/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220310.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, March 10, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 44

                            Headlines

1847 GOEDEKER: Boden Balks at Wrong Stockholders' Votes Tabulation
3M COMPANY: Williams Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Suit Over Contaminated Infant Formula
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Suit Over Toxic Baby Formula Products
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Whitmore Balks at Infant Formula Contamination

ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Insurance
ALVIN AND FRIENDS: Pagan Seeks Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages
AMAZON.COM: Lite Files Suit Over Discontinued Insurance Benefits
AUTOZONERS LLC: Richter Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
BE TEMERARIO: Sislema Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & NYLL

BIOGEN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 8 Deadline
BITCONNECT: Class Action Over Ponzi Scheme Can Proceed
BLOCKFI: Mangano Sues Over Alleged Unregistered Interest Accounts
BURT'S BEES: Cosmetics Contain Synthetic Ingredients, Bruno Alleges
CANADA: Sued Over Discriminatory Underfunding of Child Welfare

CARECUBE: Faces Class Action Over COVID Test Double-Billing
CARING HANDS: Young Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
CENTENE CORP: Lopez Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
CERENCE INC: Miami Retirement Trust Sues Over Share Price Drop
CHAMPION PETFOODS: Dismissal of False Advertising Suit Affirmed

CHICKEN OF THE SEA: Aug. 2 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Bettors Sue Over Media Spirt Disqualification
COLOMBIAN HOUSE: Marin Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Pay Under FLSA, NYLL
COSTCO WHOLESALE: To Settle COBRA Notice Class Action for $750,000
DEBT RECOVERY: Mangroo Sues Over Alleged Illegal Debt Collection

E.N. HOME: Ramirez Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA & NYLL
EXALT FLAVORS: Kumar Seeks Servers' Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
FENIX INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Suit Over Unfair Market Share Gain
FRANCIS MATHEW: Daigle Files Suit in D. New Mexico
GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Tosses Certain Claims in Cadillac Class Suit

GLOBAL PERSONALS: Ulery Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
GWG HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of April 19 Deadline
HCL AMERICA: Geraci Seeks to Recover Penalties Under Labor Code
HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Liberal Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
HY-VEE INC: Fiduciaries Mismanage 401(K) Plan, Rodriguez Suit Says

ILLINOIS: Faces Class Suit Over False Concealed Carry Course
JEFFERSON COUNTY, NY: ADA Suit Filed in N.D. New York
KANKESHWAR LLC: Moronta Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
KOCH FOODS: Southern AgCredit Suit Transferred to E.D. Oklahoma
KOSE AMERICA: Hiatt Files Suit in C.D. Illinois

LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION: Hine Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
LGSTX DISTRIBUTION: Plane Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
LISPENARD FISH: Lopez Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
MANHATTAN BEER: Wittels McInturff Files Suit Over Illegal Scheme
MANI.ME INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

MEDICAL REVIEW INSTITUTE: Amer Files Suit in D. Utah
MICHAEL MONTALVO: Celluci Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
MIDAS PROPERTY: Zerafa Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
MORGAN STANLEY: $60MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 8
NELNET INC: Maxwell Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Florida

NOOM INC: Settles Subscription Class Action for $56 Million
NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL: Prizer Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
NORTH CAROLINA: Judge Hears Settlement Agreement in DMV Suit
NYK LINE: UK Court Allows Price-Fixing Class Action to Proceed
OCWEN LOAN: Settles Privacy Class Action for $1.5 Million

PAYPAL INC: Faces Vidaurre Suit Over Deceptive "Pay in 4" Service
PEPSICO INC: Faces TCPA Class Action in New York
PROGRESSIVE MAX: Verardo Files Suit in S.D. New York
PULSE BIOSCIENCES: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of April 18 Deadline
QUALITY MODULAR: Matos Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA, NYLL

RANDHURST DELI: Rizzo Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometrics
SAFEMOON LLC: Faces Suit Over Misleading Promotions, Tokenomics
SALT MEDITERRANEAN: Escobar Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
SBL ENTERPRISES: Xiong Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
SEA MAR: Faces Data Breach Class Action Over Cyberattack

SONY INTERACTIVE: Seeks Dismissal of Discrimination Class Action
STREAMLABS LLC: Leventhal Sues Over Automatic Renewal Subscription
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: PAGA Class Settlement Ruling Discussed
TARGET CORP: Up & Up Products Caused Drowsiness, Miner Alleges
TIKTOK INC: Settles Class Action Over Data Collection for $2-Mil.

TRANSFORM SR HOME: Carlson Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
U.S. SOCCER: Settles Equal Pay Class Action
UPHOLD HQ: Rider Files Suit in S.D. New York
VERCY LLC: Johnson-Gruver Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
W. STANCIL STARNES: Goldfarb Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.

W.K.S. RESTAURANT: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WESTERN SKY DAIRY: Rafael Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WK INDUSTRIAL: Rathke Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA & WWPCL
[*] Atkinson Andelson Attorneys Discuss H.R. 4445 Legislation
[*] Freedom Convoy Class Action Plaintiff to Pursue Claims, Damages

[*] Holland & Knight Attorneys Discuss ERISA Class Action Rulings
[*] U.S. Class Action Defense Spending Up 16% in 2021

                            *********

1847 GOEDEKER: Boden Balks at Wrong Stockholders' Votes Tabulation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scot T. Boden, individuall and all others similarly situated
stockholders of 1847 Goedeker Inc. v. 1847 GOEDEKER INC., ELLERY W.
ROBERTS, ALBERT FOUERTI, ELLETTE A. ANDERSON, CLARK R. CROSNOE,
GLYN C. MILBURN, G. ALAN SHAW, ALAN P. SHOR, and EDWARD J. TOBIN,
Case No. 022-0196 (Del. Ch., March 1, 2022) is a verified class
action complaint seeking to remedy the erroneous tabulation of
stockholders' votes on a proposal to approve an amendment of the
Company's amended and restated certificate of incorporation to
increase the number of shares of common stock that Goedeker is
authorized to issue from 200,000,000 shares to 250,000,000 shares
(the "Share Increase Proposal").

After the Board told stockholders that a "broker or other nominee
cannot vote without instructions" on the Share Increase Proposal,
it instead allowed uninstructed shares to be cast as "For" votes.
Owing to this mistabulation, the Board claimed that stockholders
had approved the Share Increase Proposal when, in fact, the matter
would have failed to garner the necessary number of votes required
by the Delaware General Corporation law had the Board tabulated
stockholder (non) votes as they said they would in the proxy
statement that the Company filed with the SEC on November 18, 2021
(the "Proxy").

Because the Company's position is at odds with Delaware law
requiring corporations to accurately disclose how votes will be
treated and act in conformity with such disclosure, the purported
approval of the Share Increase Proposal is not valid, says the
suit.

Nevertheless, the Board proceeded with amending the Certificate and
caused the Company to file an invalid amendment to the Certificate
with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on December
22, 2021.

On December 31, 2021, Plaintiff sent a demand letter calling on the
Board to, among other things, recount stockholders' votes and void
any action taken to implement the Share Increase Proposal. The
Demand was delivered by FedEx to the Company's board of directors
on January 4, 2022. Since then, despite repeatedly following up,
the Plaintiff has not received any substantive response to the
Demand nor have any corrective actions been taken by the Company,
the suit added.

If the Company proceeds with issuing shares in excess of the
200,000,000 shares properly authorized under the Certificate, the
Company's capital structure could be irreversibly compromised. Any
such additional shares, which would be invalid as a matter of
Delaware law, may be traded on the open market in a manner that
could never be undone.

Because the Board is poised to compromise the integrity of Goedeker
stock and it would be impossible to unscramble the eggs were
unauthorized shares issued, the Plaintiff brings this action for
declaratory judgment to forestall such harm and for breach of
fiduciary duty to set right the Board members' failure to act in
accordance with their disclosures to stockholders.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
          Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
          FARNAN LLP
          919 North Market Street, 12th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 777-0300
          Facsimile: (302) 777-0301
          E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
                  mfarnan@farnanlaw.com

               - and -

          William J. Fields, Esq.
          Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
          Samir Shukurov, Esq.
          FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP
          1441 Broadway, 6th Floor No. 6161
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 231-1500

3M COMPANY: Williams Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
------------------------------------------------------
Terry G. Williams, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Co.), AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS, INC., AGC, INC. (f/k/a Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.), AMEREX
CORPORATION, ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC, ARCHROMA U.S., INC., ARKEMA,
INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to Atofina, S.A.,
BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to
Ciba, Inc., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO., CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION,
individually and as successor-interest to Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.,
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC., CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMICALS, INC., CHUBB
FIRE, LTD., CLARIANT CORPORATION, CLARIANT CORPORATION,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Sandoz Chemical
Corporation, CORTEVA, INC., individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise,
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC., individually
and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions
Enterprise, DYNAX CORPORATION, E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY,
individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., individually and as
successor-in-interest to Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc., KIDDE PLC,
INC., NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to
DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC,
individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, and UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-00497-RMG (D.S.C., Feb. 15,
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:

          James L. Ferraro, Esq.
          James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
          Dick M. Ortega, Esq.
          THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
          600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone (305) 375-0111
          Email: jferraro@ferrarolaw.com
                 james@ferrarolaw.com
                 dortega@ferrarolaw.com


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Suit Over Contaminated Infant Formula
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Hornet reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Abbott Laboratories on behalf of a baby girl who developed
gastrointestinal problems and feeding difficulties after he was fed
a recalled Similac(R) Alimentum(R) formula.

The lawsuit was filed in Florida by Luis Alfredo S., the father of
"A.S.," who claims that she was injured by contaminated infant
formula.

According to the lawsuit, he purchased contaminated Alimentum
formula from CVS on January 30, 2022 and fed it to his daughter.

By February 8, he claims that she had developed "diarrhea,
abdominal pain, severe diaper rash with blisters and blood,
dehydration, sleeplessness, and other pain and injuries."
Furthermore, he claims that she still suffers from gastrointestinal
issues.

The lawsuit was filed just 1 day after Abbott Laboratories recalled
Similac, Alimentum and EleCare formula manufactured at a facility
in Sturgis, Michigan, after a deadly outbreak of infections with
bacteria, including Cronobacter and Salmonella.

The FDA is currently investigating at least 3 confirmed illnesses
and 1 death that may be linked to the contaminated infant formula.

The lawsuit is seeking class action status to pursue compensation
for A.S. and all other babies who were fed the recalled formula,
alleging that Abbott failed to take adequate steps to make sure the
formula was safe and free from dangerous bacteria.

The class action lawsuit was filed on February 18, 2022 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Miami -- Case Number
1:22-cv-20506. [GN]

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Suit Over Toxic Baby Formula Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schlesinger Law Offices, P.A. has filed a nationwide and Florida
class action lawsuit against Abbott Laboratories, alleging that the
company put children at risk of injury and bacterial infection with
its toxic baby formula products Similac(R), Alimentum(R), and
EleCare(R).

Plaintiffs further allege that Abbott used "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" its products.

The lawsuit was filed on February 20, 2022 on behalf of two Miami
parents and their minor child, who was infected by Salmonella after
ingesting tainted Alimentum. Had they known that Abbott's products
may have been contaminated, they never would given them to their
child.

In the lawsuit, the parents allege that, as a direct result of the
toxic baby formula, the child "developed severe gastrointestinal
illness and symptoms including, but not limited to, overwhelming
diarrhea multiple times per day, abdominal pain, constant
temperature changes, severe diaper rash with blood, loss of blood,
bloody stool, and sleeplessness."

The child also became anemic, rendering her in need of antibiotic
treatment and medicinal injections. She continues to have
gastrointestinal and bowel problems, among other symptoms, to this
day.

To make it worse, this is only one of the alleged reports of
bacterial infection by Abbott's toxic baby formula.

Jonathan Gdanski, of Schlesinger Law Offices in Fort Lauderdale,
says that parents place complete and total trust in the
manufacturer of baby formula to provide a product that is safe,
healthy and free of toxic and hazardous contaminants during this
critical period of growth in an infant's life. "Abbott's failure to
use reasonable care regarding these infant formula products - and
then failing to warn the public after recognizing that a problem
within their facility existed is reckless and dangerous. As a
result, the parents we represent experienced the horror of having
their baby suffer day and night.

On February 17, 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
recalled specific lots of Abbott's baby formula products after
receiving three reports of Cronobacter sakazakii (which can cause
meningitis and/or sepsis) infection and one report of Salmonella
infection.

The products under FDA recall include Similac, Alimentum, and
EleCare formula manufactured in Abbott's facility in Sturgis,
Michigan. Each expires on or after April 1, 2022. Further, each has
a product number that begins with numbers between 22 and 37, as
well as contains either K8, SH, or Z2.

Abbott complied with the FDA recall but, as reported by The New
York Times, did not specify how many units were affected.

"Clearly, better safety standards at Abbott's manufacturing
facility is needed," said David Silverman, an attorney at the firm.
"Families expect their baby formula to be safe for consumption and
free of bacteria and toxic contaminants. They should be able to use
these products knowing that they are safe."

ABOUT SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES

Schlesinger Law Offices, P.A. is a multigenerational law firm based
in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. If your child has been injured, such
as by bacterial infection, because of Abbott's products, you may be
entitled to financial compensation. Joining the toxic baby formula
class action lawsuit may be the best course of action for you.
Visit Schlesinger Law Offices, P.A. online at
https://www.schlesingerlawoffices.com/ to find out more.

Jonathan Gdanski
jonathan@schlesingerlawoffices.com
(954) 777-1111 [GN]

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Whitmore Balks at Infant Formula Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CARL WHITMORE AND AMANDA CORVELLI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES
D/B/A ABBOTT NUTRITION, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-01012 (N.D.
Ill., Feb. 25, 2022) arises from the Defendant's alleged conduct of
manufacturing and selling to consumers, including Plaintiffs,
powdered infant formulas contaminated with Cronobacter sakazakii
and Salmonella Newport bacteria, which when consumed, can result in
serious adverse health effects.

According to the complaint, Abbott announced on February 18, 2020 a
recall of its powdered infant formula products, including the
brands Similac, Alimentum, and EleCare because they suffer from a
defect which could result in serious injury, permanent impairment,
and even be life-threatening. Despite the recall, Abbott is not
crediting or replacing affected recalled products, which many
parents and caretakers rely on daily to feed and care for their
children.

As a result of Abbott's unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent
business practices, consumers of these products, including
Plaintiffs, have suffered an ascertainable loss, injury-in-fact,
and otherwise have been harmed by Abbott's alleged conduct.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
          Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
          Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436-1800
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
                  jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
                  zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com

               - and -

          Peter J. Flowers, Esq.
          Michael W. Lenert, Esq.
          MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
          3 North Second Street, Suite 300
          St. Charles, IL 60174
          Telephone: (630) 232-6333
          E-mail: pjf@meyers-flowers.com
                  mwl@meyers-flowers.com  

ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Insurance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Croft, writing for LawyersWeekly, reports that Allianz has
been accused of misleading insurance customers in a class action
that has been launched in the Supreme Court.

After first investigating the class action in November 2020,
Maurice Blackburn has officially commenced proceedings against
Allianz Australia Insurance Limited and Allianz Australia Life
Insurance Limited in the Supreme Court.

The class action is brought on behalf of persons who purchased
"add-on" insurance products issued "at or around the time they
purchased a vehicle from a motor vehicle dealership", between 1
June 2006 and 27 September 2021.

According to the Supreme Court class action notice, dealers acting
on Allianz's behalf gave "personal advice" to customers who
purchased add-on insurance products but "breached various
obligations in relation to the giving of that advice".

Allianz also allegedly engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct
and made false or misleading representations in relation to the
sale of the add-on insurance products, resulting in customers
having to pay for additional insurance products "as a result of a
mistaken belief in relation to the products".

The joint lawyers for the plaintiffs are Johnson Winter & Slattery
(JWS) and Maurice Blackburn Lawyers.

Lawyers Weekly contacted Maurice Blackburn for comment, but it
wasn't received in time for filing. [GN]

ALVIN AND FRIENDS: Pagan Seeks Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Pagan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. Alvin and Friends, LLC, Alvin
Clayton, and Gwen Clayton, Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-01589-VB
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2022) is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the minimum wage requirements under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, the wage statement and
notice requirements of NYLL, the spread of hours requirement under
New York State Regulation 12, and for illegally retained
gratuities.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a server from
approximately October to December 2021.

Alvin and Friends operates a restaurant in New Rochelle, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Finn Dusenbery, Esq.
          THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C.
          401 Park Avenue South
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (347) 492-1904
          E-mail: finn@ottingerlaw.com

AMAZON.COM: Lite Files Suit Over Discontinued Insurance Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
TERESA LITES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., a
Foreign Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-20587 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 25, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's failure to provide Plaintiff and the putative class
members with a coverage compliant notice of their right to continue
their health insurance benefits following a qualifying event.

