the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit
in March 2018. In addition to the City Defendants, the Plaintiff's
Complaint also named a federal officer, Guy Gino, and the United
States as Defendants. The Plaintiff's Complaint also included a
putative class action claim in addition to his individual claims.

On July 3, 2019, the Court granted Defendant Gino's motion to
dismiss based on qualified immunity and dismissed Gino from the
case. On Jan. 21, 2020, the Court granted the Plaintiff's counsel's
motion to withdraw. The Plaintiff has since proceeded pro se. The
Court then dismissed the Plaintiff's class action claim for want of
qualified counsel on March 26, 2020. In that same Opinion and
Order, the Court also dismissed the United States from the lawsuit.
After that, only the Plaintiff's individual claims against the City
Defendants remained.

The City Defendants now move for summary judgment. As noted, the
Plaintiff did not respond to these motions. The Court sua sponte
extended the Plaintiff's deadline to respond by four weeks. The
Plaintiff again did not respond. Judge Simon therefore considers
the Defendants' motions without the benefit of a response from the
Plaintiff.

II. Discussion

A. Plaintiff's Investigatory Stop

Judge Simon opines that the Plaintiff's stop at the train station
does not amount to a Fourth Amendment violation because Officers
Groshong and Jones had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Officer Jones only stopped the Plaintiff when Officer Groshong
informed him that Rex had alerted to the scent of illegal drugs in
the Plaintiff's luggage, and the officers knew that Rex was
certified in detecting the scent of illegal drugs. Because a
certified drug police dog's alert provides a basis for probable
cause, it also provides a basis for reasonable suspicion. Rex's
alert therefore provided the officers with reasonable suspicion to
stop and question the Plaintiff.

B. Plaintiff's Arrest

Judge Simon also opines that the Plaintiff's arrest did not violate
the Fourth Amendment because Officer Devlin had probable cause to
believe that the Plaintiff possessed illegal drugs or proceeds from
the sale of illegal drugs in his luggage. Officer Devlin knew that
Rex was certified in detecting the scent of illegal drugs and that
Rex had turned his head toward Plaintiff when he walked by and then
followed and sniffed the Plaintiff's luggage. Officer Devlin also
knew that the Plaintiff's short trip by train was consistent with
typical behavior of someone who had travelled to sell illegal
drugs. Further, Officer Devlin knew that the Plaintiff had tried to
avoid Officers Groshong and Jones when walking down the platform
and had been nervous and evasive when responding to their
questioning. Thus, the totality of circumstances suggests that
there was a fair probability that the Plaintiff had committed a
crime, providing Officer Devlin with probable cause to arrest the
Plaintiff.

C. Search of Plaintiff's Backpack

The Plaintiff voluntarily consented to the search of his luggage.
He demonstrated his knowledge of his right to refuse to consent to
the search because he had done so at the train station. And when
the Plaintiff arrived at the Central Precinct, the officers
immediately removed his handcuffs and read the Plaintiff his
Miranda rights. Later, Officer Devlin told the Plaintiff that he
planned to apply for a search warrant, and at that point, the
Plaintiff agreed to the search. Further, during the Plaintiff's
deposition, the Plaintiff characterized his agreement to the search
as a "mutual agreement" and a "compromise." Thus, the search of the
Plaintiff's luggage did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

In sum, Judge Simon holds that the Plaintiff did not suffer any
Fourth Amendment violation in connection with the April 13, 2016
incident at Union Station and the Central Precinct. He will
therefore dismiss the Plaintiff's claims against all the
Defendants.

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Judge Simon granted the Defendants' Motions
for Summary Judgment. He dismissed the Plaintiff's claims with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yckwe3u2 from Leagle.com.

Merrick Bonneau, Plaintiff pro se.

William W. Manlove, III, Senior Deputy City Attorney, 1221 SW
Fourth Avenue, Suite 430, in Portland, Oregon 97204, Of Attorneys
for Defendants City of Portland, Christopher Devlin, Randy
Castaneda, Michael Jones, and Timothy Robinson.

Andrea D. Coit -- info@eugenelaw.com -- HUTCHINSON COX, 940
Willamette St., Suite 400, in Eugene, Oregon 97440, Of Attorneys
for Defendant Scott Groshong.


POTTSTOWN AREA: Faces Robinson Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY T. ROBINSON, SR., VALERIE J. ROBINSON, and DARRISS L.
TINSON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. POTTSTOWN AREA RAPID TRANSIT, INC., C M D SERVICES,
INC., and D & D COLLISION SERVICE, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-00655-KSM (E.D. Pa., Feb. 22, 2022) arises from the
Defendants' failure to pay lawful overtime pay pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

From 1987 through January 2022, Anthony Robinson was a transit bus
driver for PART; a school bus driver for CMD; and a laborer for
D&D.

From 2006 through the present, Valerie Robinson is a part-time
paratransit driver for PART; a school bus driver for CMD; and a
laborer for D&D.

From 2008 through the present, Dariss Tinson is a transit bus
driver for PART; a school bus driver for CMD and a laborer for D&D.


Pottstown Area Rapid Transit, Inc. is a private corporation that
employs bus drivers for Pottstown, Pennsylvania's public transit
entity.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy P. Creech, Esq.
          CREECH & CREECH LLC
          1835 Market St., Suite 2626
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 575-7618
          Facsimile: (215) 575-7688
          E-mail: timothy@creechandcreech.com

PROFESSIONAL LOCKSMITH: Garcia Sues Over Locksmiths' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS GARCIA AND ORLANDO PEREZ, on behalf of themselves, and all
other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs
v. THE PROFESSIONAL LOCKSMITH, INC., AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, ORON
NURIEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND GAL DRUCKER, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00987 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 24, 2022) arises from the
Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance, and
the Municipal Code of Chicago and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40, failed to pay
commissions factored into the calculation of their regular and
corresponding overtime rates of pay, and engaged in unauthorized
deductions from pay.

Plaintiffs Garcia and Perez are former locksmiths of Defendants who
worked for TPLI from approximately August 2020 to October 2020 and
September 2020 to November 2020, respectively.

The Professional Locksmith, Inc. is a business that provides
locksmith services to corporate and residential customers,
including emergency lock-out services for buildings and
automobiles, lock and key installations, re-keying of locks,
repairs, etc.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John W. Billhorn, Esq.
          Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450

PROFILE DEVELOPMENT: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Profile Development,
LLC. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Profile Development, LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-01012-ARR-RLM (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2022).

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

Profile Development offers Management Services in Sioux Falls,
South Dakota.[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


PROJECT MELROSE: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Project Melrose, Inc.
The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Project Melrose, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-01557 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2022).

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

MelroseINC provides end-to-end technology solutions to clients
seeking improvements to their storage, content creation, asset
management, I.T. and mobility needs.[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


PROUD HARVEST: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Proud Harvest, Inc.
The case is styled as Juan Ortega, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Proud Harvest, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-01548-JPC (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2022).

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

Proud Harvest, Inc. doing business as Dean's Beans Organic Coffee
Company -- https://deansbeans.com/ -- is a leading-edge social
change organization using high quality specialty coffee as a
vehicle for positive social, economic and environmental change
throughout the coffeelands of Asia, Africa and the America.[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


PTS CRAFT COFFEE: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PTS Craft Coffee,
LLC. The case is styled as Juan Ortega, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. PTS Craft Coffee, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01547 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2022).