According to the complaint, Defendant, the plan sponsor and plan
administrator of the Group Health and Welfare Plan, has flagrantly
and repeatedly violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
by failing to provide participants and beneficiaries in the Plan
with adequate notice of their right to continue their health
insurance coverage following an occurrence of a "qualifying event"
under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA).
The Defendant purposefully omitted the requisite elements of
"knowledge" or "intent" from its definition of fraud, added the
suit.

The Plaintiff worked for Amazon from November 2015 until 2019 as a
business to business service representative. She had health, life,
dental and disability insurance through Defendant's plans.

Amazon.com Services, Inc. provides e-commerce services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
          E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com

AUTOZONERS LLC: Richter Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
RANDY RICHTER, JEANETAMARIE ANDERSON, NICOLE JAMES, JAMAAL JOSEPH,
BRIAN LOVELESS, LORI WEBSTER-BRUNO, on behalf of themselves and
other persons similarly situated v. AUTOZONERS, LLC, AUTOZONE
STORES, INC., AUTOZONE PARTS, INC., and AUTOZONE, INC., Case No.
9:22-cv-00047-DLC (D. Mont., March 2, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation and other benefits of employment to which
they are entitled under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act as
they have been and/or continue to be improperly classified as
exempt from overtime compensation, which has resulted in denial of
compensation for their hours of work in excess of 40 hours per
week.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs, and other similarly
situated employees designated as AutoZone store managers, were paid
a specified salary, and were not paid any overtime compensation
even though they generally worked far more than the required 40
hours a week to entitle them to overtime pay in accordance with the
FLSA.

AutoZoners is a Nevada company with its principal place of business
in Tennessee. Defendant AutoZone Stores, Inc. is a Nevada
corporation with its principal place of business in Tennessee.

AutoZone owns and operates numerous retail stores -- branded
AutoZone -- selling auto parts and accessories. AutoZone stores
exist throughout Montana and adjacent states. AutoZone is the
parent company of and owns AutoZoners, AutoZone Stores, Inc., and
AutoZone Parts. AutoZone Parts has owned and continues to own
AutoZone Stores. AutoZoners has been and continues to be wholly
owned by AutoZone Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin R. Graybill, Esq.
          Raph Graybill, Esq.
          GRAYBILL LAW FIRM, P.C.
          300 4th Street North
          PO Box 3586
          Great Falls, MT 59403
          Telephone: (406) 452-8566
          Facsimile: (406) 727-3225
          E-mail: brg@silverstatelaw.net
                  rgraybill@silverstatelaw.net

               - and -

          William A. Rossbach, Esq.
          ROSSBACH LAW, P.C.
          401 North Washington Street
          Missoula, MT 59807-8988
          Telephone: (406) 543-5156
          Facsimile: (406) 728-8878
          E-mail: bill@rossbachlaw.com

BE TEMERARIO: Sislema Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE SISLEMA and ANTONIO GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. BE TEMERARIO GROUP, LLC d/b/a EL
TEMERARIO; BE BAMBA GROUP, LLC d/b/a LAMANO WINE BAR; LAMANO WEST
VILLAGE LLC d/b/a LAMANO; LIGHT SIDE CORP. d/b/a THE BLACK ANT; L
PLUS L PRODUCTIONS, LLC d/b/a OFRENDA; JORGE LUIS GUZMAN GONZALEZ,
individually; and any other related entities, Case No.
1:22-cv-01720 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2022) is a class action brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law
to recover unpaid minimum wages, and unpaid tips and gratuities.

While employed by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs and other members
of the putative class, were paid a regular hourly wage in check,
typically at a rate of $10.00 per hour. The Defendants allegedly
failed to maintain accurate records pertaining to both their
collection of, and any alleged distribution of gratuities.

The Defendants also allegedly failed to provide the Plaintiffs and
other members of the putative class, with written notice of all
required information, including but not limited to their proper pay
rate, their pay day, or the frequency of their pay day at all
statutorily mandated times, including both at hiring and prior to
any change in their respective rates of pay.

Be Temerario Group LLC is in the Mexican restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, New York 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550

BIOGEN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 8 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Feb. 22 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

TLIS Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/talis-biomedical-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=23951&wire=1
BIIB Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/biogen-inc-loss-submission-form-2?prid=23951&wire=1
FENC Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fennec-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=23951&wire=1

-- ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW

Talis Biomedical Corporation (NASDAQ: TLIS)
This lawsuit is on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Talis common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
the Company's February 2021 initial public offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 8, 2022
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/talis-biomedical-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=23951&wire=1

According to the lawsuit, documents that the Company issued in
connection with its IPO failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the comparator assay in the primary study lacked sufficient
sensitivity to support Talis's Emergency Use Authorization
application for Talis One COVID-19 test; (2) that, as a result,
Talis was reasonably likely to experience delays in obtaining
regulatory approval for the Talis One COVID-19 test; (3) that, as a
result, the Company's commercialization timeline would be
significantly delayed; 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.

Biogen Inc. (NASDAQ: BIIB)
BIIB Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased June 7, 2021 -
January 11, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 8, 2022
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/biogen-inc-loss-submission-form-2?prid=23951&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Biogen
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: 1) there was a significant, undisclosed
lobbying campaign between Biogen and the Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") that was instrumental in the decision to
file and approve Aduhelm, a drug being developed to treat
Alzheimer's disease; 2) the Phase III ENGAGE study demonstrated
that Aduhelm failed to achieve a clinical benefit to Alzheimer's
patients; 3) ENGAGE was a failed study from which Biogen concluded
not to seek FDA approval for Aduhelm in 2019; and 4) defendants
misled investors as to the way in which approval was achieved, that
the clinical data did not support a clinical benefit by taking
Aduhelm and that side-effects were dangerous and serious.

Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ: FENC)
FENC Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased May 28, 2021 -
November 26, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 11, 2022
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fennec-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=23951&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Fennec
Pharmaceuticals Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Fennec had not
successfully remediated, and overstated its efforts to remediate,
issues with the manufacturing facility of its drug product
manufacturer for PEDMARK, a new compound developed to reduce the
incidence of hearing loss in children undergoing chemotherapy; (ii)
as a result, the Food and Drug Administration likely to approve the
Resubmitted Pedmark New Drug Application ("NDA"); (iii)
accordingly, the regulatory and commercial prospects of the
Resubmitted Pedmark NDA were overstated; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

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

BITCONNECT: Class Action Over Ponzi Scheme Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------
Brian Newar, writing for Coin Telegraph, reports that the 11th
Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that victims of the Bitconnect
Ponzi scheme can proceed with a class action suit by reversing a
previous ruling that prohibited such a case.

Bitconnect is the endlessly memed initial coin offering from 2017
that collapsed in January 2018. Appellate courts are superior
courts that are used to review previously tried cases so the ruling
may be reversed or confirmed.

The alleged victims may now move forward with a class action case
against BitConnect (BCC) and its promoters Glenn Arcaro, Ryan
Maasen, Trevon James, Ryan HiIdreth and Craig Grant. There is no
word yet on whether the complainants will proceed with the case.

The original complainants filed suit to be compensated for damages
from being defrauded by BitConnect and its promoters. The complaint
says promoters "made a mockery of state and federal securities
laws."

Law360 wrote on Feb. 22 that the defendants claimed in the Southern
District of Florida that since marketing for the project was done
using online mass communications platforms, they could not be held
liable for securities fraud.

The defendants successfully argued that there could "only be
liability when a seller directs solicitations to particular
prospective buyers." By using online social media platforms, the
promoters argued that they had not directly solicited the
cryptocurrency to buyers. Without that direct solicitation, they
argued there was no securities fraud.

However, the Circuit Court decided to reverse the lower court's
decision to accept that argument since there is no precedent of the
Securities Act of 1933 preventing online videos from being used in
fraud charges.

Judge Britt C. Grant wrote for the court's panel on Feb. 18:

"Because the Securities Act provides no free pass for online
solicitations, we reverse the district court's dismissal of the
section 12 claim."

The Circuit Court's panel called the lower court's reading of the
Securities Act "cramped" and said that it "makes little sense" as
it would have held a person liable for soliciting a security in a
personal letter, but not an internet video.

David Silver, an attorney in the original case against BitConnect
and its promoters tweeted on Feb. 19  "This is an incredibly
important decision that will reverberate for years to come."

This new precedent adds greater legal risks and responsibilities
for crypto promoters who use YouTube, Twitter, and other online
communications platforms to shill crypto. Judge Grant wrote, "A new
means of solicitation is not any less of a solicitation."

In recent years, YouTube has removed videos and shut down channels
related to cryptocurrency it deems "harmful and dangerous."

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed suit against the
founders and promoters last May and received $12.6 million in cash
and BTC through a settlement deal in August.

Last November, the Department of Justice (DOJ) said it planned to
sell the crypto it had seized from BitConnect (valued at $56
million) as potential compensatory payment for victims in future
cases. [GN]

BLOCKFI: Mangano Sues Over Alleged Unregistered Interest Accounts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MANGANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BLOCKFI, BLOCKFI, INC., BLOCKFI TRADING, LLC, BLOCKFI
LENDING, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-01112 (D.N.J., March 1, 2022) is a
class action lawsuit on behalf of all people in the United States
who enrolled in a BlockFi Interest Account/Crypto Interest Account,
which is an unregistered security under state and federal law.

Since March 4, 2019, BFI, through its affiliates Lending and
Trading has been, at least in part, funding its lending operations
and proprietary trading through the sale of unregistered securities
in the form of cryptocurrency interest-earning accounts. BlockFi
refers to these unregistered securities as its "Crypto Interest
Account" or the "BlockFi Interest Account."

The Defendants allegedly did not register the BIAs with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") or with the
California Commissioner of Corporations.

From March 4, 2019 to the present, BlockFi, a New Jersey-based
financial services company and wholly owned subsidiary of BFI, has
offered and sold BlockFi BIAs to investors, through which investors
lend crypto assets to BlockFi in exchange for BlockFi's promise to
provide a variable monthly interest payment. BlockFi generated the
interest paid out to BIA investors by deploying its assets in
various ways, including loans of crypto assets made to
institutional and corporate borrowers, lending U.S. dollars to
retail investors, and by investing in equities and futures. As of
March 31, 2021, BlockFi and its affiliates held approximately $14.7
billion in BIA investor assets.

As of December 8, 2021, BlockFi and its affiliates held
approximately $10.4 billion in BIA investor assets, and had
approximately 572,160 BIA investors, including 391,105 investors in
the United States.

BlockFi allegeldy allows investors to purchase the BIAs by
depositing certain eligible cryptocurrencies into accounts at
BlockFi. BlockFi then pools these cryptocurrencies together to fund
its lending operations and proprietary trading. In exchange for
investing in the BIAs, investors are promised an attractive
interest rate that is paid monthly in cryptocurrency. The BIAs are
not protected by Securities Investor Protection Corporation (the
"SIPC") or insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
(the "FDIC"). The BIAs are subject to additional risk, compared to
assets held at SIPC member broker-dealers, or assets held at banks
and savings associations, almost all of which carry FDIC insurance.
Nor are they registered with the SEC, the Commissioner or any other
securities regulatory authority, or exempt from registration.
Despite the additional risk, and lack of safeguards and regulatory
oversight, as of March 31, 2021, BlockFi held the equivalent of
$14.7 billion from the sale of these unregistered securities in
violation of federal and state securities laws, says the suit.

Plaintiff John Mangano is a citizen of the State of California and
resides in Mountain View, California. Mr. Mangano opened a BIA
account from Defendants in the State of California and while
residing in California. Mr. Mangano therefore purchased an
unregistered security from BlockFi in the form of the BIA account.

BFI is a financial services company that generates revenue through
cryptocurrency trading, lending, and borrowing, as well as engaging
in proprietary trading.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Obergfell, Esq.
          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: aobergfell@bursor.com
                  scott@bursor.com

BURT'S BEES: Cosmetics Contain Synthetic Ingredients, Bruno Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PERRY BRUNO, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. BURT'S BEES, INC., Case No.
22STCV07599 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 2, 2022) is a
class action complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies, for violations of the
Unfair Competition Law resulting from the illegal actions of the
Defendant, in intentionally labeling its cosmetic products with
false and misleading claims that they are 100% natural, when
Defendant's products contain synthetic ingredients.

The cosmetic products include Overnight Intensive Lip Treatment;
Lip Butter Vanilla and Clove; Lip Butter Lavender and Honey; and
Lip Butter Rosemary and Lemon all with hydrogenated castor oil.

By making false and misleading claims about the Products, the
Defendant impaired Plaintiff's ability to choose the type and
quality of products he chose to buy. Therefore, Plaintiff has been
deprived of his legally-protected interest to obtain true and
accurate information about his consumer products as required by
law, the lawsuit says.

As a result of the Defendant's alleged fraudulent labeling,
Plaintiff has been misled into purchasing products that did not
provide them with the benefit of the bargain they paid money for,
namely that the Products would be 100% natural.

The Plaintiff purchased an overnight intensive lip treatment
product labeled, marketed, and sold as 100% natural, from a CVS
pharmacy located at 4744 Lankershim Blvd., North Hollywood,
California, during or about November, 2021.

The Defendant manufactures, advertises, markets, sells, and
distributes cosmetic products throughout California and the United
States under brand name Burt's Bees.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Telephone: (323) 306-4234
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com

CANADA: Sued Over Discriminatory Underfunding of Child Welfare
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sotos Class Actions, Kugler Kandestin LLP and Coupal Chauvelot S.A.
have filed an application for authorization to institute a class
action regarding decades of allegedly discriminatory and unlawful
underfunding of child welfare and other essential services for the
Inuit in Nunavik—the vast region in northern Quebec.

The petitioners, Lucy Tookalook and Tanya Jones, bring this
proposed class action to address the long-standing discriminatory
and unlawful treatment of Inuit children, youth, and families in
Nunavik by Canada and Quebec. The two governments have shared
responsibility for the Inuit in northern Quebec since The James Bay
and Northern Quebec Agreement in 1975.

The application, filed in the Superior Court of Québec in
Montreal, alleges that both governments have breached class
members' constitutional right to equality, among other rights, by
failing to provide child welfare and other essential health and
social services on a level that is substantively equal to what any
other Canadian child receives. These constitutional violations have
taken two forms.

First, youth who came into contact with the child welfare system
were unnecessarily placed in state care in droves or were
overlooked by the system altogether when they crucially needed
protection. These twin evils stemmed from decades of callous
decisions by both the provincial and federal governments not to
fund, staff, support or maintain a child welfare system that was on
par with what non-Inuit children receive and adapted to the
realities of Nunavik. For example, these fundings decisions
resulted in failures to provide basic child welfare prevention and
protection, and to adjust funding of child-welfare services to
account for the unique circumstances of the Inuit in Nunavik,
including their inter-generational trauma, historical
disadvantages, and remoteness. All of these failures occurred in
ignorance of the north star in youth protection: the best interests
of the children.

Second, Canada and Quebec deprived Inuit children of essential
health, social and other services.

Public commissions have repeatedly sounded the alarm that Inuit
children needing child welfare and other essential services are in
a state of crisis, and face service gaps, delays and denials due to
the gross underfunding in Nunavik. Instead of addressing these
chronic failures, the two governments evaded responsibility, and
each pointed to the other as the one with the obligation and
jurisdiction to provide the service needed by the Inuit child in
need.

The petitioners are both survivors of the child welfare system in
Nunavik. "I am taking action today because I want to bring justice
to my people—my people who have been treated as less than human
for decades. I want Inuit children in Nunavik to have their day in
court. I want their pain and suffering to be heard, felt and
repaired", said Ms. Jones.

The petitioners also seek to end the discrimination and to prevent
yet another generation of Inuit children from becoming lost in the
cycle of an inter-generational crisis created by decades of
discriminatory underfunding and neglect at the hands of the
governments. "I was taken from my mother when I was born and sent
thousands of miles away as a newborn to a hospital in Montreal. I
was there for seven months, alone and with no support. I was then
returned to Nunavik to a system that utterly abandoned me and other
Inuit children in the face of heartless neglect and abuse. I don't
want the same thing to happen to my kids and the next generations
of Inuit in Quebec", said Ms. Tookalook.

For a copy of the petitioners' application for authorization as a
class action, updates, and other information, please visit:
https://www.sotosclassactions.com/cases/inuit-youth-in-nunavik/

For further information: For media inquiries in English contact
Mohsen Seddigh by phone at 416.572.7320 or email at
mseddigh@sotos.ca; For media inquiries in French contact
William Colish by phone at 514.360.8885 or email at
wcolish@kklex.com. [GN]

CARECUBE: Faces Class Action Over COVID Test Double-Billing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Katie Honan, writing for The City, reports that a couple who was
double-billed for visits to get "free" COVID tests has filed a
lawsuit on Feb. 21 that could recoup millions of dollars from a
Brooklyn-based physicians group.

Sabine Schumacher and Linda Cunningham filed the class-action suit
in Brooklyn Supreme Court against CareCube, seeking more than $10
million in damages -- for anybody who was overcharged by the
company.

The company, which operates 20 storefront testing sites across four
boroughs, sent surprise bills starting last year to patients who
thought they were getting free services, as first reported by THE
CITY.

THE CITY identified dozens of New Yorkers who said they received
bills as high as $100 -- even if they had health insurance -- for
tests that were advertised as free. CareCube billed the patients
for doctors' visits and other services even though they just went
in for simple nose-swab tests.

Jay Filan, a 64-year-old retired librarian from Bay Ridge, had said
he was told "nothing about any costs" when he was at a Bay Ridge
CareCube last March.

‘Exploiting the Global Pandemic'
In their suit, Schumacher and Cunningham, domestic partners who
live in The Bronx, claim they were also overcharged for a test in
June 2021, calling it "brazen profiteering." They were charged $450
for their tests, the couple said.

They allege that the company is "exploiting the global pandemic . .
. by unlawfully overcharging New Yorkers for COVID-19 tests."

"We live in a poor neighborhood and are worried that CareCube will
be taking advantage of our neighbors and other low-income New
Yorkers who can't afford to be scammed," Cunningham said in a
statement.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs said they have asked for a jury trial
and hope other potentially fleeced customers join in the class
action.

"This suit will prove that CareCube engaged in a massive medical
billing scheme throughout New York City," said Steven L. Wittels, a
partner with Wittels McInturff Palikovic.

State and Feds Eye Company
The Brooklyn lawsuit comes just over a month after Attorney General
Letitia James announced her office was investigating the company
for the fraudulent bills.

"CareCube and all COVID-19 test providers have a responsibility to
be accurate and transparent in their billing process," James said
in a statement at the time, encouraging anyone who felt they were
defrauded to file a complaint with her office.

And in an article published not long before James' Jan. 6
announcement, New York Magazine reported that CareCube had been the
subject of U.S. Department of Justice scrutiny.

That piece also included allegations from anonymous former company
employees that CareCube intentionally exploited exemptions in
federal law in order to bill for tests that are free by law in most
instances, then billed both patients and insurers for the same
coronavirus tests

The company has performed more than 72,000 tests since March 2021,
the article noted.

A spokesperson for CareCube did not respond to a request for
comment to this story.

In a response to THE CITY's original reporting, the company said it
had to "perform a pre-test assessment recognized as an office visit
to ensure the patient is fit for testing and determine if the test
is advisable from a medical perspective." [GN]

CARING HANDS: Young Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
AMBER YOUNG, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
present and former employees of Defendant, v. CARING HANDS AND
SUPPLEMENTARY ENRICHMENT EDUCATION, LLC OF VIRGINIA, Case No.
2:22-cv-00091-RBS (E.D. Va., March 1, 2022) seeks to recover
overtime pay under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(FLSA).

The Plaintiff is and  hourly home health care employee of
Defendant. She worked at least 62 hours per week for which she was
paid at the rate of straight time. In addition, she worked an
additional 20 plus hours per week for which she received no
compensation. The Plaintiff is similarly situated to dozens of
current and former non-exempt, hourly employees of Defendant who
worked extensive overtime hours and were paid straight time or
nothing.

The Plaintiff, along with similarly situated employees who opt into
this lawsuit, moves the Court for judgment against the Defendant
for all unpaid half-time and overtime compensation found by the
Court to be due under the FLSA; for the period of three years prior
to the filing of this Complaint, through the filing of this
Complaint and thereafter if applicable to additional individuals
who opt into. the lawsuit says.

Caring Hands and Supplementary Enrichment Education, LLC Of
Virginia is a community/behavioral health agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Colt North, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER & EMPLOYEE
          RIGHTS LAW FIRM, P.C.
          5629 George Washington Memorial Hwy, Suite D
          Yorktown, VA 23692
          Telephone: (757) 873-1010
          Facsimile: (757) 873-8375
          E-mail: cnorthlaw@aol.com

CENTENE CORP: Lopez Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
Norma Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Centene Corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00335-DJH (D.
Ariz., March 2, 2022) is a class and collective action complaint
seeking recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed by
Centene to the Plaintiff 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.

According to the complaint, Centene's timekeeping and payroll
systems were affected by the hack of Kronos in 2021, like many
other companies across the United States. That hack led to problems
in timekeeping and payroll throughout Centene's organization.

Allegedly in particular, hourly and non-Fair Labor Standards
Act-exempt workers, like Norma Lopez, were not paid for all
overtime hours worked after the onset of the Kronos hack. Centene
could have easily implemented a system for recording and paying
overtime hours to hourly and non-exempt employees until issues
related to the hack were resolved. But it didn't. Instead, Centene
used prior pay periods or reduced payroll estimates to avoid paying
overtime to these hourly and non-exempt employees. Centene pushed
the cost of the Kronos hack onto the most economically vulnerable
people in its workforce, says the suit.

Centene is a publicly traded and managed care company based in St.
Louis, Missouri. It serves as an intermediary for
government-sponsored and privately insured health care
programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CERENCE INC: Miami Retirement Trust Sues Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF MIAMI FIRE FIGHTERS' AND POLICE OFFICERS' RETIREMENT TRUST,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CERENCE INC., SANJAY DHAWAN, and MARK J. GALLENBERGER,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-10321 (D. Mass., Feb. 25, 2022) is a
federal securities class action brought by the Plaintiff against
Cerence and certain of its officers, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act. The Plaintiffs filed the action
on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Cerence common
stock between February 8, 2021 and February 4, 2022, inclusive.

Cerence was created on October 1, 2019 as the result of a tax-free
spinoff from Nuance Communications, Inc. Cerence builds artificial
intelligence-powered virtual assistants primarily for the
automotive market.

Throughout the Class Period, says the complaint, Defendants
repeatedly assured investors that the Company's guidance took "into
consideration the current risks and uncertainties of the
semiconductor device shortages that are impacting auto production."
Undisclosed to investors, however, was that the semiconductor
shortage had a materially negative impact on demand for Cerence's
software licenses. In sharp contrast to Defendants' representations
that demand for its software licenses remained strong, Cerence was,
in reality, "pulling forward" or "pre-banking" license sales. As a
result, Defendants' statements about Cerence's business,
operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis, says the suit.

The Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant
losses and damages due to Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's common stock when the truth was disclosed.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph E. White III, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          7777 Glades Road Suite 300
          Boca Raton, FL 33434
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399
          Facsimile: (561) 394-3382

               - and -

          Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
          Stuart A. Kaufman, Esq.
          KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON
          780 NW 4th Street
          Plantation, FL 33317
          Telephone: (954) 916-1202
          Facsimile: (954) 916-1232
          E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com
                  stu@robertdklausner.com

CHAMPION PETFOODS: Dismissal of False Advertising Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
James F. Bogan III, Esq., of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, in
an article for Lexology, reports that in a recent post, we reported
on the Second Circuit's affirmance of a district court order
dismissing a false advertising class action based on alleged
misrepresentations that amounted to nothing more than puffery. See
Second Circuit -- false advertising class actions predicated on
puffery are doomed to fail (Sep. 28, 2021). The Tenth Circuit
recently reached a similar result in Renfro v. Champion Petfoods
USA, Inc., --- F.4th ----, 2022 WL 453366 (10th Cir. Feb. 15,
2022). In Renfro, pet owners filed a putative class action against
Champion Petfoods, claiming that statements on Champion's dog food
packaging were false and misleading. The statements advertised the
dog food as "Biologically Appropriate," "Trusted Everywhere," and
containing "Fresh and Regional Ingredients" as well as "Ingredients
We Love [From] People We Trust." 2022 WL 453366, at *1. Based on
these statements, the pet owners alleged seven causes of action,
including violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act,
breach of express and implied warranties, fraudulent
misrepresentation and concealment, unjust enrichment, and
negligence. But the district court granted Champion's motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim, reasoning that the alleged
misrepresentations were "either unactionable puffery or overly
subjective and therefore not materially misleading to a reasonable
consumer." Id. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed, ruling that
"the phrases fail to deceive or mislead reasonable consumers on any
material fact." Id. These decisions by the Tenth and Second
Circuits show that, although a district court deciding a Rule 12
motion must draw every inference in favor of a plaintiff, courts
know puffery when they see it. [GN]

CHICKEN OF THE SEA: Aug. 2 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Who Qualifies: The settlement
benefits indirect purchasers of Chicken of the Sea tuna products
who purchased the products in certain states and territories
between June 1, 2011, and July 1, 2015. Eligible products may have
been packaged in cans or pouches smaller than 40 ounces.

Potential Award: Varies

Proof of Purchase Required: No

Claim Deadline: 8/22/2022

Chicken of the Sea agreed to pay $20 million to resolve claims it
worked with other tuna companies to artificially raise the price of
tuna products, and Class Members do not need proof of purchase to
make a claim.

The settlement benefits indirect purchasers of Chicken of the Sea
tuna products who purchased the products in certain states and
territories between June 1, 2011, and July 1, 2015. Eligible
products may have been packaged in cans or pouches smaller than 40
ounces.

States and territories included in the settlement Class are
Arizona, Arkansas, California, the District of Columbia, Florida,
Guam, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,
New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,
Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Chicken of the Sea is one of the most prominent suppliers of canned
tuna products and has been providing these products for over 100
years. According to the company's website, Chicken of the Sea
focuses on protecting the ocean, encouraging seafood
sustainability, and also providing the "freshest, best-tasting
seafood the oceans have to offer."

According to legal action against Chicken of the Sea and other tuna
distributors, the company allegedly worked with other companies to
artificially raise the cost of canned and pouch tuna products.

In 2018, plaintiffs took legal action against Chicken of the Sea,
StarKist, and other tuna companies in an antitrust class action
lawsuit.

According to the consumers, these companies violated federal
antitrust law by conspiring together to fix the price of canned
tuna products.

As a result of the alleged antitrust agreement, both direct and
indirect purchasers were allegedly forced to pay a higher price for
tuna products than they would have in a fair market. The plaintiffs
contend these actions caused financial damage to themselves and
other purchasers.

Chicken of the Sea did not admit any wrongdoing but agreed to
resolve these claims with three settlements totaling around $40
million.

Of this total, indirect purchasers can benefit from a settlement
worth $20 million.

Under the terms of the settlement, indirect purchasers can collect
a proportional share of the settlement fund for every 200 cans they
purchased.

According to the settlement website, payments are estimated to be
$10.50 for every 200 cans purchased. Payments will only be
distributed if they are at least $5.

Although the settlement resolves Class Members' legal rights to
take action against Chicken of the Sea for alleged price fixing, it
does not resolve all pending claims in this multidistrict
litigation. Specifically, plaintiffs and Class Members retain their
claims against StarKist and Lion America -- two remaining
defendants who have not settled these claims.

The deadline for exclusion and objection in the settlement is
May 13, 2022.

The court will decide on the settlement's fairness at the final
approval hearing scheduled for July 15, 2022.

In order to receive a payment from the tuna price-fixing class
action lawsuit, Class Members must submit a valid claim form by
Aug. 22, 2022.

Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits indirect purchasers of Chicken of the Sea
tuna products who purchased the products in certain states and
territories between June 1, 2011, and July 1, 2015. Eligible
products may have been packaged in cans or pouches smaller than 40
ounces.

Potential Award
Varies

Proof of Purchase
No proof of purchase applicable

Claim Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.

Claim Form Deadline
08/22/2022

Case Name
In Re: Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
15-MD-2670 DMS (MDD), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California

Final Hearing
07/15/2022

Settlement Website
TunaEndPurchaserSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Tuna End Purchaser Settlement
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91442
Seattle, WA 98111
info@TunaEndPurchaserSettlement.com
866-615-0977

Class Counsel
Fred Taylor Isquith
Thomas H Burt
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP

Defense Counsel
John Roberti
ALLEN & OVERY LLP

John Terzaken
SIMPSON THACHER BARTLETT LLP [GN]

CHURCHILL DOWNS: Bettors Sue Over Media Spirt Disqualification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Teague Robinson, writing for Louisville Courier Journal,
reports that Medina Spirit has officially been disqualified from
the 2021 Kentucky Derby win and Bob Baffert has been suspended 90
days, and Mandaloun, the runner up in the race, has officially been
named the winner and will have his name placed at Churchill Downs.

But those who made bets on the May 1 race want that change in
finish reflected in their pockets as well.

Will Nefzger, an attorney leading a class action lawsuit with 19
plaintiffs, said Medina Spirit's disqualification sets a new order
of finish. Nefzger believes his clients should get paid for what
are now winning tickets.

"My clients all hold pari mutuel wagers that have not been paid and
they are now winning wagers with the new order of finish," he said.
"It now makes my clients winning wagers."

The class-action lawsuit was filed and withdrawn once as a
strategic move, Nefzger said, until the official disqualification
decision was made. He refiled it on Feb. 21; now that the decision
has been announced, he believes his clients should be paid for the
winning tickets they purchased.

He doesn't believe those who had winning tickets paid out to them
after the Kentucky Derby should lose their money, he said. The
lawsuit isn't calling for Churchill Downs to clawback that money.
There are six causes on the lawsuit that include: negligence,
breach of contract, Kentucky consumer protection act violation,
unjust enrichment permanent injunctive relief.

"We don't want a clawback, we are asking for these actual winning
tickets to be paid," he said.

Medina Spirit was disqualified despite attorneys for Baffert
claiming that Medina Spirit absorbed the illegal betamethasone
through the ointment Otomax. That didn't seem to sway things as
Baffert has also been suspended 90 days and fined $7,500.

Runner-up Mandaloun will become the winner of the 2021 Kentucky
Derby and raise the notoriety of Louisville trainer Brad Cox. The
Derby winner's purse is worth $1.86 million. Cox would also benefit
from fourth-place finisher Essential Quality being moved up to
third place behind trainer Doug O'Neill's Hot Rod Charlie.

"Winning the Kentucky Derby is one of the most exciting
achievements in sports," the Churchill Downs statement said, "and
we look forward to celebrating Mandaloun on a future date in a way
that is fitting of this rare distinction."

Now Nefzger is just hoping his clients can benefit from the new
order of finish, as well. [GN]

COLOMBIAN HOUSE: Marin Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Pay Under FLSA, NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA MARIN and ANDRES FELIPE AGUDELO, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. COLOMBIAN HOUSE RESTAURANT CORP.
(D/B/A COLOMBIAN HOUSE), FELIPE HOYOS, and DANIELLA JIMENEZ, Case
No. 1:22-cv-01732 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 and the New York Labor Law including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs were ostensibly employed as a waitress and a
delivery worker. However, they were required to spend a
considerable part of their work day performing non-tipped duties,
including but not limited to setting the tables and chairs the
patio of the restaurant, unroll the carpets, setting up the tables,
cutting vegetables, filling sauce containers, cleaning the
bathrooms, refilling condiments, cleaning kitchen utensils,
restocking the refrigerators, answering phone calls, packing
deliveries, sweeping, and mopping (the "non-tipped duties").

The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather,
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay the Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs
the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to
work over 10 hours a day. Furthermore, the Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiffs wages on a timely basis, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants. They were
employed as a waitress and a delivery worker at the Defendants'
restaurant.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Colombian restaurant,
located at 585 Main St., New Rochelle, NY 10801 under the name
"Colombian House."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          CSM LEGAL, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

COSTCO WHOLESALE: To Settle COBRA Notice Class Action for $750,000
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Costco
Wholesale Corp. signed a $750,000 class settlement to resolve a
lawsuit claiming it sends "ominous" and legally deficient notices
informing former workers of their right to keep their health
insurance coverage, a Florida federal court filing shows.

The deal is slated to provide net payments of about $9.72 to each
of 38,818 class members, which is consistent with similar class
action settlements in cases alleging violations of COBRA notice
requirements, former Costco worker John Baja said in a settlement
motion filed Feb. 18 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. [GN]



DEBT RECOVERY: Mangroo Sues Over Alleged Illegal Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
NARAZUDEEN MANGROO, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. DEBT RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC AND FENDRICK
CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC, Case No. CACE-22-003174 (Fla Cir., Broward
Cty., March 2, 2022) seeks redress for the illegal practices of the
Defendants concerning the collection of debts, in violation of the
Florida Consumer Collection Protection Act("FCCPA") and the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff contends that he suffered injury in fact by being
subjected to unfair and abusive practices of the Defendants. He
allegedly suffered actual harm by being the target of the
Defendants ' misleading debt collection communications.