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

PTS Craft Coffee -- https://www.ptscoffee.com/ -- is an
award-winning retail and wholesale coffee roaster with Kansas
roots.[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


RADIUS GLOBAL: Sussman Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Radius Global
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Sharon Sussman also known as:
Sharon Ohayon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Radius Global Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00976
(D.N.J., Feb. 24, 2022).

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

Radius Global Solutions -- https://www.radiusgs.com/ -- work with
healthcare, telecom and utilities, retail, transportation, and
other industries to ensure payments are received.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christofer Merritt, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          1 University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (540) 907-8248
          Email: cmerritt@steinsakslegal.com


RAGAN & RAGAN: Camacho-Godoy Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ragan & Ragan, P.C.,
et al. The case is styled as Karla Camacho-Godoy, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ragan & Ragan, P.C.,
Crown Asset Management, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00792-SDG-JCF (N.D.
Ga., Feb. 24, 2022).

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

The Ragan & Ragan, PC -- https://raganlaw.com/ -- law firm
represents commercial, retail and medical creditors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq.
          THE OAKS FIRM
          3895 Brookgreen Pt.
          Decatur, GA 30034
          Phone: (404) 500-7861
          Email: attyoaks@yahoo.com


SAGINAW COUNTY, MI: Denial of Sovereign Immunity in Fox Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS A. FOX, and all those similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellee v. SAGINAW COUNTY, MICHIGAN, by its Board of
Commissioners, et al., Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 21-1108 (6th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the
district court's partial denial of the counties' motions to dismiss
on the grounds that the counties are not entitled to sovereign
immunity.

I. Background

Mr. Fox, the class representative to the class action, alleges that
27 Michigan counties unlawfully retained the surplus equity in
class members' foreclosed properties without compensation, in
violation of the Takings Clauses of the Michigan and United States
Constitutions.

Mr. Fox was a property owner in Gratiot County, Michigan. By 2017,
Fox had accrued a tax delinquency of over $3,000 on the property,
which had an alleged fair market value of $50,400. In February
2017, Gratiot County "seized ownership of the Property," and sold
it at auction for more than the value of Fox's tax delinquency as
it was entitled to do under Michigan law.

Gratiot County was not required to foreclose on Fox's property.
Michigan's General Property Tax Act ("the Act"), Mich. Comp. Laws
Section 211.78 et seq., provides that "the foreclosure of forfeited
property by a county is voluntary and is not an activity or service
required of units of local government." Foreclosures are initiated
by a "foreclosing governmental unit" ("FGU"). Either "the treasurer
of a county" or the State of Michigan "if the county elected to
have Michigan foreclose property under this act" can act as an
FGU.

Counties initially had to decide whether to opt-out of becoming an
FGU and instead elect to have Michigan foreclose real property "no
later than Dec. 1, 1999." In December 2004, counties had the
opportunity to reconsider their status. This was, by statute, the
final chance for counties to opt-out of becoming an FGU. From Jan.
1, 2009, through March 1, 2009, counties could reconsider their
status and opt-in to becoming FGUs, but not opt-out. After 2010,
counties could opt-in to becoming an FGU in any given year after
February of the following year "by a resolution adopted at a
meeting held pursuant to the open meetings act, 1976 PA 267, MCL
15.261 to 15.275, and with the written concurrence of the county
treasurer and county executive." As of 2019, "75 of Michigan's 83
counties elected to act as the FGU."

Once a county -- like Gratiot -- decides to foreclose on a
property, the Act regulates the entire process, including what an
FGU may do with the funds from the sale. In Fox's case, Gratiot
County retained the surplus funds as was required by the Act. Fox
contends that by retaining the funds, Gratiot County "took or
destroyed" his equity in the property, and that other Michigan
counties engaged in the same practice, harming other Michigan
residents.

On June 25, 2019, Fox filed a complaint on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated against Gratiot County and several
other Michigan counties and county treasurers in their individual
and official capacities, seeking damages based on the counties'
retention of surplus proceeds from tax foreclosure sales. On
September 4, 2019, Fox filed an amended complaint that named more
counties and county treasurers as defendants and brought three
additional claims against them. In total, Fox brought eight claims
against the county defendants, alleging that the destruction of his
and other class members' equity was an unconstitutional taking
under Michigan and federal law, that the retention of the surplus
proceeds constituted an inverse condemnation of their property,
that the class members' procedural and substantive due process
rights were violated, and that the county defendants were unjustly
enriched through this process.

On Jan. 10, 2020, the district court stayed the case pending a
decision from the Sixth Circuit in Freed v. Thomas, 976 F.3d 729
(6th Cir. 2020), which the district court believed presented nearly
identical facts, substantive arguments, and jurisdictional
questions. On July 17, 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court decided
Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland County, and concluded that the "retention
of surplus proceeds under the Act amounts to a taking of a vested
property right," in violation of the Michigan Constitution's
takings clause, Mich. Const. art. 10, Section 2. 952 N.W.2d at 474,
477. On Sept. 30, 2020, the Sixth Circuit decided Freed, concluding
that neither the Tax Injunction Act nor principles of comity
precluded an action against Michigan counties for surplus proceeds
retained under the Act.

On Oct. 16, 2020 -- on Fox's motion -- the district court lifted
the stay, certified the proposed class, and appointed class
counsel. Between September 2019 and October 2020, over 50
defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in part or in
whole. On Jan. 13, 2021, the district court -- deciding the motions
jointly -- granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motions to dismiss. Relevantly, while the district court found that
the county treasurers were entitled to qualified immunity, the
district court concluded that the counties themselves were not
entitled to sovereign immunity. Therefore, it determined that the
class could proceed with their takings, inverse condemnation, due
process, and unjust enrichment claims against the counties.

The County Defendants now appeal the district court's denial of
sovereign immunity. They further argue that, because standing is a
threshold jurisdictional issue, the Sixth Circuit should review the
district court's finding that the non-Gratiot County Defendants are
"juridically linked" for the purposes of standing and reverse the
district court's judgment that Fox may bring a class action against
those counties that did not harm him. Finally, the County
Defendants argue that Sixth Circuit should exercise pendent
appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's finding that
Fox adequately alleged a municipal policy or custom that was the
moving force behind the alleged constitutional violation as is
required to bring a cause of action under Section 1983 against a
municipality.

II. Analysis

A. Standing

While the Sixth Circuit has an independent obligation to assure
itself of its jurisdiction, it holds that there is no question in
the case that -- at a minimum -- Fox has standing to bring a claim
against Gratiot County. The counties argue, however, that the
district court's determination that Fox has standing to represent a
class of individuals harmed by other counties is reviewable even
though it is not a final order. In their view, because Article III
standing is a prerequisite to federal court jurisdiction, it is
automatically reviewable on an interlocutory appeal. The Defendants
request that the Sixth Circuit reverses and remands for dismissal
of Fox's claims against all the Defendants except Gratiot County
for lack of standing.

The Sixth Circuit explains that unless otherwise provided by
statute, the only way a court may maintain jurisdiction over an
appeal from a non-final order is under the collateral order
doctrine. For a court to maintain jurisdiction over an appeal from
a non-final order pursuant to the collateral order doctrine, that
order must "[1] conclusively determine the disputed question, [2]
resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of
the action, and [3] be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a
final judgment." The finality requirement embodied in Section 1291
is jurisdictional in nature. If the appellate court finds that the
order from which a party seeks to appeal does not fall within the
statute, its inquiry is over."

Because standing, as the Eleventh Circuit noted, "fails the last
prong," the Sixth Circuit lacks jurisdiction to review this portion
of the district court's order.

B. Monell Liability

The County Defendants argue that the Sixth Circuit should exercise
its pendent appellate jurisdiction to review whether Fox adequately
pleaded a violation of federal law under Monell v. Dep't of Soc.
Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978), because that issue is sufficiently
intertwined with the Eleventh Amendment claim to invoke pendent
jurisdiction.

The Eleventh Amendment issue can be resolved without resolving the
counties' liability under Monell. While the two issues are similar,
the sovereign immunity analysis requires an analysis of the nature
of the entity and the discretion afforded to the county in
undertaking a specific activity, while the Monell analysis requires
an analysis of who implemented and adopted a policy, an issue which
is not collateral to the merits of the case or necessary to
determine whether the counties are entitled to sovereign immunity.
Therefore, the Sixth Circuit lacks pendent appellate jurisdiction
over the district court's denial of the counties' motions to
dismiss as to Monell liability.

C. Sovereign Immunity

The Sixth Circuit now addresses the remaining issue over which it
has jurisdiction -- whether the counties are entitled to sovereign
immunity. It reviews the legal question of whether a body is
entitled to sovereign immunity de novo but accepts the district
court's underlying factual findings unless such findings are
clearly erroneous.

The County Defendants argue that because the Act mandated how they
distributed surplus proceeds from tax-foreclosure sales, they were
acting as an arm of the State and are entitled to sovereign
immunity. The Plaintiffs argue that the district court did not err
when it determined that the counties were not acting as arms of the
state because they voluntarily decided to become FGUs.

The Sixth Circuit opines that the County Defendants were obligated
to follow Michigan law once they decided to foreclose upon property
units. Unlike other county officials, however, their actions
leading up to that point were entirely voluntary. The Act on its
face is not a mandatory statutory scheme. The counties were not
required to act as an FGU or to foreclose on any given property,
and yet they chose to do so. Because it is clear that the counties
"could have opted to act differently, or not to act," they did not
act as an arm of the State of Michigan. Accordingly, they are not
entitled to sovereign immunity.

III. Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of sovereign immunity and is
precluded from addressing the other arguments raised because it
lacks jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3p45edxn from Leagle.com.


SCHMIDT BAKING: Gray Files RICO Suit in D. Maryland
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Schmidt Baking
Company, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Eric Gray, Jr., Tracey
Jackson, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals v. Schmidt Baking Company, Inc., Schmidt Baking
Distribution, LLC, Exeter Financial Services, LLC, Distribution
Consultants, Inc., Distribution Services of America, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00463-LKG (D. Md., Feb. 24, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for
the Racketeering (RICO) Act.

Schmidt Baking Company -- https://www.schmidtoldtyme.com/ -- is a
bakery in Baltimore, Maryland, U.S. The company makes Schmidt's
Blue Ribbon and Schmidt's Old Tyme Breads and, as a licensee of the
Quality Bakers of America Cooperative, bakes and distributes
Sunbeam Bread in its territory.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Deyka Williams Spencer, Esq.
          THE SPENCER FIRM LLC
          2275 Research Blvd., Suite 500
          Rockville, MD 20850
          Phone: (301) 637-2866
          Fax: (866) 686-2126
          Email: dspencer@spencer-firm.com


SOPHIE'S CUBAN: Perez Sues Over Dishwashers' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
JUVENCIO VIDAL PEREZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs and the Class v. SOPHIE'S CUBAN CUISINE INC., EVERYTHING
CUBAN LLC, MM RESTAURANT ENTERPRISES LLC, SOPHIE'S CUBAN CUISINE
FRANCHISING, INC., JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS 1-8, SOFIA LUNA, MANUELA
MATOS, and PATRICIA LUNA, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01533
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages due to time-shaving, statutory
penalties, liquidated damages, interest, and attorney's fees and
costs due to untimely payment of wages.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work as a dishwasher
at the "Lenox Hill" Sophie's Cuban Cuisine in New York from January
2016 to March 2020.

Sophie's Cuban Cuisine Inc. is the parent company for all of the
Corporate Defendants that own and operate a food services
enterprise self-titled as Sophie's Cuban.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1180
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

SPEEDY STICKS: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Speedy Sticks LLC.
The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Speedy Sticks LLC doing
business as: Speedy Sticks, Case No. 1:22-cv-01491-KPF (S.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 23, 2022).

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

Speedy Sticks -- https://www.speedysticks.com/ -- is a mobile
concierge phlebotomy service providing at-home blood draws.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SPROUT FOODS: Mislabels Baby/Toddler Food Products, Davidson Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GILLIAN DAVIDSON and SAMUEL DAVIDSON, on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SPROUT FOODS INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-01050 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 19, 2022) seeks
redress for the Defendant's deceptive and unlawful practices in
labeling and marketing the Sprout brand baby and toddler food
products in violation of the California's Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, the False Advertising, Business and Professions Code, and the
Business and Professions Code.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant misbrands its baby and
toddler food products by making nutrient content claims on the
product packages that are strictly prohibited by the Food and Drug
Administration and by misleading purchasers, including Plaintiffs,
into believing that its products are healthier than other products
for children under two years of age in order to induce parents into
purchasing the Defendant's products with the alleged intention to
gain profit from parents' increasing desire to purchase health food
for their young children.

The Defendant's advertising and labeling of the products with
express nutrient content claims is unlawful, misleading, deceptive,
and intended to induce consumers to purchase the products at a
premium price, says the suit.

Sprout Foods Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, advertises,
and sells a variety of baby and toddler food products under the
brand name "Sprout."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Marie A. 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
          E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
                  marie@gutridesafier.com
                  hayley@gutridesafier.com

STATE FARM: Wotring Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Douglas C. Wotring, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. to the U.S. District
Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 14, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00578-GEKP to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance Contract.

State Farm Insurance -- https://www.statefarm.com/ -- is a large
group of insurance companies throughout the United States with
corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Haggerty, Esq.
          HAGGERTY, GOLDBERG, SCHLEIFER, & KUPERSMITH
          1835 Market Street, 27th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (267) 350-6633
          Email: jhaggerty@hgsklawyers.com

               - and -

          Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
          SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER P.C.
          209 State Street
          Harrisburg, PA 17101
          Phone: (717) 232-6300
          Email: scooper@schmidtkramer.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John J. Mcgrath, Esq.
          PALMER & BARR PC
          1880 John F Kennedy Blvd., Suite 401
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (267) 825-7883
          Fax: (215) 557-0225
          Email: john.mcgrath@palmerbarr.com

               - and -

          Joseph A. Cancila, Jr., Esq.
          Sondra Hemeryck, Esq.
          RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA
          70 West Madison Avenue, Suite 2900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 471-8750
          Email: jcancila@rshc-law.com
                 shemeryck@rshc-law.com


STAVE PUZZLES: Crumwell Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stave Puzzles
Incorporated. The case is styled as Denise Crumwell, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Stave Puzzles
Incorporated, Case No. 1:22-cv-01465 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2022).