The Defendants are debt collectors and regularly conduct business
in the State of Florida, where they specifically target Florida
citizens, such as Plaintiff. Defendant Pendrick is a debt buyer
after debt goes into default, and as such, a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

E.N. HOME: Ramirez Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA & NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO RAMIREZ and JUAN DE LA ROSA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. E.N. HOME IMPROVEMENT INC. and
ASF CONSTRUCTION & EXCAVATION CORP., and CARLOS AREVALO and ANDRE
FERNANDES, as individuals, Case No. 1:22-cv-01086 (E.D.N.Y., March
1, 2022) seeks to recover damages for the Defendants' egregious
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law arising out of Plaintiffs' employment with the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs contend that they regularly worked approximately 72
hours or more per week, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiffs
at a wage rate of time and a half for his hours regularly worked
over 40 in a work week, a blatant violation of the overtime
provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. Allegedly, the Plaintiff
was not compensated at all for his 65 hours of work at the end of
his employment by Defendants.

Home Improvement is a general contractor specializing in
residential or commercial solar, roofing, and kitchen
remodeling.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

EXALT FLAVORS: Kumar Seeks Servers' Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
SUNIL KUMAR Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated who consent to their inclusion in a collective action v.
EXALT FLAVORS, LLC, a Florida Corporation, Case No. 8:22-cv-00496
(M.D. Fla., March 1, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid
overtime wages, and misappropriated tips from Exalt Flavors, LLC
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act along with violations of
Florida law.

As part of their policy and routine practice, the Defendant
allegedly required Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
to work well over 40 hours per workweek, every workweek. However,
the Defendant would only pay Plaintiff and others similarly
situated for 40 hours per week at their regular rate of pay.

In addition, pursuant to Defendant's policies and routine practice,
the Defendant refused to pay Plaintiff and other class members tips
that they received directly from restaurant patrons. Further,
Defendant enticed and coerced Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees to continue working oppressive hours for no
compensation (and without receiving any tips) by promising to
promote them to management positions and/or give them an ownership
share in the company, says the suit.

The Plaintiff was formerly employed by the Defendant as a server,
and then subsequently as a "server manager. During his employment,
Plaintiff worked exclusively in Sarasota County.

The Defendant is a restaurant group that owns and operates numerous
restaurants and food-based retail stores across the states of
Florida and Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas J. Castellano, II, Esq.
          BUCKMAN & BUCKMAN, P.A.
          2023 Constitution Boulevard
          Sarasota, FL 34231
          Telephone: (941) 923-7700
          Facsimile: (941) 923-7736
          E-mail: nick@buckmanandbuckman.com

FENIX INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Suit Over Unfair Market Share Gain
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg's David Azar recently filed a lawsuit for FanCentro,
alleging OnlyFans and employees of a large social media company
colluded to harm competing businesses and hundreds of adult
influencers, destroying the livelihoods of many, to gain market
share.

On February 22, 2022, BBC News announced that FanCentro filed a
lawsuit against OnlyFans' owner, Leonid Radvinsky, and the company
which receives OnlyFans' payments, Fenix Internet LLC. The lawsuit
alleges that they colluded with employees at a social media company
to use computerized systems to harm any performers and other
content providers who had ever linked to OnlyFans' competitors,
such as through designations as a Dangerous Individual or
Organization ("DIO").

This caused the content of those performers to be hashed and added
to a database intended to be for terrorists or terrorist
sympathizers. By favoring adult performers who only posted content
on OnlyFans, the lawsuit alleges that OnlyFans was able to gain
significant market share – but at the expense of performers and
other businesses. However, OnlyFans says this legal claim has "no
merit".

For more information on the case, visit BBC News. Meanwhile, you
can read more about Facebook's Dangerous Individual and
Organization list, and its lack of accountability, in this article
published by The Intercept.

If you have more information that may be helpful to our team, you
can reach our firm directly and securely through encrypted email at
tips-milberg@protonmail.com.

If you were affected by this malicious act, please contact our firm
by completing the form above, or email
potentialclients@milberg.com.

For media inquiries, contact Media@milberg.com.

Milberg prosecutes large class actions against some of the world's
largest and most well-funded corporate defendants in sectors such
as healthcare, technology, agriculture, and manufacturing. Our
leading practitioners successfully represent businesses and
individuals affected by unfair competition and other wrongful
conduct. [GN]

FRANCIS MATHEW: Daigle Files Suit in D. New Mexico
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Francis Joseph
Mathew, et al. The case is styled as Claudia Daigle, and all other
similarly situated v. Francis J. Mathew, individually and in his
official capacity as Judge at the First Judicial District Court,
Santa Fe County; Julie J Vargas, individually and in her official
capacity as Judge at the New Mexico Supreme Court, Santa Fe, New
Mexico; John P Hays, individually and dba Hays & Friedman, PA, a
corporation as legal representative of the Eldorado Community
Improvement Association, Inc.; Eldorado Community Improvement
Association, Inc.; Mark E Young, individually and officially as
Covenant Compliance Officer and Architecture Coordinator, since
2009, Eldorado Community Improvement Association, INC., and
employee of Home Owners Association Management Company, LLC; Greg D
Colello, individually and officially as Director of the 2014 Board
of Directors, Eldorado Community Improvement Association, Inc.;
Elan M Colello, individually and officially as Director of the
2011-2012 Board of Directors, Eldorado Community Improvement
Association, Inc.,; Gregory C Bundrick, individually and officially
as Director of the 2011 Board of Directors, Eldorado Community
Improvement Association, Inc.,; Todd G Handy, individually and
officially as Treasurer of the 2011 through 2014 Board of
Directors, Eldorado Community Improvement Association, Inc.; Lynn L
Mortensen, individually and officially as Director of the 2011-2012
Board of Directors, Eldorado Community Improvement Association,
Inc.; Kathleen Holian, Municipality of Santa Fe and County of Santa
Fe, New Mexico, retired Santa Fe County Commissioner, District 4,
in her individual and official capacity; Craig D. O'Hare,
Municipality of Santa Fe and County of Santa Fe, New Mexico,
retired Santa Fe County Energy Programs Specialist, in his
individual and official capacity; Hector Balderas, as Attorney
General for the State of New Mexico; Michelle Lujan Grisham, as
Governor of the State of New Mexico; Austin McFall, registered
agent for the Eldorado Community Improvement Association, Inc., and
management company, Homeowners Association Management Company
(HOMECO); Ronald Allen Zacharski, Cheryl Louise Clark, Larry T
Pepin, Robin Pepin, Joseph Eigner, Janet Eigner, Richard Canby,
Aimee Canby, Robert M Christie, Cynde Van Patten, Scott Gerber,
Barbara Gerber, Amy Bertelli, David Coulson, John E Charbonneau,
Arthur Henry Kaiser, Patricia Elaine, Mark A Toveri, Sandra A
Toveri, Hope Kiah, Thom Kiah, Jeffrey Brown, Emily Brown, Marshall
G Smith, Carolyn S Smith, Debra Poulin, Dia Winograd, Karen
Winograd, Susan Spires Ruch Trust, David McDonald, Anne Salzman,
Christian L Rehr, Amanda Silverberg, Louis Gengenhuber, James L
Daniel, Susan E Daniel, David M Chavez, Kenneth D Green, Lucinda O
Green, James C Tate, Joyce MJ Tate, James B Smock, Carol L Smock,
Michael H Roach, Louise Roach, Frank Watson Rose, IV, Kara R Duval,
Skye M Goodrich, Amber Goodrich, Michael C Schneider, Mary A
Schneider, Karen Yinger, Alexandra R Heath, Quentin D Collins,
Melida Collins, Patrick M Mcgee Russell, Dianne E Duen, Theodore
David Cho, Paul Kim Ingraham, Diana L Kelley, Ricki-Lee G Chavez,
Jennifer Jehl Pruett, David Ginsberg, Meara Ginsberg, Suzanne M
Shakespeare-Jones, Kimberly G Shakespeare-Jones, Katherine E
Mortimer, Robert Bruen, Alice Lynne Davy, Robert J Retherford,
Theresa A Swan, Ellis Pisciotaa Family Trust, Neil Freer, Ursula
Freer, Brian D Woods, W Hansen Lars, Kirsten R Lars, William B
Rushing, Kristen Rushing, Thomas Richard Sansom, MD Bruce A
Shaffer, Larry D Eccard, Linda B Eccard, Trillian Wright Johnson,
Veda Michael, Jeffrey R Sweers, Judy C Winnegar, Andrew J. Jr. Rev.
Liv. Trust, Richard J Perkins, Alice J Darilek, David Hernandez,
Denicia Hernandez, Bryan Tagas, Margo Spellman, Susan E Ryan, Paul
L Charlo, George J Haddad, Emily C Haddad, Brien Sauchelli, Lauren
E Gockley, David W Funk, Gail E Funk, Eduard F Debruyn, Linda J
Debruyn, Thomas Diruggeriero, Akira S Anderson, Jamie Sarns, Native
American Tribal Tradit, Emmet H Soper, Sylvi Salinas, Gareth Lewis,
Linda Nehme Lewis, Peter Riggs, Ellen M Riggs, Michael Robles, Lisa
Robles, Randall K Engle, Emily A Johnson, Elizabeth R Hale, Kelley
K Hale, Jr, Lee Samuel Finn, Nancy M Ostiguy, Jennifer L Anderson,
Judith M Lauer, Carol A Magai, Joy Berkley, Tax Preparer, William
York, Laurel Gladden, Kenneth Simonson, Martha Simonson,
Co-Trustees; Magdelyn Rhiannon Brennan, Jennifer M Porter, Amy L
Fredericks, Jennifer Clement, Christopher R Bradley, Christine J
Bradley, David M Sammeth, Clyde Mueller, Elizabeth L Mueller,
Katherine A Kelley,
Matthew M Garcia, Justine R Garcia, John W Bing, Catherine Mercer,
John M Sultana, Meghan E Sultana, et al.; Franklin Ellis Kilmer,
Frank G Jameson, Jr., Julia C Jameson, Roger Beirig, Lisa Marie
Beirig, Elizabeth Glenn, individually as Owners similarly situated
in the Eldorado Community Improvement Association, Inc. in the
Subdivision of Eldorado at Santa Fe, Case No. 1:22-cv-00147-JHR
(D.N.M., Feb. 25, 2022).

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

Francis Joseph Mathew is a district court judge in the First
Judicial District of New Mexico.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Tosses Certain Claims in Cadillac Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam McEachern, writing for GM Authority, reports that a judge
overseeing a class-action lawsuit filed against General Motors over
issues with its Cadillac CUE system has dismissed certain claims
from plaintiffs, but will allow others to proceed.

This lawsuit was originally filed against GM in the U.S. District
for Southern California back in 2019 by owners of 2013 to 2017
model year Cadillac vehicles equipped with its CUE infotainment
system. Plaintiffs alleged cars equipped with Cadillac CUE have
touchscreens that are prone to delaminating and cracking, creating
a "spider web" appearance on the screen, among other design flaws.

According to Car Complaints, the judge overseeing this proceeding,
Judge Linda Lopez, has allowed plaintiffs to amend and re-file
their lawsuit against GM three different times. This has led to a
handful of the claims against GM being dropped, including
injunctive claims that would have forced GM to remove and replace
their CUE Systems with a suitable alternative product and perform a
recall and repair on affected vehicles. The judge has also
dismissed a claim against GM that would have prevented it from
selling or leasing affected Cadillac vehicles and dismissed further
claims related to unjust enrichment.

While the judge agreed to dismiss some claims against GM, she said
plaintiffs can try to compel GM to "reform its warranty to cover
the injury alleged and to notify all Class Members that such
warranty has been reformed," Car Complaints notes. She also refused
to dismiss an implied warranty of merchantability claim that was in
accordance with California Commercial Code section 2314.

As we noted in a previous article, this class action lawsuit
involves owners of the following Cadillac models:

2013-2017 Cadillac ATS
2013-2017 Cadillac SRX
2013-2017 Cadillac XTS
2014-2017 Cadillac CTS
2014-2017 Cadillac ELR
2014-2017 Cadillac Escalade

We'll provide an update on this lawsuit as it proceeds through U.S.
District Court in California. [GN]

GLOBAL PERSONALS: Ulery Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ULERY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GLOBAL PERSONALS, LLC d/b/a SexyFans, Case No. 44795436
(Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., March 1, 2022) is class action against
the Defendant for its violations of the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act and the Do-Not-Call Registry provisions of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint for damages,
injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in
negligently or willfully contacting the Plaintiff on Plaintiff's
cellular telephone, in violation of the FTSA and TCPA, thereby
invading Plaintiff's privacy. The Plaintiff alleges upon personal
knowledge as to himself and his own acts and experiences, and, as
to all other matters.

The Defendant allegedly uses a business model whereby it promotes
its online dating services that assist or connect individuals to
"hook up" with locals in their community and "share premium
explicit pics and videos while meeting people who love sex," in
part, by blast sending unsolicited text messages to wireless cell
phone users, including Plaintiff and Class Members. The Defendant
utilizes bulk SPAM text messaging, or SMS marketing, to send
unsolicited text messages, marketing and advertising of its
services, including at least unsolicited text messages to
Plaintiff, says the suit.

The Plaintiff has been receiving these unsolicited text messages
since at least as early as January 26, 2022.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
          18Steven N. Saul, Esq.
          EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI
          7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
          Davie, FL 33314
          Telephone: (954) 889-3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
          E-mail: MPascucci@JusticeEarned.com
                  JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
                  SSaul@JusticeEarned.com
                  SGizzie@JusticeEarned.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

GWG HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of April 19 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, on Feb. 23 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against GWG Holdings, Inc. ("GWGH" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: GWGH) in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired GWGH L Bonds directly in GWGH's L
Bond Offering pursuant to the June 3, 2020 Registration Statement.
Investors have until April 19, 2022, to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On January 18, 2022, GWG disclosed that its Annual Report will
likely be filed "later than the March 31, 2022 due date" because of
"the recently disclosed decision of its independent registered
public accounting firm to decline to stand for reappointment." The
Company further disclosed that it "did not make the January 15,
2022 interest payment of approximately $10.35 million and principal
payments of approximately $3.25 million with respect to its L
Bonds" product and that it elected to "voluntarily suspend its L
Bonds sales effective as of January 10, 2022." On this news, GWG's
stock price fell $2.17 per share, or 27.7%, to close at $5.65 per
share on January 18, 2022.

Then, on January 27, 2022, The Wall Street Journal reported that
GWG received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission
requesting documents. The article also stated that an attorney
representing multiple L Bonds investors said his clients are retail
investors who bought the bonds after hearing the products were safe
and would offer a comfortable income stream for their retirement,
but that "they were shocked to learn that their money was used to
pay old investors while the company has been under SEC
investigation."

Following this news, GWG's stock dropped over 20% during intraday
trading on January 27, 2022.

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

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

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

Contacts

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

HCL AMERICA: Geraci Seeks to Recover Penalties Under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROSS GERACI on behalf of himself, others similarly situated, and of
the general public v. HCL AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1-100, Case No.
220V394848 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., March 2, 2022) is a
representative action seeking recovery of penalties under the
California Labor Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

The complaint asserts that the Defendant has maintained uniform
policies that violate the wage and hour rights of Plaintiff and
similarly situated non-exempt employees.

This action is brought on behalf 0f Plaintiff and all other
Aggrieved Employees of Defendant and/or does who worked a shift of
at least five hours without receiving a meal period; worked four
hours without receiving a 10 minute net rest break were not paid
compensation for all time worked at the straight or overtime rate;
were not reimbursed for business expenses; and, were not provided
paid sick days and provided written notice setting forth the amount
of paid sick leave available.

The Defendant offers computer programming solutions. The Defendant
provides informational technology, infrastructure management,
software engineering, data center, and application development
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           David Mara, Esq.
           Vecchi, Esq.
           Joana Ghoche, Esq
           MARA LAW FIRM, PC
           2650 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 205
           San Diego, CA 92108
           Telephone: (619) 234-2833
           Facsimile: (619) 234-4048

HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Liberal Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Healthcare Revenue
Recovery Group, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Marcelin Liberal,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC, Memorial Regional Hospital
South Auxiliary, Inc., Case No. 0:22-cv-60450-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb.
28, 2022).