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

Stave Puzzles -- https://www.stavepuzzles.com/ -- is an American
jigsaw puzzle company located in Norwich, Vermont.[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


STEWART'S SHOPS: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stewart's Shops Corp.
The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Stewart's Shops Corp., Case No.
1:22-cv-01017 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2022).

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

Stewart's Shops -- https://www.stewartsshops.com/ -- is a family
owned and operated chain of convenience stores and gas stations in
New York and Vermont.[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


STICKER MULE: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sticker Mule, LLC.
The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Sticker Mule, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01518 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2022).

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

Sticker Mule -- https://www.stickermule.com/ -- is the fastest and
easiest way to buy custom printed 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


STROOP CLUB: Ortega Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Stroop Club LLC.
The case is styled as Juan Ortega, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. The Stroop Club LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01525 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 23, 2022).

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

Stroop Club -- https://www.stroopclub.com/ -- is a wholesale bakery
offering Dutch Stroopwafel.[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



SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Weber Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Synergetic
Communication, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Joseph Weber,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Synergetic Communication, Inc., Caddis Funding LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-00977 (D.N.J., Feb. 24, 2022).

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

Synergetic Communication -- https://www.syncomcorp.net/ -- is a
third-party debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christofer Merritt, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          1 University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (540) 907-8248
          Email: cmerritt@steinsakslegal.com



TWOMAGNETS INC: Underpays Licensed Practical Nurses, Ester Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Loretta Ester, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Twomagnets, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
d/b/a Clipboard Health, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00316 (N.D.
Ohio, Feb. 24, 2022) arises from the Defendant's failure to pay
Plaintiff all earned overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Ohio Revised Code.

The Defendant has allegedly operated pursuant to a policy and
practice of intentionally misclassifying Plaintiff and all other
similarly-situated employees as independent contractors. At all
relevant times, pursuant to this misclassification, Defendant has
willfully refused to pay overtime, says the suit.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a licensed practical
nurse from May 2020 through the present.

Twomagnets, Inc. operates as Clipboard Health which provides
nursing and healthcare staff to its clients across the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Simon, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
          5000 Rockside Road
          Liberty Plaza Building - Suite 520
          Independence, OH 44131
          Telephone: (216) 525-8890
          E-mail: james@bswages.com

               - and -

          Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
          BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
          P.O. Box 97066
          Phoenix, AZ 85060
          Telephone: (480) 382-5176
          E-mail: cliff@bswages.com

UNITED STATES: Dismissal of Washington Federal's Claims Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WASHINGTON FEDERAL, MICHAEL McCREDY BAKER, CITY OF
AUSTIN POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 2020-2190 (Fed. Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decisions of the
United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing the Washington
Federal Plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing.

I. Introduction

The Order is a companion to appeals in eight other matters:
Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 20-1912, -1914, Owl
Creek Asia I, L.P. v. United States, No. 20-1934, Mason Capital
L.P. v. United States, No. 20-1936, Akanthos Opportunity Fund, L.P.
v. United States, No. 20-1938, Appaloosa Investment Ltd.
Partnership I v. United States, No. 20-1954, CSS, LLC v. United
States, No. 20-1955, Arrowood Indemnity Co. v. United States, No.
20-2020, and Cacciapalle v. United States, No. 20-2037.

In those cases (collectively, the Fairholme appeals), certain
shareholders of the Federal National Mortgage Association and the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (collectively, the
Enterprises or Companies) challenged actions taken by the Federal
Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) after it placed the Enterprises under
conservatorship. Those shareholders alleged that a "net worth
sweep" under an amendment to the FHFA's preferred stock purchase
agreements (PSPAs) with the Department of Treasury constituted,
inter alia, a direct taking or illegal exaction of their share
value. The Federal Circuit affirmed the decisions of the Claims
Court) dismissing Fairholme's claims for lack of standing.

The Washington Federal, Michael McCredy Baker, and the City of
Austin Police Retirement System (collectively, the Washington
Federal Plaintiffs) also alleged direct takings and illegal
exaction claims. The Federal Circuit separated this appeal from the
Fairholme appeals because the claims here primarily were predicated
on the imposition of the conservatorships over the Enterprises,
rather than on actions the FHFA later took in its capacity as
conservator. Specifically, the Washington Federal Plaintiffs
alleged that the FHFA lacked the statutory authority to impose the
conservatorships. The Washington Federal Plaintiffs now appeal the
Claims Court's final judgment dismissing their claims for lack of
standing.

II. Background

Congress created the Enterprises to, inter alia, provide liquidity
to the mortgage market. The Enterprises do so by purchasing
mortgages, pooling them into mortgage-backed securities, and
selling them to investors. As a result, the Enterprises relieve
mortgage lenders of the risk of default and free up their capital
to make additional loans. The Enterprises operate under
congressional charters as for-profit corporations owned by private
shareholders.

When the housing bubble burst in 2008, the Enterprises experienced
significant losses and found themselves owning an "immense
inventory of defaulted and overvalued subprime mortgages." Though
the Enterprises remained solvent, many feared the Enterprises would
eventually default and "throw the housing market into a tailspin."

To address that concern, Congress enacted the Housing and Economic
Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) giving the FHFA discretion to appoint
itself as conservator or receiver over the Enterprises. HERA
constrained the FHFA's discretion by providing twelve grounds on
which the agency may appoint itself as conservator or receiver.
These grounds include the consent of the Enterprises, by resolution
of their boards of directors or their shareholders or members.

On Sept. 6, 2008, the FHFA's Director placed the Enterprises under
conservatorship with the consent of the Enterprises' boards of
directors. Thereafter, the Director negotiated PSPAs with Treasury.
In August 2012, the FHFA and Treasury amended the PSPAs to require
the Enterprises to pay Treasury quarterly dividend payments equal
to their entire net worth minus a small capital reserve amount,
i.e., the "net worth sweep."

In June 2013, the Washington Federal Plaintiffs filed a class
action against the government before the Claims Court. They later
amended their complaint so that it contained only one count: A
Fifth Amendment takings claim and/or an illegal exaction claim. The
operative complaint broadly alleges that, in imposing the
conservatorships over the Enterprises, the government "destroyed
the rights and value of the property interests tied to the common
and preferred stock of the Companies" held by the Washington
Federal Plaintiffs.

The complaint centers around the Washington Federal Plaintiffs'
allegation that the government "improperly imposed the
conservatorships over the Companies under false pretenses with no
valid statutory basis." According to the Washington Federal
Plaintiffs, the FHFA obtained the consent of the Enterprises'
boards of directors through "misrepresentation and duress," as well
as by immunizing the directors from liability for consenting to a
conservatorship.

The complaint asserts that, as a result of the FHFA's unlawful
appointment as conservator, the FHFA "terminated all shareholder
meetings and all shareholder voting rights," ordered the
Enterprises "to cease paying dividends on their preferred and
common stock," and ordered the Enterprises "to delist their common
and preferred shares from the New York Stock Exchange." The
Washington Federal Plaintiffs also alleged that the net worth sweep
constituted a taking or illegal exaction. After the Supreme Court
confirmed in Collins that the FHFA had statutory authority to enter
into the amendment to the PSPAs effectuating the net worth sweep,
the Washington Federal Plaintiffs abandoned that aspect of their
claims.

The government moved to dismiss the claims in every case before the
Claims Court in a single, omnibus motion. The Claims Court
ultimately granted the government's motion, dismissing the
Washington Federal Plaintiffs' operative complaint for lack of
standing.

Two of the Claims Court's holdings are relevant to the appeal.
First, the court rejected the government's argument that, because
HERA's 30-day limitations period bars the Washington Federal
Plaintiffs' claims, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over the case. The court explained that the applicable statute of
limitations is not HERA's 30-day period under 12 U.S.C. Section
4617(a)(5), but the general 6-year period under 28 U.S.C. Section
2501 for claims over which the Claims Court has jurisdiction.
Because the Washington Federal Plaintiffs filed suit within six
years of the imposition of conservatorships over the Enterprises,
the Claims Court found their claims timely.

Second, the Claims Court held that the Washington Federal
Plaintiffs lacked standing to litigate their direct takings and
illegal exaction claims because the claims are substantively
derivative. It found that the Washington Federal Plaintiffs' claims
and the direct takings and illegal exaction claims in Fairholme
Funds are "virtually indistinguishable for standing purposes."
While the Washington Federal Plaintiffs placed greater emphasis on
the imposition of the conservatorships, the Claims Court explained
that the claims here similarly rest on the expropriation of the
Washington Federal Plaintiffs' economic interests and property
rights as shareholders.

According to the court, the Washington Federal Plaintiffs' claims
are indistinguishable from an overpayment claim: "The FHFA, through
the imposition of the conservatorships and subsequent manipulations
of the Enterprises, gutted the Enterprises and left nothing for the
shareholders." It noted that the Washington Federal Plaintiffs'
claims are premised on allegations that the conservatorships harmed
the Enterprises themselves, and only thereby caused indirect harm
to the shareholders. The Claims Court therefore dismissed the
Washington Federal Plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing.

The Washington Federal Plaintiffs timely appealed to the Federal
Circuit.

III. Discussion

On appeal, the Washington Federal Plaintiffs argue that they have
standing to assert their direct takings and illegal exaction claims
arising out of the FHFA's actions to coerce the Enterprises into
consenting to conservatorships. In response, the government
maintains that Section 4617(a)(5) bars the Washington Federal
Plaintiffs' challenge to the FHFA's appointment as conservator over
the Enterprises. Because it is a jurisdictional challenge, the
Federal Circuit addresses the government's threshold argument
before turning to the substance of the Washington Federal
Plaintiffs' appeal.

A. The Claims Court's jurisdiction

The government argues that the Claims Court should have dismissed
the Washington Federal Plaintiffs' claims as untimely and filed in
the wrong court. Specifically, the government asserts that 12
U.S.C. Section 4617(a)(5) -- which permits the Enterprises ("the
regulated entity") to challenge the FHFA's appointment as
conservator in a district court action within 30 days of the
appointment -- is the exclusive means of challenging the FHFA's
appointment. According to the government, the Washington Federal
Plaintiffs' suit is "incontrovertibly a challenge to the
appointment of the conservator."

The Federal Circuit holds that the Washington Federal Plaintiffs
timely filed their claims in June 2013, within six years of the
FHFA's appointment as conservator in September 2008. It also
disagrees with the government's characterization of the Washington
Federal Plaintiffs' claims as no more than a challenge to the
FHFA's appointment as conservator. It says, while there is no
dispute that the claims allege that the FHFA improperly coerced the
Enterprises' boards of directors to consent to the
conservatorships, the Washington Federal Plaintiffs also claim
that, by those unlawful actions, the government took or illegally
exacted their property interests as shareholders of the Enterprises
without just compensation. It therefore rejects the government's
argument that it should dismiss the Washington Federal Plaintiffs'
claims on jurisdictional grounds.

B. The Washington Federal Plaintiffs' illegal exaction claim

Although the 30-day limitations period in Section 4617(a)(5) does
not deprive the Claims Court of jurisdiction over the Washington
Federal Plaintiffs' claims, the Federal Circuit affirms the Claims
Court's dismissal of their illegal exaction claim on the
alternative ground that the Washington Federal Plaintiffs fail to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It expplaint that
the case law makes clear that the Washington Federal Plaintiffs may
not challenge the propriety of the FHFA's appointment as
conservator through an illegal exaction claim in the Claims Court.
Instead, the Washington Federal Plaintiffs must litigate their
claims on the assumption that the FHFA's appointment as conservator
was lawful. Therefore, the Washington Federal Plaintiffs' illegal
exaction claim, which requires showing that the FHFA's imposition
of the conservatorships was unlawful, is not plausible.

Because the Washington Federal Plaintiffs' illegal exaction claim
requires showing that the FHFA's appointment as conservator over
the Enterprises was unlawful under HERA, the Federal Circuit
affirms the Claims Court's dismissal of their illegal exaction
claim on alternative grounds of failure to state a claim.

The Washington Federal Plaintiffs argue that there is no basis for
the government's "ambitious reading" that "any dispute as to the
legality of the appointment must be resolved immediately in the
district court." And, they make much of the fact that the mechanism
for challenge in Section 4617(a)(5) only authorizes the Enterprises
to challenge the conservatorship.

The Federal Circuit holds that where Congress specifies the means
of challenging an agency action, like the FHFA's decision to
appoint itself conservator over the Enterprises, a plaintiff may
not challenge the lawfulness of the agency action under the cover
of a takings (or illegal exaction) claim in the Claims Court. While
it is true that Section 4617(a)(5) refers to "the regulated
entities" (i.e., the Enterprises), an action challenging the
conservatorship could have been asserted derivatively by the
shareholders on behalf of the Enterprises, but was not.

The Washington Federal Plaintiffs also argue that interpreting
Section 4617(a)(5) to bar direct claims by shareholders seeking
monetary relief for Fifth Amendment violations would raise serious
due process concerns.

The Federal Circuit disagrees. As it noted, the statute of
limitations in Section 4617(a)(5) does not time-bar Fifth Amendment
takings claims before the Claims Court. A litigant simply cannot
assert a plausible takings or illegal exaction claim predicated on
the unlawfulness of an agency action where Congress provided an
alternate exclusive means to challenge that action. As the
government points out, moreover, a Due Process challenge to HERA
and the implications of its statutory structure, even if such a
challenge could be brought, may not be brought in the Claims
Court.

C. The Washington Federal Plaintiffs' takings claim

1. Failure to allege a cognizable takings claim

The Federal Circuit similarly affirms the Claims Court's dismissal
of the Washington Federal Plaintiffs' takings claim on the
alternative ground that the Washington Federal Plaintiffs fail to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It explains that
where shareholders hold shares in such highly regulated entities --
entities that the government has the authority to place into
conservatorship -- where the conservator's powers are extremely
broad, and where the entities were lawfully placed into such a
conservatorship, shareholders lack a cognizable property interest
in the context of a takings claim. For this reason, the Federal
Circuit finds that the Washington Federal Plaintiffs cannot assert
a cognizable takings claim regarding actions taken in connection
with the imposition of the conservatorships in 2008.