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

Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group --
https://www.healthcarerevenuerecoverygroup.com/ -- also known as
HRRG is a legitimate debt collection agency, specializing in the
collection of medical debt.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander James Adducci Taylor, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD - LOMBARD IL
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (331) 307-7646
          Fax: (630) 575-8188
          Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com


HY-VEE INC: Fiduciaries Mismanage 401(K) Plan, Rodriguez Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
THERESA L. RODRIGUEZ, ZACHARY M. SHANK, MICHAEL P. MANSBERGER,
HEIDI L. DETRA and TIM CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HY-VEE, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF HY-VEE, INC., THE HY-VEE AND AFFILIATES 401(K) PLAN INVESTMENT
COMMITTEE and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 4:22-cv-00072-RGE-HCA (S.D.
Iowa, March 1, 2022) is a class action brought pursuant to the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974  against the Hy-Vee
and Affiliates 401(k) Plan's fiduciaries.

The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period,
Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined
under ERISA section 3(21)(A), 29 U.S.C. section 1002(21)(A),
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.

At all times during the Class Period, the Plan had at least $1.6
billion dollars in assets under management. At the Plan's fiscal
year end in 2020 and 2019, the Plan had over $2.1 billion dollars
and $2 billion dollars, respectively, in assets under management
that were/are entrusted to the care of the Plan's fiduciaries. The
September 27, 2020 Report of Independent Auditor of the Hy-Vee and
Affiliates 401(k) Plan ("2020 Auditor Report"), says the suit.

The Plan's assets under management qualifies it as a jumbo plan in
the defined contribution plan marketplace, and among the largest
plans in the United States. As a jumbo plan, the Plan had
substantial bargaining power regarding the fees and expenses that
were charged against participants' investments. Defendants,
however, did not try to reduce the Plan's expenses or exercise
appropriate judgment to scrutinize each investment option that was
offered in the Plan to ensure it was prudent, the suit added.

The Defendants' alleged mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment
of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the
fiduciary duty of prudence, in violation of 29 U.S.C. section 1104.
Their actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary
and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars. Based
on this conduct, the Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendants
for breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence (Count One) and
failure to monitor fiduciaries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Jeannette M. Keller, Esq.
           BOWMAN, DEPREE AND MURPHY
           P.O. Box 126
           West Liberty, Iowa 52776
           Telephone: (319) 541-2079
           Facsimile: (563) 333-2499
           E-mail: keller.ic.office@gmail.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.
           Gabrielle Kelerchian, Esq.
           CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
           312 Old Lancaster Road
           Merion Station, PA 19066
           E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
           Telephone: (610) 890-0200
           Facsimile: (717) 233-4103

ILLINOIS: Faces Class Suit Over False Concealed Carry Course
------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison - St. Clair
Record, reports that Wood River attorney Thomas Maag filed a class
action against a concealed carry class instructor for allegedly
failing to meet the required criteria and distributing false
certificates of completion.

Maag, of Maag Law Firm LLC, filed the class action on behalf of
plaintiff Lucinda Klotz on Feb. 9 in the Madison County Circuit
Court against defendant Terry Lumma.

The proposed class includes anyone who paid Lumma between Jan. 1,
2018, and Jan. 1, 2022, "for an Illinois concealed carry course,
took said course, and received a purported training certificate
purporting to indicate training, in accordance with Illinois law
for a concealed carry license in Illinois."

According to the three-page complaint, Lumma was an Illinois State
Police-certified concealed carry instructor. Lumma was allegedly
authorized to teach classes necessary to obtain an Illinois
concealed carry license.

Klotz claims Lumma represented to her and each member of his
classes that the course was lawful and that completing it would
satisfy the training requirement to obtain the concealed carry
license. The suit states that well over 100 individuals each paid
approximately $120 for the 16-hour course.

"Defendant lied [to] his customers," Maag wrote, "and failed to
include as part of the course either the correct number of
prescribed hours of training, the requisite shooting
qualifications, or both."

Upon completion of the class, Klotz claims the members were
presented with a false certificate indicating they had taken a
legally compliant course.

"In truth in fact, the certificates were lies, as the courses were
not legally compliant, and defendant actually knew it and actually
intended for his customers to actually rely on his deception," he
wrote.

The suit states that Lumma was charged with providing a false
training certificate in Macoupin County. He has allegedly pleaded
guilty to the charge and has been convicted. Therefore, Lumma is
estopped from denying liability, Maag argues.

Klotz seeks a judgment in excess of $50,000, requests actual
damages, disgorgement of funds paid, treble damages, attorney's
fees and court costs.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 22-LA-182 [GN]

JEFFERSON COUNTY, NY: ADA Suit Filed in N.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jefferson County, New
York, et al. The case is styled as M.C., T.G., on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated individuals v. Jefferson
County, New York; Colleen M. O'Neill, as the Sheriff of Jefferson
County, New York; Brian R. McDermott, as the Undersheriff of
Jefferson County; Mark Wilson, as the Facility Administrator of
Jefferson County Correctional Facility; Case No.
6:22-cv-00190-DNH-ATB (N.D.N.Y., March 1, 2022).

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

Jefferson County -- https://co.jefferson.ny.us/ -- is a county on
the northern border of the U.S. state of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Antony P. F. Gemmell, Esq.
          Molly Biklen, Esq.
          Terry Ding, Esq.
          NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          125 Broad Street, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 607-3320
          Email: agemmell@nyclu.org
                 mbiklen@nyclu.org
                 tding@nyclu.org


KANKESHWAR LLC: Moronta Files Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ENCARNACION C. MORONTA, on behalf of herself, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated v. KANKESHWAR, LLC d/b/a
YANKEE CLIPPER MOTOR INN, and BARRY PATEL, individually, Case No.
2:22-cv-01022 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2022) is a civil action for
damages and other redress over Defendants' willful violations of
Plaintiff's rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law by failing to pay proper overtime wages and failing
to provide accurate wage notices and statements.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a housekeeper from
December 2009 through the present.

Kankeshwar, LLC, d/b/a Yankee Clipper Motor Inn, is a New York
limited liability company that operates a Nassau County-based
motel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Danielle Petretta, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 248-5550
          Facsimile: (516) 248-6027

KOCH FOODS: Southern AgCredit Suit Transferred to E.D. Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Southern AgCredit, ACA v. Koch Foods, Inc., Koch
Meat Co., Inc., Haff Poultry, Inc., Nancy Butler, Johnny Upchurch,
Jonathan Walters, Myles B. Weaver, Melissa Weaver, Marc McEntire,
Karen McEntire, Mitchell Mason, all others similarly situated, Case
No. 3:21-mc-00782 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Mississippi, to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Oklahoma on Feb. 28, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:22-mc-00002-RAW to the
proceeding.

Koch Foods -- https://kochfoods.com/ -- is a food processor and
distributor in Park Ridge, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Craig Kimball, Esq.
          Caroline B. Smith, Esq.
          BUTLER SNOW LLP-Ridgeland
          P. O. Box 6010
          1020 Highland Colony Pkwy., Ste. 1400 (39157)
          Ridgeland, MS 39158-6010
          Phone: (601) 985-4420
          Fax: (601) 985-4500

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel J. Walker, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE, PC - Washington
          2001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20006
          Phone: (202) 559-9745

               - and -

          Jennifer Graham Hall, Esq.
          Scott W. Pedigo, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC -
Jackson
          One Eastover Center
          100 Vision Drive, Suite 400
          P. O. Box 14167 (39236-4167)
          Jackson, MS 39211
          Phone: (601) 351-2400
          Fax: (601) 351-2424
          Email: spedigo@bakerdonelson.com

               - and -

          John Dudley Butler, Esq.
          BUTLER FARM AND RANCH LAW GROUP, PLLC
          499 A Breakwater Drive
          Benton, MS 39039
          Phone: (662) 673-0091


KOSE AMERICA: Hiatt Files Suit in C.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kose America, Inc.
The case is styled as Ashely Hiatt, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Kose America, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-01044-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill., Feb. 15, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Injunction Against
Fraud.

Kose -- https://kose-usa.com/ -- is a Japanese multinational
personal care company, whose products include cosmetics, skin care,
and hair care products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel W. Craig, Esq.
          DANIEL W. CRAIG, P.C.
          6942 Kingsbury Boulevard
          University City, MO 63130
          Phone: (314) 297-8385
          Email: dan@donelonpc.com

               - and -

          Thomas Michael Ryan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M RYAN PC
          35 E Wacker Drive, Suite 650
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 726-3400
          Fax: (312) 782-4519
          Email: tom@tomryanlaw.com

               - and -

          Brendan John Donelon, Esq.
          DONELON, P.C.
          4600 Madison, Ste. 810
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: (816) 221-7100
          Email: brendan@donelonpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey N. Rosenthal, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          One Logan Square
          130 North 18th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 569-5500
          Fax: (215) 832-5553
          Email: rosenthal-j@blankrome.com

               - and -

          Amanda M. Noonan, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          444 W. Lake Street, Suite 1650
          Chicago, IL 60647
          Phone: (312) 776-2537
          Fax: (312) 896-9181
          Email: amanda.noonan@blankrome.com


LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION: Hine Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Nicole Hine, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LendingClub Corporation, Case No.
21CI04943 was removed from the Westmoreland County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 28,
2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00362-CRE to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.

LendingClub -- https://www.lendingclub.com/ -- is a peer-to-peer
lending company headquartered in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Abramovitz, Esq.
          1034 Fifth Avenue, Suite 400
          Pittsburgh, PA 15203
          Phone: (412) 391-4305
          Fax: (412) 391-1789
          Email: kevdefends@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Victoria D. Summerfield, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
          501 Grant Street, Suite 300
          Union Trust Building
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 454-5033
          Fax: (412) 281-0717
          Email: victoria.summerfield@troutman.com


LGSTX DISTRIBUTION: Plane Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jermaine Plane, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LGSTX DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC., Case No.
2022LA000168 (Ill. 18th Judicial Cir. Ct., DuPage Cty., Feb. 15,
2022), is brought against the Defendant to stop Defendant's
unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's
and the proposed Class's sensitive, private, and personal biometric
data.

Unlike ID badges or time cards – which can be changed or replaced
if stolen or compromised – biometrics are unique, permanent
biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes
Defendant's employees, including Plaintiff, to serious and
irreversible privacy risks. Recognizing the need to protect its
citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), specifically to regulate
companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics.

As an employee/worker of the Defendant, the Plaintiff was required
to "clock in" and "clock out" of work shifts by having his
fingerprint scanned by a biometric timeclock which identified each
employee, including the Plaintiff. Notwithstanding the clear and
unequivocal requirements of the law, the Defendant disregards
employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully
collects, stores, and uses employees' biometric data in violation
of BIPA.

Specifically, the Defendant has violated and continues to violate
BIPA because it did not and, upon information and belief, continues
not to: Properly inform Plaintiff and others similarly situated in
writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their
fingerprint(s) were being collected, stored, disseminated and used,
as required by BIPA; Provide a publicly available retention
schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiff's and
other similarly-situated individuals' fingerprint(s), as required
by BIPA; Receive a written release from Plaintiff and others
similarly situated to collect, store, disseminate or otherwise use
their fingerprint(s), as required by BIPA; and Obtain consent from
Plaintiff and others similarly situated to disclose, redisclose, or
otherwise disseminate their biometric identifiers and/or biometric
information to a third party as required by BIPA.

The Plaintiff and the putative Class are aggrieved by Defendant's
failure to destroy their biometric data when the initial purpose
for collecting or obtaining such data has been satisfied or within
three years of employees' last interactions with the company, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant at its location in Illinois.

LGSTX Distribution Services, Inc. is an Ohio corporation with
places of business in Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
          Adam Florek, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
          818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          Phone: 314-833-4825
          Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com
                 plesko@peifferwolf.com
                 aflorek@peifferwolf.com


LISPENARD FISH: Lopez Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lispenard Fish LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Martha Olivia Villanueva Lopez, Martha
Olivia Villanueva Lopez, on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Lispenard Fish LLC doing business as: Two Wheels, Jonathan Chong,
Jonathan Vu, Case No. 1:22-cv-01707 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2022).

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

Lispenard Fish LLC is licensed liquor authority in the county of
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Catalina Sojo, Esq.
          CSM LEGAL P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street #4510
          New York, NY 10128
          Phone: (212) 317-1200
          Fax: (212) 317-1620
          Email: catalina@csm-legal.com



MANHATTAN BEER: Wittels McInturff Files Suit Over Illegal Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
Armonk, New York-based law firm Wittels McInturff Palikovic (WMP)
on Feb. 22 filed a class action lawsuit in New York Federal Court
to recover tens of millions of dollars for consumers victimized by
Manhattan Beer's illegal billing scheme.

The suit describes how the beer giant boosts profits by adding
hidden surcharges to invoices for top-selling brands like Corona,
Coors, and Mike's Hard Lemonade.

Specifically, the company uses deceptive invoices to dupe small
businesses into paying bottle deposit charges that are higher than
what the law allows. Adding insult to injury, the lawsuit alleges
that the beer giant only surcharges its smaller mom and pop
customers but not larger customers like supermarket chains.

"Manhattan Beer's CEO Simon Bergson likes to boast that his company
provides 'best-in-class service' to its customers," says lead
lawyer Steven L. Wittels. "But you can't be best if you rip off
your customers by collecting millions a year in sham bottle deposit
charges," he adds.

"This isn't the first time Manhattan Beer has been caught
red-handed hurting the little guy," continues partner J. Burkett
McInturff. "A Federal judge recently ruled that Manhattan Beer
makes illegal deductions from its workers' wages in another class
action our firm brought against the company."

With over one billion dollars in annual revenue, and sales of more
than 45 million cases of beer and hard beverages a year, the
millions Manhattan Beer reaps from its bottle deposit scam
translates to even higher profits for company executives.

"Let's just say that's a lot of beer money," adds lead class lawyer
Steven L. Wittels, "and the small businesses Manhattan Beer stole
it from would like it back."

A copy of the Class Action Complaint is posted on the firm website
wittelslaw.com
and can be obtained by contacting Ethan Roman: edr@wittelslaw.com

The plaintiffs' legal team, Steven L. Wittels, J. Burkett
McInturff, and Ethan D. Roman, has requested a jury trial.

               About Wittels McInturff Palikovic

Steven L. Wittels, named a "Super Lawyer" nine years running
(2013-21) for his class action litigation success, is a nationally
recognized class action attorney who concentrates on consumer
fraud, employment, civil rights and general public interest cases,
representing plaintiffs to fight consumer fraud, discrimination,
labor and wage violations, predatory lending, whistleblower, mass
torts, and other wrongs. Mr. Wittels was a lead trial counsel in
the largest employment class action ever tried to verdict in New
York -- which resulted in a $253 million jury award against
Novartis. J. Burkett McInturff is also a powerhouse in the class
action arena, having recovered more than $100 million for his
clients in the past four years.

Contact: Steven L. Wittels slw@wittelslaw.com, (914) 319-9945
J. Burkett McInturff jbm@wittelslaw.com, (910) 476-7253 [GN]

MANI.ME INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mani.Me, Inc. The
case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Mani.Me,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01662-AJN (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2022).

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

ManiMe -- https://manime.co/ -- is a beauty-tech company that
delivers fitted and ready-to-wear manicures made with 3D scanning
technology.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MEDICAL REVIEW INSTITUTE: Amer Files Suit in D. Utah
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical Review
Institute of America. The case is styled as Ahmed Amer, for himself
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Medical Review
Institute of America, Case No. 2:22-cv-00132-DAK (D. Utah, Feb. 25,
2022).

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

Medical Review Institute of America (MRIoA) --
https://www.mrioa.com/ -- provides medical peer review services and
resources for clients across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Alan Ibey, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          321 N Mall Dr., Ste. R108
          St. George, UT 84790
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Email: jason@kazlg.com


MICHAEL MONTALVO: Celluci Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Anthony Celluci, Putative Class Representative
and those similarly situated v. Michael Montalvo, Case No.
6:21-cv-02175 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on March 1, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:22-cv-40018-TSH to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adriana Contartese, Esq.
          P.O. Box 550216
          N. Waltham, MA 02455
          Phone: (617) 268-3557
          Email: adriana911@juno.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David B. Chaffin, Esq.
          WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP
          101 Arch Street, Suite 1930
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (617) 748-5200
          Fax: (617) 748-5201
          Email: chaffind@whiteandwilliams.com


MIDAS PROPERTY: Zerafa Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL ZERAFA, on behalf of himself, individually, and all other
persons similarly situated v. MIDAS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORP.,
MIDAS MANAGEMENT ASSOC. INC., THE HERKIMER EXECUTIVE HOUSE, INC.,
29-33 CONVENT AVENUE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION, MICHAEL
PADERNACHT, DANIEL PADERNACHT, CHRISTOPHER LIM, GERARD KARLEN, and
NICHOLAS CASUCCI, Case No. 1:22-cv-01755 (E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2022)
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff contends that throughout his employment, despite
regularly working in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the
Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff at the statutorily required
overtime rate of one and one-half times the minimum wage or his
regular rate of pay, whichever is greater, for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in violation of the FLSA and NYLL.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a non-exempt superintendent
and laborer from on or about August 17, 2017 through on or about
September 9, 2021.

The Defendants manage fifty or more properties, including rental,
cooperative and condominium apartment buildings, in and around New
York City, including within Manhattan and the Bronx.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MORGAN STANLEY: $60MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 8
------------------------------------------------------------
If you are a former or current Morgan Stanley client who was sent a
data breach notice letter in July 2020 and/or June 2021 notifying
you that your Personal Information may have been compromised in
Data Security Incidents, you may be eligible for benefits from this
class action Settlement.

A Settlement has been reached with Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC
("Morgan Stanley" or "Defendant") in a class action lawsuit
regarding the decommissioning or retiring of information technology
("IT") equipment that contained client data that occurred in 2016
and 2019 ("the Data Security Incidents"). Morgan Stanley issued
notices to customers regarding the Data Security Incidents in July
2020 and/or June 2021. The Settlement, if approved, would create a
fund of $60 million, which will be used to provide substantial
benefits to Settlement Class Members including at least 24-months
of fraud insurance coverage, reimbursement to the members of the
Settlement Class who file a valid claim for out-of-pocket losses
and lost time researching and remedying the effects of the Data
Security Incidents, as well as to pay Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees,
costs, and expenses, and a service award for each of the named
Plaintiffs.

In addition, Morgan Stanley will hire a third party to work for a
period of 12 months to attempt to locate and retrieve additional IT
devices which have been sold to third parties. Morgan Stanley will
also separately pay reasonable costs of notice and administration
of the Settlement.

The lawsuit asserts claims against Morgan Stanley relating to the
Data Security Incidents. Plaintiffs allege that in 2016 and 2019,
Morgan Stanley failed to properly dispose of certain IT assets and
that, as a result, unauthorized third parties may have gained
access to Morgan Stanley's clients' private information, including,
but not limited to, names, work and home addresses, Social Security
numbers, driver's license numbers, income, asset value, asset
holding information, passport information, telephone numbers, dates
of birth and other personal information (collectively, "PII"). Some
of these devices that may contain customer PII were sold on the
internet and/or remain unaccounted for.

Morgan Stanley denies all the claims, denies any liability
whatsoever, and believes that no member of the Settlement Class,
including Plaintiffs, has sustained any damages or injuries due to
the Data Security Incidents.

The Settlement Class includes all individuals with existing or
closed Morgan Stanley accounts established in the United States who
received the notice letters sent by Morgan Stanley regarding the
Data Security Incidents in July 2020 and/or June 2021. If you are a
member of the Settlement Class, you should have received a
Settlement notice from the Settlement Administrator in the mail or
by email. That Notice includes a unique code for you to verify your
identity to receive certain Settlement benefits. If for some reason
you have not received a unique code, but believe you are a
Settlement Class Member, please call 1-855-604-1744 (Toll-Free) to
verify your identity and receive further information.

Your Legal Rights and Options in This Settlement

Submit a Claim Form
Postmarked by June 2, 2022

This is the only way to receive a monetary payment for losses
suffered as a result of the Data Security Incidents. You can file a
claim by filing online here, downloading a copy of the Claim Form
from the Documents page and mailing it in, or you may call
1-855-604-1744 (Toll-Free) and ask that a Claim Form be mailed to
you. For detailed information on how to submit a Claim Form, see
FAQ 9.

Ask to be Excluded from the Settlement
Postmarked by May 3, 2022

You will not receive a payment or any other Settlement benefits,
but you will retain the right to bring your own action against
Morgan Stanley related to the Data Security Incidents. This is the
only option that allows you to bring a separate action against
Morgan Stanley related to the Data Security Incidents. For detailed
information on how to exclude yourself from the Settlement, see FAQ
15.

Object to the Settlement
Postmarked by May 3, 2022

You may write to the Court about why you do not like the
Settlement. You may also write the Court about why you support the
Settlement. For detailed information on how to object to or comment
on the Settlement, see FAQ 18.

Go to the Final Approval Hearing
June 8, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. ET

You may ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the Settlement.
If you wish to speak at the Final Approval Hearing, you must make a
request to do so in your written objection or comment.

Do Nothing

If you do nothing, you will not get a monetary payment from this
Settlement. If the Court grants final approval, you will be
entitled to enroll in Aura's Financial Shield Services for a period
of at least 24 months from the Effective Date of the Settlement,
which will provide broad fraud insurance coverage. You will give up
rights to submit a claim in this Settlement or to bring a separate
action against Morgan Stanley related to the Data Security
Incidents.[GN]

NELNET INC: Maxwell Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nelnet, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Ciara T. Maxwell, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Nelnet, Inc., John Does 1 - 10,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00049-RH-GRJ (N.D. Fla., Feb. 25, 2022).

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

Nelnet, Inc. -- https://www.nelnet.com/ -- is a United States-based
conglomerate that deals in the administration and repayment of
student loans and education financial services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander James Adducci Taylor, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD - LOMBARD IL
          2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Phone: (331) 307-7646
          Fax: (630) 575-8188
          Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com


NOOM INC: Settles Subscription Class Action for $56 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hunton Andrews Kurth's Privacy and Cybersecurity, in an article for
The National Law Review, reports that on February 14, 2022, Noom
Inc., a popular weight loss and fitness app, agreed to pay $56
million, and provide an additional $6 million in subscription
credits to settle a putative class action in New York federal
court. The class is seeking conditional certification and has urged
the court to preliminarily approve the settlement.

The suit was filed in May 2020 when a group of Noom users alleged
that Noom "actively misrepresents and/or fails to accurately
disclose the true characteristics of its trial period, its
automatic enrollment policy, and the actual steps customer need to
follow in attempting to cancel a 14-day trial and avoid automatic
enrollment." More specifically, users alleged that Noom engaged in
an unlawful auto-renewal subscription business model by luring
customers in with the opportunity to "try" its programs, then
imposing significant barriers to the cancellation process (e.g.,
only allowing customers to cancel their subscriptions through their
virtual coach), resulting in the customers paying a nonrefundable
advance lump-sum payment for up to eight (8) months at a time.
According to the proposed settlement, Noom will have to
substantially enhance its auto-renewal disclosures, as well as
require customers to take a separate action (e.g., check box or
digital signature) to accept auto-renewal, and provide customers a
button on the customer's account page for easier cancellation.

Regulators at the federal and state level have recently made clear
their focus on enforcement actions against "dark patterns." We
previously summarized the FTC's enforcement policy statement from
October 2021 warning companies against using dark patterns that
trick consumers into subscription services. More recently, several
state attorneys general (e.g., in Indiana, Texas, the District of
Columbia, and Washington State) made announcements regarding their
commitment to ramp up enforcement work on "dark patterns" that are
used to ascertain consumers' location data.[GN]

NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL: Prizer Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Alix Prizer, Jason Sims, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. North Broward Hospital
District doing business as: Broward Health, Case No. 062022CA000537
was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit for Broward County,
Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on Feb. 25, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:22-cv-60422-WPD to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

North Broward Health -- https://www.browardhealth.org/ -- formally
the North Broward Hospital District, is one of the 10 largest
public health systems in the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Julie Braman Kane, Esq.
          COLSON HICKS EIDSON
          255 Alhambra Circle
          Coral Gables, FL 33134-2351
          Phone: (305) 476-7400
          Fax: 476-7444
          Email: julie@colson.com

               - and -

          John Austin Moore, Esq.
          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: (816) 714-7100
          Email: moore@stuevesiegel.com
                 siegel@stuevesiegel.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Danna Khawam, Esq.
          Nina Christine Welch, Esq.
          Peter Ronai Goldman, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS BROAD AND CASSEL
          100 S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2700
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
          Phone: (954) 745-5244
          Email: danna.khawam@nelsonmullins.com
                 nina.welch@nelsonmullins.com

               - and -

          Mark L. Krotoski, Esq.
          Phillip J. Wiese, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1400 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: (650) 843-4000
          Email: mark.krotoski@morganlewis.com
                 phillip.wiese@morganlewis.com
                 peter.Goldman@nelsonmullins.com


NORTH CAROLINA: Judge Hears Settlement Agreement in DMV Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Doyle, writing for Fox 8, reports that a federal judge on
Feb. 22 heard a settlement agreement that could restore driver's
licenses to tens of thousands of North Carolinians.

The settlement presented to Chief Judge Thomas D. Schroeder of the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
proposed to end a 4-year-old class-action lawsuit brought by a
group of drivers who had lost their licenses for failure to pay
traffic fines within a specific time frame some did not know.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other parties and the North
Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles proposed this agreement as an
option to end Johnson v. Jessup, which focuses on the revocation of
licenses for drivers who don't pay all fines and fees within the
required 40 days and on the process by which the DMV communicates
with those motorists.

The ACLU said in a release after the hearing that the agreement
with the DMV would:

   -- Require the DMV to provide a special notice to tens of
thousands of drivers with a revoked license that informs them how
they can seek reinstatement of their licenses in state courts.
   -- Require the DMV to revise future notices to include
information on how a driver can petition and demonstrate to the
court an inability to pay a traffic-related fine or cost before
revoking the license.
   -- Require the DMV to pay for an informational website about
preventing or removing a license suspension for non-payment from a
person's record.
   -- Require the DMV-funded website to provide pro bono legal
resources that may be available for those seeking to avoid license
revocation or for removal of a revocation from their records.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, the American Civil Liberties
Union, the ACLU of North Carolina and the Southern Coalition for
Social Justice sued in May 2018 on behalf of Seti Johnson and
Sharee Smoot under the 14th Amendment. In August 2019 an amended
filing made this a class-action suit to represent all who were in
similar circumstances.

Attorneys for the NC DMV had argued that the 11th Amendment of the
Constitution precluded the federal court from hearing the suit,
saying it was a state matter, that the "fundamental fairness"
doctrine does not apply.

Torre Jessup, then commissioner of the NCDMV, was named as the
defendant. The suit cited the 1-page official notice that alerts
defendants that their licenses are about to be revoked but, the
suit alleges, doesn't tell them all their rights.

The suit sought to have North Carolina's law declared
unconstitutional, to prevent NC DMV from revoking licenses without
a hearing and without establishing options to repay the fines and
fees and to require the DMV to restore any licenses that were
revoked solely because fines and fees weren't paid on time.

Johnson, described in court filings as a young, Black father of
three, had lost his job and was unable to pay off his traffic
ticket, which moved the DMV to revoke and suspend his license,
which, his suit says, prevented him from driving to a job and
taking his children to school and daycare.

WGHP reached out to NC DMV for a comment on the settlement
agreement.

In a statement issued after the hearing, the organizations
representing the plaintiffs had this to say:

"We appreciate the court's consideration of this settlement. We are
hopeful that we can soon end the practice of revoking people's
drivers' licenses solely because they are not wealthy, a practice
that has disproportionately affected people and communities of
color. For too long, the poverty-based practice of revoking
driver's licenses has resulted in tens of thousands of North
Carolinians having to decide between providing for their families
and losing their ability to drive, which is often essential for
employment, accessing healthcare, buying groceries, and more.

"We thank the court for considering the settlement brought forth by
the plaintiffs and the DMV that would provide a path forward for
many of the North Carolinians who have been harmed by this
practice."

State law gives motorists 40 days to pay their fines and fees or
revoke the license indefinitely. The suit said that law affected
436,000 drivers just in the fall of 2017. Plaintiffs argued that
the law unfairly targeted people living in poverty, citing the 15%
of North Carolinians living below the poverty line at the time of
the filing. [GN]

NYK LINE: UK Court Allows Price-Fixing Class Action to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Safety4Sea reports that a class action against car carriers who
fixed prices can go ahead, a UK court ruled. The claim seeks
compensation for UK motorists overcharged for vehicle deliveries
between 2006 and 2012.

More specifically, London's Competition Appeal Tribunal has given
the green light to a class action to claim against the same five
shipping companies.

Motorists who bought or leased a new car between October 2006 and
September 2015 are automatically included in the claim, which is
seeking damages worth around GBP150m ($203m).

Car carriers have been hit by fines across the globe in recent
years. In fact, a new working group of international competition
authorities has put companies involved in global supply chains on
notice not to collude.

The working group is made up of competition authorities from the
"Five Eyes" nations:

The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
The United States Department of Justice
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
The Canadian Competition Bureau
The New Zealand Commerce Commission.

It will meet regularly to develop and share intelligence to detect
and investigate suspected anti-competitive behaviour and collusion,
using existing international cooperation tools.

The 5 competition authorities are making co-ordinated statements
putting firms on notice that those attempting to use supply chain
disruptions as a cover for illegal anticompetitive conduct,
including collusion, will face the full force of the law.

Furthermore, three major Ro-Ro operators have been fined by the
Malaysia Competition Commission (MyCC) for forming a price fixing
cartel.

This cartel regards to increase in fares for vehicle transportation
via Ro-Ro vessels between Langkawi and Kuala Perlis and vice versa.
Besides the three operators, two other related enterprises were
held responsible for the same conduct.

India has also fined several major Japanese car carrier companies,
finding them guilty for violations of India's Competition Act,
which prohibits anti-competitive agreements including cartels.

The CCI entered its final order against NYK Line, K-Line, Mitsui
O.S.K. Lines, and Nissan Motor Car Carrier Company for having
created and operated a cartel affecting the maritime motor vehicle
transport services operated on multiple trade routes for original
equipment manufacturers. [GN]

OCWEN LOAN: Settles Privacy Class Action for $1.5 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Flavia Furlan Nunes, writing for Housing Wire, reports that Nonbank
mortgage servicer Ocwen agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle a
class action lawsuit regarding alleged phone conversations recorded
without clients' consent.  

Plaintiff Gregory Franklin filed the lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California in 2018. He
claimed that the company violated California's Invasion of Privacy
Act by recording outgoing calls to his cell phone without
authorization.  

The class action affects all customers in California whose cellular
calls with Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC were recorded in November
2015. The company will deposit the money in a settlement fund to
pay for the settlement relief, attorneys' fees, and other costs.

The class action lawsuit can reach 37,031 clients, represented by
the law firm Kazerouni Law Group, APC. As the number of valid
claims increases, each claimant's payment will decrease
accordingly.

The settlement included that Ocwen agreed to the terms of the
agreement without admitting any liability or wrongdoing.
HousingWire sent a message to the company seeking comment but did
not immediately receive an answer.   

Franklin said he fell behind on his mortgage payments and, between
2011 and 2015, received numerous phone calls from Ocwen, who was
servicing his mortgage, to collect the payments.

But he alleged that, on some occasions, the company did not tell
him the phone call was being recorded. Also, the servicer informed
him sometimes about the recording only after he provided personal
and account information.  

Under California law, clients consent to the audio recording if
they receive advisement at the outset of the call that it may be
recorded.

According to the lawsuit, Franklin reasonably expected that the
telephone conversations would not be recorded due to the private
subject matter discussed. In this case, his financial situation.

Franklin will receive up to $3,000 from the settlement fund for his
efforts in bringing the lawsuit. On March 3, he will move the court
for an order granting preliminary approval of the proposed class
action settlement.

According to Inside Mortgage Finance, Ocwen had a $150 billion
servicing portfolio in the fourth quarter of 2021, a year-over-year
increase of 147%.

The company has been a target of the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau. Nearly a year after a federal judge dismissed the CFPB's
mortgage servicing misconduct suit against Ocwen Financial Corp.,
the watchdog agency moved in early February to overturn the
decision.

In 2013, the CFPB accused Ocwen of "engaging in significant and
systematic misconduct." The accusations were resolved with a
consent order issued December 17, 2013, shielding the servicer from
future actions arising from the alleged practices up to that point.
Ocwen also agreed to pay $2 billion in consumer relief as part of
the settlement.

But in 2017 the CFPB announced that it was suing Ocwen for "failing
borrowers at every stage of the mortgage servicing process." The
CFPB's lawsuit alleged that Ocwen costs borrowers' money, and in
some cases, their homes, due to years of "widespread errors,
shortcuts, and runarounds" dating back to January 2014.  

Last March, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra, in Florida's
Southern District in West Palm Beach, ruled that most of the CFPB's
claims were blocked because of a 2013 settlement between Ocwen, the
bureau, authorities in 49 states, and the District of Columbia.