2. Lack of standing to assert a direct takings claim

As an independent ground, the Federal Circuit affirms the Claims
Court's dismissal of the Washington Federal Plaintiffs' takings
claim for lack of standing. It holds that the Washington Federal
Plaintiffs lack standing to assert their substantively derivative
claims as direct claims. The Washington Federal Plaintiffs' takings
claim is derivative in nature because their alleged injuries are
not independent of alleged harms to the Enterprises.

The Federal Circuit is also unpersuaded by the Washington Federal
Plaintiffs' arguments in favor of standing. First, the Washington
Federal Plaintiffs lack standing to assert their direct takings
claim because their alleged harms depend on alleged injuries to the
Enterprises. Second, the Washington Federal Plaintiffs' takings
claim attempts to enforce the legal rights and interests of the
Enterprises. Third, whether enforcing HERA as written and
interpreted by the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit, and the D.C.
Circuit deprives the Washington Federal Plaintiffs of due process
is not a question before the Federal Circuit and not a question
over which the Claims Court could assert jurisdiction. Fourth, when
the alleged harm to the corporation and alleged harm to the
shareholder are not independent, the claim is only substantively
derivative in nature. Finally, the Washington Federal Plaintiffs'
claims implicate areas of corporate law that require them to go
beyond Article III's minimum standing requirements and establish
the right to assert claims on behalf of a third party.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons it discussed, the Federal Circuit affirmed the
Claims Court's decision dismissing the Washington Federal
Plaintiffs' takings and illegal exaction claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yckm69ww from Leagle.com.

KEVIN GREEN -- keving@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, in San Diego, California, argued for the
Plaintiffs-Appellants. Also represented by STEVE BERMAN --
steve@hbsslaw.com -- Seattle, WA; ROBERT M. ROSEMAN --
rroseman@srkattorneys.com -- Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

MARK B. STERN, Civil Division, Appellate Staff, United States
Department of Justice, in Washington, D.C., argued for the
Defendant-Appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, KYLE T.
EDWARDS, GERARD SINZDAK, ABBY CHRISTINE.


UNIVERSITY HEALTH: Cansler Sues Over Illegal Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE CANSLER, on his own behalf, and on behalf of a class of
those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEMS OF
EASTERN CAROLINA, INC., EAST CAROLINA HEALTH-CHOWAN, INC., HALIFAX
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., ROANOKE VALLEY HEALTH SERVICES,
INC., PITT COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., DUPLIN GENERAL HOSPITAL,
INC., EAST CAROLINA HEALTH-BEAUFORT, INC., EAST CAROLINA
HEALTH-BERTIE, INC., EAST CAROLINA HEALTH-HERITAGE, INC., THE OUTER
BANKS HOSPITAL, INC., VIDANT MEDICAL GROUP AFFILIATES, LLC, VIDANT
MEDICAL GROUP, LLC, VIDANT INTEGRATED CARE, LLC, and FIRSTPOINT
COLLECTION RESOURCES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00014-FL
(E.D.N.C., Feb. 18, 2022) arises from the Defendants' unfair and
deceptive billing and collection practices in violation of the
North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, and the North Carolina Collection
Agency Act.

According to the complaint, Vidant and FirstPoint have operated a
system that saddles patients with high medical bills. Vidant knows
that the prices it charges patients for medical services are
unreasonably high and when patients ask Vidant representatives
about the cost of care before they receive a service, Vidant has
had a policy of refusing to tell patients the price it plans to
charge. Allegedly, Vidant made it impossible for patients,
including the Plaintiff, to make an informed financial decision
about their care, and patients could not -- and did not --
willingly consent to pay Vidant's unreasonable, undisclosed
prices.

After patients received care, Vidant compounded the financial harm
patients suffered by harassing them to pay these excessive fees,
including by sending their bills to FirstPoint and implicitly
threatening their credit score, says the suit.

University Health Systems of Eastern Carolina, Inc., d/b/a Vidant
Health, is a not-for-profit, 1,447-bed hospital system that serves
more than 1.4 million people in 29 counties in Eastern North
Carolina.

FirstPoint is engaged in the collection of debts from consumers
using the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mona Lisa Wallace, Esq.
          John Hughes, Esq.
          WALLACE & GRAHAM, PA
          525 N. Main Street
          Salisbury, NC 28144
          Telephone: (704) 633-5244
          E-mail: Mwallace@wallacegraham.com
                  Jhughes@wallacegraham.com

               - and -
        
          Jamie Crooks, Esq.
          FAIRMARK PARTNERS LLP
          1499 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (619) 507-4182
          E-mail: jamie@fairmarklaw.com

UNUM GROUP: Troiano Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Troiano, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. UNUM GROUP, Case No. 3:22-cv-00894-JCS (N.D. Cal., Feb.
11, 2022), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members'
personally identifiable information stored within the Defendant's
information network, including, without limitation, their full
names, addresses, and Social Security Numbers ("personally
identifiable information" or "PII"), and to properly secure and
safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII stored within the
Defendant's information network.

The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it
caused and will continue to cause the Plaintiff and the countless
other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable
cyberattack that occurred between October 28, 2021 and November 15,
2021, by which cybercriminals infiltrated the Defendant's
inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly
sensitive PII and financial information which was being kept
unprotected (the "Data Breach").

The Plaintiff further seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for
not ensuring that the compromised PII was maintained in a manner
consistent with industry and other relevant standards. While the
Defendant claims to have detected unusual activity on its network
as early as November 23, 2021, it did not immediately report the
security incident to the Plaintiff or Class Members. Indeed, the
Plaintiff and Class Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach
until they received letter(s) from Defendant informing them of it.

The Defendant did not notify Class Members until January 28, 2022.
The Defendant acquired, collected and stored the Plaintiff's and
Class Members' PII and/or financial information in connection with
the Defendant's provision of insurance services. Therefore, at all
relevant times, the Defendant knew, or should have known, that the
Plaintiff and Class Members would use the Defendant's networks to
store and/or share sensitive data, including highly confidential
PII, because Defendant required that they provide this information
to receive their products/services.

By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, Defendant assumed legal and
equitable duties to those individuals. These duties arise from
state and federal statutes and regulations as well as common law
principles. The Defendant disregarded the rights of the Plaintiff
and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or
negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable
measures to ensure that the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was
safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an
unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable,
required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures
regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use.

As a result, the PII of the Plaintiff and Class Members was
compromised through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized
third-party—an undoubtedly nefarious third-party that seeks to
profit off this disclosure by defrauding the Plaintiff and Class
Members in the future. The Plaintiff and Class Members have a
continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and
remains safe, and they are entitled to injunctive and other
equitable relief, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an adult individual and a victim of the Data
Breach.

The Defendant provides a variety of insurance services across the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          Laura Grace Van Note, Esq.
          Cody Alexander Bolce, Esq.
          COLE & VAN NOTE
          555 12th Street, Suite 1725
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Phone: (510) 891-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
          Email: sec@colevannote.com
                 lvn@colevannote.com
                 cab@colevannote.com
          Web: www.colevannote.com


URGENTWAY MEDICINE: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Urgentway Medicine,
PLLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Urgentway
Medicine, PLLC doing business as: UrgentWay, Case No. 1:22-cv-01566
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2022).