During oral arguments in Miami before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit, the CFPB argued that the consent agreement
from 2013 did not excuse the mortgage servicer from future
violations and that Ocwen is on the hook for alleged wrongdoings.
[GN]

PAYPAL INC: Faces Vidaurre Suit Over Deceptive "Pay in 4" Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE VIDAURRE, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PAYPAL, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-01283-VKD
(N.D. Cal., March 1, 2022) is lawsuit is brought as a class action
on behalf of Plaintiff and thousands of similarly situated PayPal
customers who have been deceived into using PayPal's buy now, pay
later service by the company's misrepresentations and omissions, in
marketing materials, regarding the true operation and risks of the
service.

According to the complaint, PayPal's "Pay in 4" service
specifically targets poor consumers and those struggling to make
ends meet on a week-to-week basis. This group is its core
constituency. To that group, PayPal purports to offer a solution to
cash-strapped consumers: PayPal prominently markets Pay in 4 as a
service that allows users to pay for purchases at a later date,
with no interest, no fees and no hassle. These representations are
false. In fact, there are huge, undisclosed fees and interest
associated with using the service. PayPal's services thus cause
unsuspecting consumers like Plaintiff to incur significant
overdraft and NSF fees on their linked bank accounts, says the
suit.

In its rush to tout itself as convenient, simple, automatic, and
free, PayPal does not disclose that overdraft and NSF fees are a
likely and devastating consequence of the use of its service. No
reasonable consumer would run this risk, the suit added.

Had Plaintiff and the Class members known of the true operation and
risks of the PayPal Pay in 4 service, they would not have used the
PayPal service.

The Plaintiff and the Class members have been injured by PayPal's
practices. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself,
the putative Class, and the general public. The Plaintiff seeks
actual damages, punitive damages, restitution, and an injunction on
behalf of the general public to prevent PayPal from continuing to
engage in its illegal practices.

PayPal is an American multinational financial technology company
operating an online payments system in the majority of countries
that support online money transfers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD PLLC
          1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielgold.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave, Ste. 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

PEPSICO INC: Faces TCPA Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------
David Collins, writing for Law Street, reports that Joshua Epps
filed a class action complaint in the Southern District of New York
against PepsiCo Inc. and Quail Mountain Coffee & Vending for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for
purportedly incessant automated telemarketing.

The complaint began by citing that, by enacting the TCPA, Congress
declared that "automated and prerecorded calls are a nuisance and
an invasion of privacy, regardless of the type of call."

According to the plaintiff, on February 9 and on numerous other
days, the defendants placed "numerous" telemarketing calls to Epps
that were "using an artificial or prerecorded voice." The plaintiff
alleged that this constitutes a nuisance and an invasion of
privacy. He believed that these acts were willful and directed by
PepsiCo and that the defendants' conduct will continue to cause
irreparable harm to the plaintiff and the putative class unless
injunctive relief is enacted. Since the TCPA states that it is
unlawful to "initiate any telephone call to any residential
telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver
a message without the prior express consent of the called party,"
the plaintiff claimed that this constitutes a TCPA violation.

Furthermore, the plaintiff reiterated that he did not consent to
receive any calls from PepsiCo for more Pepsi products and that no
effort was made to obtain his consent. Thus the TCPA states that he
is entitled to $500 per phone call received, and since the calls
were willfully made, the plaintiff and putative class are entitled
to treble damages up to $1500 per call.

The plaintiff is seeking class certification, damages and treble
damages awarded under the TCPA, injunctive relief, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and other relief.
The plaintiff is represented by Bursor & Fisher, P.A. [GN]

PROGRESSIVE MAX: Verardo Files Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Max
Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Michael Verardo,
Lori Lippa, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Progressive Max Insurance Company, Progressive Casualty
Insurance Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-01714 (S.D.N.Y., March 1,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.

Progressive Max Insurance Company --
https://www.progressivecommercial.com/ -- offers insurance products
and services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appears pro se.


PULSE BIOSCIENCES: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of April 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 22
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Pulse Biosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ:
PLSE) between January 12, 2021 through February 7, 2022, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been
filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the
Court no later than April 18, 2022.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Pulse class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3409 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 18, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that Pulse's investigational
device exemption ("IDE") study evaluating the use of the CellFX
System to treat sebaceous hyperplasia lesions failed to meet its
primary endpoints; (2) that, as a result, there was a substantial
risk that the FDA would reject Pulse's 510(k) submission seeking to
expand the label for the CellFX System to treat sebaceous
hyperplasia lesions; and (3) 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. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Pulse action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3409 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

QUALITY MODULAR: Matos Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROMERO AZEVEDO MATOS, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. QUALITY MODULAR SERVICES, LLC, ARNOLD SOBRAL,
and HELDER J. PEDROSA, SR., Case No. 2:22-cv-01144 (E.D.N.Y., March
2, 2022) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the  Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees premium overtime wages for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week in violation of both
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's regular rate of pay was
$15.00 per hour at the start of his employment and $19.00 per hour
when his employment with Defendants terminated.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a laborer from in or
September 2018 to October 31, 2021.

The Defendants install portable office units and temporary work
spaces.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, NY 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588
          E-mail: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com

RANDHURST DELI: Rizzo Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Biometrics
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Darren Rizzo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RANDHURST DELI, INC., Case No. 2022LA000167 (Ill. 18th
Judicial Cir. Ct., DuPage Cty., Feb. 15, 2022), is brought against
the Defendant to stop the Defendant's unlawful collection, use,
storage, and disclosure of Plaintiff's and the proposed Class's
sensitive, private, and personal biometric data.

Unlike ID badges or time cards – which can be changed or replaced
if stolen or compromised – biometrics are unique, permanent
biometric identifiers associated with each employee. This exposes
Defendant's employees, including Plaintiff, to serious and
irreversible privacy risks. Recognizing the need to protect its
citizens from situations like these, Illinois enacted the Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), specifically to regulate
companies that collect and store Illinois citizens' biometrics.

As an employee/worker of the Defendant, the Plaintiff was required
to "clock in" and "clock out" of work shifts by having his
fingerprint scanned by a biometric timeclock which identified each
employee, including the Plaintiff. Notwithstanding the clear and
unequivocal requirements of the law, the Defendant disregards
employees' statutorily protected privacy rights and unlawfully
collects, stores, and uses employees' biometric data in violation
of BIPA.

Specifically, the Defendant has violated and continues to violate
BIPA because it did not and, upon information and belief, continues
not to: Properly inform Plaintiff and others similarly situated in
writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their
fingerprint(s) were being collected, stored, disseminated and used,
as required by BIPA; Provide a publicly available retention
schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying Plaintiff's and
other similarly-situated individuals' fingerprint(s), as required
by BIPA; Receive a written release from Plaintiff and others
similarly situated to collect, store, disseminate or otherwise use
their fingerprint(s), as required by BIPA; and Obtain consent from
Plaintiff and others similarly situated to disclose, redisclose, or
otherwise disseminate their biometric identifiers and/or biometric
information to a third party as required by BIPA.

The Plaintiff and the putative Class are aggrieved by Defendant's
failure to destroy their biometric data when the initial purpose
for collecting or obtaining such data has been satisfied or within
three years of employees' last interactions with the company, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant at its location in Illinois.

Randhurst Deli, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with places of
business in Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
          Adam Florek, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
          818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          Phone: 314-833-4825
          Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com
                 plesko@peifferwolf.com
                 aflorek@peifferwolf.com


SAFEMOON LLC: Faces Suit Over Misleading Promotions, Tokenomics
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brenden Rearick, writing for InvestorPlace, reports that SafeMoon
(SFM-USD) is a hot topic across the crypto space today, and not for
good reason. Rather, a SafeMoon class-action lawsuit is being
levied by holders who say the project duped them. Nearly one full
year into the project's existence, SafeMoon is now faced with more
adversity than ever before, and investors are interested to see how
the crypto fairs.

Since its founding in March 2021, SafeMoon has been a polarizing
altcoin. Scam allegations have followed the project from some of
its earliest moments. Even with its V2 rebrand, which retired the
SAFEMOON token and launched the SFM crypto, its price has been
rocky.

And now, SafeMoon is facing further reckoning.

The new lawsuit against the project questions developers over their
relationships with celebrity spokespeople. Here's what you need to
know.

SafeMoon Class Action Lawsuit Clouds Celebrity Endorsements
The SafeMoon class-action lawsuit was filed on Feb. 17.

The suit targets SafeMoon LLC and its various executives such as
founder and CEO John Karony. However, it also targets YouTubers
Jake Paul and Ben Phillips, as well as musicians Soulja Boy, Nick
Carter and Lil Yachty.

These celebrities all tweeted various promotions of SafeMoon at one
point or another. These tweets also typically preceded gains in
SAFEMOON's value.

These tweets, the suit alleges, are misleading promotions about how
much a SafeMoon investment can actually yield. As such, the suit
asserts that the project is a Ponzi scheme.

Allegedly, these celebrities then completed a "slow rug pull,"
effectively slowly selling off their assets over time so as not to
alert the victims of the scam.

Complaints in the lawsuit don't limit themselves to just celebrity
endorsements. Plaintiffs also chastise SafeMoon's tactic of making
guides that advise investors to buy and hold, and discouraging
selling.

They also target the tokenomics on which SafeMoon is built for
being unfair to holders. The suit says the selling penalties are "a
system that penalizes buyers for anything but holding their
tokens."

As these accusations surface, SFM is seeing a downturn in price. As
of this afternoon, SFM is losing over 6%. Trading volume, however,
is trending up by nearly 12%. [GN]


SALT MEDITERRANEAN: Escobar Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Salt Mediterranean
LLC, et al. The case is styled as David Bahena Escobar, and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Salt Mediterranean LLC doing
business as: Salt Mediterranean Restaurant, Ahmet Kiral, Yavuz
Gulu, Case No. 1:22-cv-01699 (S.D.N.Y., March 1, 2022).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Salt Mediterranean Restaurant is a restaurant located in New York
City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Catalina Sojo, Esq.
          CSM LEGAL P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street #4510
          New York, NY 10128
          Phone: (212) 317-1200
          Fax: (212) 317-1620
          Email: catalina@csm-legal.com


SBL ENTERPRISES: Xiong Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
BAO XIONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SBL ENTERPRISES LLC d/b/a TAILORED MANAGEMENT, Case No.
2:22-cv-01178-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio, March 2, 2022) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Tailored Management failed to pay
Xiong, and other hourly workers, overtime as required by federal
law. Instead, Tailored Management paid Xiong, and workers like her,
the same hourly rate, even when they were working more than 40
hours in a workweek, says the suit.

Xiong was an hourly employee of Tailored Management. Xiong worked
for Tailored Management from June 2021 to November 2021.

Xiong represents a collective of similarly situated employees under
29 U.S.C. section 216(b) (the FLSA Collective). The FLSA Collective
is defined as:

   All hourly employees of SBL Enterprises LLC d/b/a Tailored
   Management who were, at any point in the past three years,
   paid "straight time for overtime."

SBL ENTERPRISES LLC d/b/a TAILORED MANAGEMENT is a staffing and
recruiting company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          Brian R. Noethlich, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
          4200 Regent Street
          Columbus, OH 43219
          Telephone: (614) 221-4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
          E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
                  bnoethlich@barkanmeizlish.com

               - and -

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

SEA MAR: Faces Data Breach Class Action Over Cyberattack
--------------------------------------------------------
HIPAA Journal reports that Seattle, WA-based Sea Mar Community
Health Centers is facing a class action lawsuit over a cyberattack
in which the protected health information of 688,000 individuals
was compromised. The breach came to light in June 2021 when files
stolen in the attack were posted on the Marketo dark web leak
site.

Databreaches.net spotted the leaked data on the Marketo data leak
site in June 2021 and contacted Sea Mar. In October 2021, Sea Mar
sent notification letters to affected individuals and explained
that the hackers gained access to its network between December 2020
and March 2021 and exfiltrated sensitive data including names,
addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and health
information. The data breach was reported to the HHS' Office for
Civil Rights the same month as affecting 688,000 current and former
patients. Affected individuals were offered complimentary credit
monitoring and identity theft protection services for 12 months.

According to Databreaches.net, the threat group behind the attack
claimed to have stolen 3TB of data from Sea Mar. There may also
have been a further disclosure of the stolen data by a threat group
known as Snatch Team. Databreaches.net found multiple references to
Sea Mar in a 22TB set of data, as did a researcher at Intel. In
addition to being posted on dark web leak sites, Databreaches.net
said the stolen data had also been posted on at least two clear net
leak sites -- Those operated by Marketo and Snatch Team.

The latest lawsuit -- Hall v. Sea Mar Community Health Centers --
was filed in Washington state superior court on behalf of former
Sea Mar patient Alan Hall and "more than 650,000" others affected
by the data breach.

The lawsuit alleges Sea Mar was negligent for failing to implement
adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols to
protect patient and employee information and maintained sensitive
patient data "in a reckless manner." Sea Mar is alleged to have
failed to disclose it did not have adequately robust computer
systems and security practices and was not properly monitoring its
network for intrusions, which allowed the threat actors to access
its systems for four months. The lawsuit also alleges Sea Mar
delayed issuing breach notifications, which were sent around 10
months after the initial intrusion and 4 months after the data
breach was discovered.

The lawsuit alleges the plaintiff and class members are exposed to
a present and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft because
their sensitive data is in the hands of data thieves and has been
made available to other cybercriminals through the leaking of the
data on the dark web.

The plaintiffs and class members are alleged to have suffered
injury and ascertainable losses due to the threat of fraud and
identity theft, loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket
expenses, the value of their time spent mitigating the effects of
the cyberattack and data breach, and loss of value of their
personal information.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, nominal damages,
reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, and injunctive relief,
including investment in cybersecurity to better protect patient and
employee data, submitting to future annual data security audits,
and the provision of at least three years of identity theft and
credit monitoring services to victims of the data breach. [GN]

SONY INTERACTIVE: Seeks Dismissal of Discrimination Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Max Fagandini, writing for Gamepur, reports that back in November,
Sony's PlayStation division was hit with a class-action lawsuit
alleging gender discrimination and pay disparity. It was a major
step for those agitating for fairer working conditions in the
company, but largely got lost among all the noise of the myriad
scandals surrounding Activision Blizzard at the time.

Sony may have recently moved for a dismissal of the case, however,
according to Axios reporter Stephen Totilo. In a seemingly
innocuous comment in the opening to Axios Gaming newsletter,
written by Totilo and Megan Farokhmanesh, he mentions that the
company had asked a court to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming that
plaintiff Emma Majo "failed to cite enough facts to have a case."
This is despite the dozen or so claims, both personal and
class-wide, made in the 40-page lawsuit, with diversity-related
statistics backing up anecdotal experience.

It isn't unusual for large companies to try and mitigate or dismiss
legal claims altogether rather than fight them in the courts. Just
look at Activision Blizzard's ongoing fight to de-fang the lawsuit
levelled against it by the California Department of Fair Employment
and Housing, by attempting to narrow the scope of the suit. Then
again, perhaps it's better to focus on the Sony lawsuit for now,
lest Majo's case against PlayStation be overshadowed once again.
[GN]

STREAMLABS LLC: Leventhal Sues Over Automatic Renewal Subscription
------------------------------------------------------------------
ZARA LEVENTHAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. STREAMLABS LLC.Case No. 3:22-cv-01330-LB (N.D. Cal.,
March 2, 2022) is a class action on behalf of a nationwide class
comprised of all persons in the United States who were unknowingly
enrolled in Streamlabs Pro automatic renewal subscription and were
then billed $5.99 per month for the subscription.

Streamlabs is a company that offers live streaming software that
enables video streamers to broadcast their live stream on platforms
such as YouTube and Twitch, and to monetize their broadcasts by
collecting donations from viewers through third-party payment
processors such as PayPal.

According to the complaint, consumers across the country often get
unknowingly signed up for Streamlabs Pro auto-renewal subscription
when they donate to streamers through Streamlabs and add a GIF or
effect to that one-time donation. As a result, they unknowingly end
up with recurring charges on their credit or debit cards from
Streamlabs for months or even years, leaving them confused, angry,
and stressed by the charges because Streamlabs failed to make them
aware of the enrollment and automatic renewal nature of the
subscription, the recurring charges as part of the automatic
renewal plan, as well as the length of the automatic renewal
period, and failed to obtain their affirmative consent to
enrollment and the automatic renewal subscription before charging
them, the lawsuit says.

As testament to Streamlab's alleged deceptive business practices,
online platforms such as Twitter, YouTube, and Reddit are exploding
with negative reviews regarding Streamlab's deceiving practices.
For example, in the comment sections of several YouTube videos
discussing how to cancel Streamlabs Pro subscription, many people
complained about their unknowing enrollment in Streamlabs Pro, as
well as the surprising bills they received from Streamlabs for
months. Similarly, Reddit contains many discussion threads titled
"Streamlabs Charged me?," "Streamlabs Pro Subscription Warning,"
and "Charged 5.99$ without Consent on Streamlabs."