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

Urgentway Medicine -- https://www.urgentway.com/ -- aims to provide
high quality healthcare that is both convenient and
affordable.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 392-4772
          Fax: (212) 444-1030
          Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: 3rd Party Payors' Class Deals Win Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC.
THIRD-PARTY PAYOR LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 16-3087 (MAS) (LHG)
(D.N.J.), Judge Michael A. Shipp of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted final approval of the Settlement
Agreements and granted the Named Plaintiffs' requests for fees,
costs, and incentive awards.

I. Introduction

The matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
of the Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh, U.S.D.J. (ret.) (the "Special
Master"), recommending final approval of two class action
settlements and for attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive awards.
Named Plaintiffs AirConditioning and Refrigeration Industry Health
and Welfare Trust Fund; Fire and Police Health Care Fund, San
Antonio; Plumbers Local Union No. 1 Welfare Fund; Detectives
Endowment Association of New York City; and New York Hotel Trades
Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Health Benefits
Fund; and Defendant Valeant reached the first settlement valued at
$23 million. The Named Plaintiffs and Defendants Philidor Rx
Services, LLC, Andrew Davenport, and the Estate of Matthew S.
Davenport (collectively, the "Philidor Defendants") reached the
second (together with the Valeant settlement, the "Settlement
Agreements") valued at $125,000. The Named Plaintiffs also moved
for fees, costs, and incentive awards, totaling $7,757,835.39 plus
interest.

II. Background

The action arises out of the widely publicized controversy over
Valeant's relationship with the Philidor Defendants. The core of
the controversy is whether Valeant colluded with the Philidor
Defendants to establish a network of "captive pharmacies" -- which
ultimately resulted in higher drug prices to consumers and other
third parties. The Named Plaintiffs are a group of five third-party
payors that allegedly overpaid or incurred higher costs on
Valeant-branded drugs because of Valeant and the Philidor
Defendants' fraudulent scheme. Back in 2016, they sued the pair
under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
("RICO") Act on behalf of themselves and other third-party payors.
Now, after five years of vigorous litigation, the parties have
settled.

The consequent Settlement Agreements were standard all-cash
agreements. Valeant agreed to pay $23 million and the Philidor
Defendants agreed to pay $125,000 into a fund in exchange for a
release of all claims and no admissions of wrongdoing. The
Settlement Agreements specify that class members could
proportionally draw from the $23.125 million Settlement Fund.
(Valeant Settlement ¶ 21; Philidor

They define class membership to include "all health insurance
companies, health maintenance organizations, self-funded health and
welfare benefit plans, other Third-Party Payors, and any other
health benefit provider in the United States of America or its
territories, that paid or incurred costs for Valeant's branded drug
products in connection with a claim submitted by Philidor, a claim
submitted by any pharmacy in which Philidor had a direct or
indirect ownership interest, or a claim by any pharmacy for which
the amount sought for reimbursement was alleged to be inflated as a
result of Defendants' allegedly fraudulent scheme, during the
Class

The Settlement Agreements also provide for a customary class notice
procedure. They provide that the Lead Counsel will hire a Claims
Administrator to "coordinate notice of the Settlement
administration of Claims for this Settlement." The Claims
Administrator distributes a notice, called a Claims Form, to all
members of the proposed class. As is standard, the Claims Form
provides detailed instructions for class members, including a
description of the litigation, a summary of class members' rights
and obligations, a questions-and-answers review of how class
members receive funds from the Settlement Fund, and instructions on
how to opt-out or object to the settlements.

By all counts, notice to the putative class members was a success.
The Claims Administrator has expertise in third-party payor
class-action litigation and used a "well-developed database" to
locate third-party payors in the class. In total, the Claims
Administrator dispatched over 41,000 Claim Forms. Further, no class
member objected to the settlement terms, and only six class members
opted out.

The Settlement Agreements also provide for fees, costs, and
incentive awards for the Named Plaintiffs. Specifically, the Claims
Form instructs that the Lead Counsel may seek fees up to 30% of the
Settlement Fund. It also instructs that the Lead Counsel may seek
costs up to $750,000. Finally, it instructs that the Named
Plaintiffs may receive incentive awards up to $100,000.

The Special Master approved the Settlement Agreements and the
requests for fees, costs, and incentive awards. To start, the
Special Master recommended certifying the class for settlement and
adopted the parties' class definition. In so recommending, the
Special Master concluded that the Settlement Class met all the
factors required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
23(b). He also concluded that the notice provisions were reasonable
and further that the Settlement Agreements were fair, analyzing the
factors required by the Third Circuit. Finally, after thorough
review of the parties' submissions regarding the Lead Counsel's
fees and costs, the Special Master recommended granting the Named
Plaintiffs' requests for fees, costs, and incentive awards.

III. Discussion

Judge Shipp reviews de novo the Special Master's Report to
determine whether to grant final approval to the Settlement Class
and concludes that the Settlement Agreements are fair, reasonable,
and adequate. He notes that the Special Master held a settlement
hearing and made extensive factual findings and conclusions of law.
He will therefore adopt those findings and conclusions where
appropriate.

A. The Court Certifies the Settlement Class.

The Special Master recommended certifying the Settlement Class.

Judge Shipp agrees. He explains that to certify a class, the
Plaintiffs must show that the proposed class meets three different
sets of requirements.

First, under Rule 23(a), the Plaintiffs must show that "the class
is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable," that
"there are questions of law or fact common to the class," that "the
claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the
claims or defenses of the class," and that "the representative
parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
class."

Second, under Rule 23(b) (and in the present case, Rule 23(b)(3)),
the Plaintiffs must show that "the questions of law or fact common
to class members predominate over any questions affecting only
individual members" and that "a class action is superior to other
available methods." Finally, the Plaintiffs must show that the
class is ascertainable that is, that the class is "defined with
reference to objective criteria" and that "a reliable and
administratively feasible mechanism" exists for "determining
whether putative class members fall within the class definition."

Judge Shipp adopts the Special Master's findings that the Named
Plaintiffs met their burden of showing the Rule 23(a) factors. He
finds that (i) the proposed class very likely exceeds 40, if not
thousand; (ii) common questions of fact easily include whether
Valeant made false or misleading statements about its relationship
and whether Valeant's conduct violated RICO; (iii) no question
exists that all the Plaintiffs proceed under the same legal
theory—third-party payors purchased or incurred costs for
Valeant-branded drugs arising from Valeant's allegedly fraudulent
conduct; and (iv) the interests of Named Plaintiffs align with the
class members.

Judge Shipp further adopts the Special Master's findings that the
Named Plaintiffs met their burden of showing the Rule 23(b)(3)
factors. He finds that (i) the allegedly misleading statements and
the complexity of Valeant and the Philidor Defendants' relationship
thus naturally raises common questions -- and common evidence -- of
liability that will predominate over individualized class member
issues; (ii) a class action a superior mechanism for resolution;
and (iii) a "reliable and administratively feasible mechanism" for
finding putative class members exists.

B. The Notice to Class Members Was Reasonable.

The Special Master twice approved of the notice procedure
contemplated by the Settlement Agreements. On his own review, Judge
Shipp has no reason to disturb that conclusion. The parties used an
experienced Claims Administrator to give notice to class members
through a well-developed database of third-party payors. The Claims
Administrator had experience doing so in other third-party payor
litigation. In addition, the Claims Form was detailed and "provided
all of the required information concerning the class members'
right[s] and obligations." Judge Shipp thus concludes that notice
to the class members was reasonable.

C. The Settlement Agreements Are Fair.

Judge Shipp must finally assess whether the Settlement Agreements
are fair. He begins by noting that he presumes the Settlement
Agreements to be fair. The Special Master found, and Judge Shipp
has no reason to dispute, that the parties negotiated at arms'
length, the parties engaged in extensive discovery for years, and
no class members objected. In addition, he finds that the
Settlement Agreements are like those in similar litigations,
especially considering their all-cash nature, use of an experienced
Claims Administrator, and customary detailed Claims Form. The
Special Master's findings further buttress the fairness of the
Settlement Agreements. He examined and analyzed each of the
relevant Girsh and Prudential factors. Judge Shipp has thoroughly
reviewed the Special Master's factor-by-factor analysis and adopts
in full his recommendations. He thus concludes that the Settlement
Agreements are fair.

D. The Court Approves Plaintiffs' Requests for Fees, Costs, and
Incentive Awards.

Judge Shipp next considers the Special Master's recommendation that
the Court grants fees (equal to 30% of the Settlement Funds) and
costs ($720,335.39) to the Lead Counsel and incentive awards
($20,000 each) to the Named Plaintiffs. He concludes that both
awards are appropriate. First, he has carefully reviewed the Lead
Counsel's expense reports and concludes that their costs are
adequately documented and reasonable. Second, over five years, the
Named Plaintiffs provided the Lead Counsel with detailed
information, authorized searches of corporate data, provided
countless documents, and ensured that the action moved toward
resolution. Nor is an individual incentive award of $20,000
unreasonable or out of the ordinary.

IV. Conclusion

Judge Shipp adopted the Special Master's Report and approved the
Settlement Agreements. He further granted the Named Plaintiffs'
requests for attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive awards. An order
consistent with the Memorandum Opinion will follow.

A full-text copy of the Court's Feb. 22, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ervc83cv from Leagle.com.


VP SUPPLY CORP: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VP Supply Corp. The
case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. VP Supply Corp., Case No.
1:22-cv-01013 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2022).

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

VP Supply -- https://www.vpsupply.com/ -- is proudly able to offer
customers a variety of product lines including plumbing, HVAC,
electrical, fasteners, industrial contractor supplies, renewable
energy, hardware and tools.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WALMART INC: Morris Suit Removed to D. Montana
----------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Cora Brandy Morris, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Walmart Inc. formerly known as:
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. DV-21-01460 was removed from the MT
13th Judicial District Court, Yellowstone Co., to the U.S. District
Court for District of Montana on Feb. 23, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-00016-SPW-TJC to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Walmart Inc. -- https://corporate.walmart.com/ -- is an American
multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of
hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores from
the United States, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

          A. Christopher Edwards, Esq.
          A. Clifford Edwards, Esq.
          John William Edwards, Esq.
          Triel D. Culver, Esq.
          EDWARDS & CULVER
          1648 Poly Drive, Suite 206
          Billings, MT 59102
          Phone: (406) 256-8155
          Fax: (406) 256-8157
          Email: chris@edwardslawfirm.org
                 jenny@edwardslawfirm.org
                 john.edwards@edwardslawfirm.org
                 triel@edwardslawfirm.org

The Defendant is represented by:

          Emily J. Cross, Esq.
          HOLLAND & HART-BILLINGS
          401 North 31st Street, Suite 1500
          Billings, MT 59101-1277
          Phone: (406) 939-4613
          Email: ejcross@hollandhart.com

               - and -

          W. Scott Mitchell, Esq.
          HOLLAND & HART
          PO Box 639
          Billings, MT 59103-0639
          Phone: (406) 252-2166
          Fax: 252-1669
          Email: smitchell@hollandhart.com


XEROX CORP: Neala Sues Over Defective Versant Digital Presses
-------------------------------------------------------------
NEALA COMMUNICATIONS LLC (d/b/a International Minute Press of
Plymouth), on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. XEROX CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 6:22-cv-06088
(W.D.N.Y., Feb. 22, 2022) is brought against the Defendant for
breach of contract, violations of the New York General Business
Laws and the Lanham Act, negligence, negligent misrepresentation,
and unjust enrichment.

The complaint contends that Defendant's Versant digital press
models, including the V80, V180, V2100, and V3100, are manufactured
with defective components, such as drums. The Defendant has
declined to remedy this issue and instead continues marketing,
leasing and/or selling defective presses to unwitting consumers.
The Defendant also manufactured and distributed defective toner
used in the presses, which triggered, caused and/or exacerbated
press defects, says the suit.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's alleged actions,
the Plaintiff and putative Class were wrongfully and tortiously
deceived into leasing and/or purchasing presses that are defective,
asserts the complaint.

The Plaintiff leases two V180 presses from the Defendant.

Xerox Corporation is an American corporation that sells print and
digital document products and services in more than 160
countries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
          Lance Spitzig, Esq.
          LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON PC
          975 East Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48207-3101
          Telephone: (313) 392-0015
          E-mail: sliddle@lsccounsel.com
                  ncoulson@lsccounsel.com
                  lspitzig@lsccounsel.com

YOUR BIJOUX BOX: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Your Bijoux Box LLC.
The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Your Bijoux Box LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01556 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2022).

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

Your Bijoux Box -- https://www.yourbijouxbox.com/ -- is a monthly
subscription for premium jewellery offering Deepa Gurnani costume
jewelry & accessories.[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


ZR CONSULTING: Hull Sues Over Unsolicited Voice Messages
--------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Hull, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ZR Consulting, LLC, dba Pinehurst Funding, and Zachary
Ramirez, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-05113 (W.D. Wash., Feb. 24,
2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by delivering more than one
prerecorded advertisement or marketing message to residential
telephone numbers registered with the National Do-Not-Call Registry
without prior express written invitation or permission.

The Plaintiff contends that she suffered actual harm as a result of
the voice messages at issue in that she suffered an invasion of
privacy, an intrusion into her life, and a private nuisance.

ZR Consulting, LLC is a provider of personal and business security
solutions and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Cunanan, Esq.
          DC LAW GROUP
          12055 15th Ave NE, Ste. B
          Seattle, WA 98125
          Telephone: (206) 494-0400
          Facsimile: (855) 494-0400
          E-mail: matthew@dclawyers.com

               - and -

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 803-1578
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com

ZYNGA INC: Ferrando Files Suit in W.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zynga, Inc. The case
is styled as Tonda Ferrando, Dex Marzano, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Zynga, Inc., Case No.
2:22-cv-00214 (W.D. Wash., Feb. 24, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Zynga Inc. -- https://www.zynga.com/ -- is an American social game
developer running social video game services and founded in April
2007 with headquarters in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexander G. Tievsky, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 N LaSalle St., 14th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Phone: (312) 589-6379
          Email: atievsky@edelson.com

               - and -

          Cecily Jordan, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS
          1200 Fifth Ave., Ste. 1700
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: (206) 682-5600
          Fax: (206) 682-2992
          Email: cjordan@tousley.com



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***