In August 2020, the Plaintiff donated $5.00 to a streamer through
Streamlabs and added a GIF or an effect to emphasize her donation
alert. However, she was not made aware by the Defendant that by
adding a GIF or an effect to her one-time donation she was
subscribing to Streamlabs Pro and that the subscription
automatically renews on a monthly basis until it is cancelled. As a
result, the Plaintiff was automatically enrolled in a Streamlabs
Pro subscription and since then, she had been charged $5.99 every
month when the subscription automatically renewed. The Plaintiff
noticed a total charge of $59.90 on her PayPal account in May 2021.
Shocked and confused, she contacted Streamlabs inquiring about the
unexpected bills. Streamlabs agreed to cancel her Streamlabs Pro
membership, but refused to refund her all of the recurring charges
from the subscription, the lawsuit added.

The Defendant's alleged conduct violates the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code Section 1770(a)(5) and
Section 1770(a)(9), which, respectively, prohibits any person in a
transaction intended to result or that results in the sale of
services to any consumer to engage in unfair or deceptive acts or
practices to (1) present that goods or services have
characteristics which they do not have; and to (2) advertise goods
or services with intent not to sell them as advertised. The
Defendant's alleged conduct also violates the California Unfair
Competition Law, California Civil Code Section 17200, which
prohibits any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or
practice, or false, deceptive, or misleading advertising.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
          Kristin J. Moody, Esq.
          A. Chowning Poppler, Esq.
          BERMAN TABACCO
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          E-mail: jtabacco@bermantabacco.com
                  kmoody@bermantabacco.com
                  cpoppler@bermantabacco.com

               - and -

          Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
          Hairong Basil, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600
          E-mail: pavery@wolfpopper.com
                  hbasil@wolfpopper.com

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: PAGA Class Settlement Ruling Discussed
------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Fuchs, Esq., and James Sigel, Esq., of Morrison & Foerster
LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that the Court addresses
objectors' challenges to the approval of a settlement of class and
California Labor Code Private Attorney General claims, and
considers the propriety of certifying a class with parties who
experienced variable injuries.

PECK v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY OF ARIZONA, LLC

The Court holds that a non-party employee cannot appeal the
settlement of a California PAGA claim but vacates the district
court's order applying a presumption of reasonableness in approving
a class settlement.

The panel: Judges M. Smith, Ikuta, and Steele (M.D. Fla.), with
Judge M. Smith writing the opinion.

Key highlight: "The district court not only applied the same
presumption that we reversed in Roes, but it actually cited the
very language from the district court's order in Roes that we
criticized. Having had not only the benefit of our decision in
Roes, but also the cases preceding it applying the heightened
standard, the district court should not have applied that
presumption."

Background: Various plaintiffs -- drivers for Swift, a trucking
company -- sued Swift, alleging that it had violated California
Labor Code provisions requiring it to fully indemnify its
employees. The plaintiffs advanced claims both as a putative class
action and under California's Labor Code Private Attorney General
Act (PAGA). A class was never certified. Eventually, the parties
reached a $7.75 million settlement agreement, with $7.25 million
going to the class claims and the remainder to the PAGA claim.

Two Swift drivers, Lawrence Peck and Sadashiv Mares, objected to
the settlement agreement. The district court rejected the
objections and approved the settlement agreement, and both Peck and
Mares appealed.

Result: The Court dismissed in part and vacated in part. First, the
Court addressed the challenge to the PAGA settlement, holding that
because Peck was not a party to the PAGA litigation he could not
appeal from the settlement of that litigation. As the Court
explained, a PAGA action is distinct from a class action: whereas a
class action is a collection of individual claims, a PAGA action is
a representative action brought on behalf of the state. And
"[b]ecause they have no comparable individual stake, objectors to a
PAGA settlement are not ‘parties' to a PAGA suit in the same
sense that absent class members are ‘parties' to a class action."
That was the case even if Peck might ultimately receive some
portion of the PAGA settlement, and even if he had brought his own
parallel PAGA action -- neither made him a party to this particular
PAGA litigation, as was required for him to appeal.

Second, the Court addressed the settlement of the class claims,
holding that the district court had applied the wrong legal
standard in approving it. The Court rejected Swift's argument that
Mares had waived this objection by failing to raise it in the
district court, explaining that "an objector need not be an oracle
and predict issues that will arise for the first time in the
district court's final order." In that final order, the district
court had stated that because the settlement agreement was reached
through arms-length, non-collusive negotiations, it was
"presumptively" reasonable. But the Ninth Circuit had specifically
disapproved this "presumption" in circumstances where there has
never been a class certified -- circumstances that require "a more
searching legal standard." The Court concluded it could not deem
the invocation of this standard harmless, as the district court
"overlayed its entire discussion of the settlement agreement with
the erroneous presumption." Thus, the Court vacated the district
court's approval and remanded for it to apply the correct legal
standard.

LARA v. FIRST NAT'L INS. CO. OF AMERICA

The Court holds that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in concluding that factual variations among putative
class members in a suit challenging auto insurance practices
precluded class certification.

Panel: Judges Gould, Bennett, and R. Nelson, with Judge R. Nelson
writing the opinion.

Key highlight: "[F]iguring out whether each individual putative
class member was harmed would involve an inquiry specific to that
person. More particularly, it would involve looking into the actual
preaccident value of the car and then comparing that with what each
person was offered, to see if the offer was less than the actual
value. Because this would be an involved inquiry for each person,
common questions do not predominate."

Background: Plaintiffs Leeana Lara and Cameron Lindquist totaled
their vehicles, then filed insurance claims with Liberty Mutual.
For totaled vehicles -- meaning cars so damaged that fixing them
does not make sense -- Liberty attempts to determine the car's
value before the accident. To do that, Liberty works with another
company, CCC Intelligence Solutions, which prepares a valuation
report. CCC surveys comparable vehicles at dealerships across the
country, then adjusts its estimates based on the actual
pre-accident condition of the totaled car; CCC may adjust its
estimate upward or downward. After receiving CCC's report, Liberty
makes an offer to the insured. In preparing offers for Lara and
Lindquist, Liberty relied on CCC's report and valued their vehicles
in part with a downward adjustment.

Plaintiffs sued both Liberty and CCC for damages, alleging that
Liberty breached the insurance contract and that both companies
violated Washington's unfair trade practices law. After the
district court denied Liberty's motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs asked
the court to certify a class of all people whose valuations
included the disputed adjustment. The district court denied the
certification request, finding that there was no predominance or
superiority.

Results: The Ninth Circuit affirmed. First, the Court held that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that common
questions do not predominate. It reasoned that both breach of
contract and trade practices claims require showing an injury, and
that the injury analysis required an individualized determination
for each plaintiff depending on their unique experience with
Liberty's vehicle evaluation process. Plaintiffs argued that the
district court erred in interpreting Washington's insurance
regulations, but the Ninth Circuit rejected that argument as
irrelevant. As the Court explained, only the Washington insurance
commissioner can prosecute regulatory violations, and violations
without proof of injuries are insufficient to claim breach of
contract. Second, for much the same reason, the panel held that the
district court likewise had nor abused its discretion in finding
that Plaintiffs could not satisfy the superiority requirement,
either. [GN]

TARGET CORP: Up & Up Products Caused Drowsiness, Miner Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHERRY MINER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 2:22-cv-00380 (D. Nev.,
March 1, 2022) alleges that Defendant's Non-Drowsy Up & Up Products
state prominently on the front of their label that they are
"Non-Drowsy" products though the products allegedly contain
Dextromethorphan Hydrobromide (DXM).

According to the complaint, the Products cause drowsiness, which in
effect destroys the primary reason for purchasing the Products in
the first place -- for use when consumers do not want to be drowsy.
By prominently labeling these products as "Non-Drowsy" Defendant
led Plaintiff and other consumers to believe that the Non-Drowsy Up
& Up Products do not cause drowsiness, that drowsiness is not a
side effect of those products. Defendant also led Plaintiff and
other consumers to believe that those products are for use during
the day, and can be safely and satisfactorily consumed during
waking hours, at work, and while driving and operating machinery,
says the suit.

In this way, the Defendant misled Plaintiff and other consumers
about the effects of the Non-Drowsy Up & Up Products. This was a
material misrepresentation that Plaintiff—and other reasonable
consumers—relied on when deciding to buy the products. Had
Defendant been truthful, the Plaintiff and other consumers would
not have purchased the products or would have paid less for them,
added the suit.

The Defendant makes, sells, and markets "Up & Up" over-the-counter
cough, cold and flu medicine (the "Non-Drowsy Up & Up Products" or
"Products"), including generic Up & Up versions of brands like
DayQuil and Robitussin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Don Springmeyer, Esq.
           KEMP JONES, LLP
           3800 Howard Hughes Pkwy., 17th Floor
           Las Vegas, NV 89169
           Telephone: (702) 385-6000
           Facsimile: (702) 385-6001
           E-mail: d.springmeyer@kempjones.com

                - and -

           Yeremey O. 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

TIKTOK INC: Settles Class Action Over Data Collection for $2-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Regina Leader-Post reports that TikTok has agreed to pay $2 million
to settle a Canadian class-action lawsuit, which alleged that the
popular social media app had illegally collected and commercialized
personal data from its users in the country. The agreement comes
after the company settled a similar lawsuit in the U.S. for US$92
million last year.

The Canadian lawsuit, filed in December 2020, stemmed from two
separate claims at the Supreme Court of British Columbia, one filed
on behalf of a minor, which alleged TikTok had unlawfully harvested
their private information.

Talking Point
The class action alleged the popular video-sharing platform took
advantage of a loophole in an older Android system to unlawfully
collect user data. The tactic, an expert said, could have affected
at least 89 per cent of the Android smartphone owners in Canada. A
parallel case was filed in the U.S. in 2020 where similar charges
were brought up and TikTok's parent company ByteDance has agreed to
a US$92-million settlement.

"The defendants collected, used, retained, and commercialized the
private information of underage users without obtaining parental
consent of the underage users, and profited from it," reads a court
document filed in October 2021 on behalf of the plaintiffs.

In another court document filed in February 2021, TikTok denied all
allegations and stated that its data collection in Canada was done
"lawfully" and with users' consent.

"There is no basis whatsoever for the plaintiff's claims," the
document reads.

The company also said that its Singapore-based TikTok Pte. Ltd. was
the one providing services to Canada during the period covered by
the claim. Therefore, it argued, Singapore's law should have been
considered to have jurisdiction over the use of the app and the
company's interactions with its users.

According to the amended terms of the settlement from December
2021, the $2 million, after the deduction of legal and other fees,
will be donated to the Law Foundation of British Columbia, the
Canadian Centre for Child Protection, Kids Help Phone and Boys &
Girls Clubs of Canada. While an approval hearing was held late in
January, a judge has yet to approve the deal.

TikTok declined to comment on the record to The Logic about the
settlement.

According to the terms of the settlement filed with the court,
agreeing to the payout does not mean the company admits to any
wrongdoing, and TikTok denies all allegations against it, its
Singaporean division or its China-based parent company ByteDance.

The class action alleged that TikTok surreptitiously collected the
MAC addresses of Android users for at least 18 months before Nov.
18, 2019, by exploiting a bug in the Google-owned Android mobile
operating system and adding "an extra layer of data encryption" to
conceal the violation.

A MAC address, or media access control address, is a series of 12
digits assigned to all internet- or Bluetooth-ready electronics,
including mobile devices. Its collection is against Google's
policy. "Since at least 2015, both Google and Apple have banned the
collection of MAC addresses by apps available on the Google Play
Store and the iOS App Store, respectively," the settlement
agreement reads.

The claim also highlighted the continuing effect of such collection
as users typically cannot change the MAC address assigned to their
device.

"Because a MAC address is both unique and unchanging, it can be
used to track a user even if they opt out of data tracking, set the
AndroidOS system settings to prevent apps from tracking them, reset
their assigned unique advertising ID or delete an app and reinstall
it later," the settlement agreement reads.

In an affidavit filed as part of the lawsuit, Konstantin Beznosov,
a University of British Columbia computer-security professor, said
that by December 2019, because many Android users weren't using the
most updated version of the software, it was possible for TikTok to
collect MAC-address data from at least 89 per cent of Android
smartphones in Canada.

The Wall Street Journal broke the news of TikTok's collection of
users' MAC addresses in the U.S. in August 2020. According to that
report, the company collected the addresses for at least 15 months
before it released an update in November 2019 that ended the
practice, amid intense scrutiny from Washington over the ByteDance
being headquartered in Beijing.

ByteDance first launched its video-sharing platform in mainland
China under the name Douyin in 2016, two years after a similar app
that's now its subsidiary, Musical.ly, was founded and gained
popularity among U.S. teens. Later that year, encouraged by
Douyin's domestic success, ByteDance launched an overseas version
under another name, TikTok. The next year, it acquired Musical.ly,
at the time its main competitor, for an estimated US$1 billion, and
later folded its users into TikTok's platform.

As TikTok became popular in North America, however, concerns over
its security and data privacy also rose. In 2020, Wells Fargo asked
employees to remove TikTok from their work phones, while Amazon
sent a company-wide email (which it later retracted) asking
employees to delete the app from certain devices.

Although TikTok has said it doesn't share data with the Chinese
government and wouldn't do so if asked, it hasn't satisfied all its
skeptics. In 2020, the Indian government permanently banned TikTok
and dozens of China-linked apps from operating in that country,
citing security concerns.

As U.S. president, Donald Trump demanded a full sale of TikTok to a
U.S. owner, threatening to shut it down otherwise. That led to an
agreement on a potential deal between Oracle, Walmart and
ByteDance, which was abandoned after Trump's November 2020 election
loss to Joe Biden. However, the Trump administration's efforts may
have put pressure on the company to settle a class-action lawsuit
in the U.S., where claims similar to those in the Canadian suit
were brought in Illinois court. In that settlement, ByteDance
agreed to pay US$92 million to its U.S. users.

In an amendment to the Canadian class action, ByteDance was removed
as a defendant.

With files from Aleksandra Sagan in Vancouver [GN]

TRANSFORM SR HOME: Carlson Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transform SR Home
Improvement Products LLC. The case is styled as Lisa Anne Carlson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Transform SR Home Improvement Products LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Case No. 1:22-cv-00831 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 15,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

Transform SR Home Improvement Products --
https://www.transformhomepro.com/ -- provide a full-cycle, turn-key
solution for home improvement needs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juneitha S. Shambee, Esq.
          SHAMBEE LAW OFFICE, LTD.
          701 Main Street, #200A
          Evanston, IL 60602
          Phone: (773) 741-3602
          Email: juneitha@shambeelaw.com


U.S. SOCCER: Settles Equal Pay Class Action
-------------------------------------------
Kyle Bonn, writing for The Sporting News, reports that the U.S.
Soccer Federation and the U.S. women's national soccer team (USWNT)
reached a settlement regarding the equal pay lawsuit brought by the
USWNT, with the two parties agreeing on an arrangement that brings
to a close one of the most high-profile legal disputes in modern
American sports history.

The lawsuit, filed nearly three years ago, sought to secure equal
pay for the U.S. Women's National Team compared to the men's
national team.

The agreement came two weeks before a scheduled hearing in early
March, when the players were set to appeal a May 2020 judgement
that saw a U.S. District Court judge throw out the claim of unequal
pay due to insufficient evidence.

Below is all you need to know about the lawsuit, the settlement,
reaction from both sides, and what this means moving forward.

What was the equal pay soccer lawsuit?
Filed in March 2019, the USWNT brought a class-action lawsuit
against U.S. Soccer, alleging gender discrimination that affected
the pay scale between the men's and women's national teams.

Initially filed by 28 players just months before traveling to the
2019 Women's World Cup in France, and led by superstar forward Alex
Morgan, the women argued that their results as three-time World Cup
champions were not compensated on an even scale as the men's side.

Both sides had very different views on what the numbers actually
showed and went back and forth in the media with their claims. One
of the obvious disparities and sticking points surfaced in the
bonus payments made by FIFA to men's and women's national teams
participating in their respective World Cups, which FIFA
exclusively manages and controls.

The lawsuit became an ugly dark mark on the sport, with fans
voicing their support for players at matches. It created a public
relations nightmare for the federation and "complicated the sale of
federation sponsorships and broadcast rights," according to a Wall
Street Journal article.

While fans, much of the media, and even President Joe Biden
championed the players, the lawsuit was not guaranteed to succeed
for the players, especially following the decision by District
Court judge R. Gary Klausner to throw out the claim in May 2020.

That decision was appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
in Pasadena, California, but there was no guarantee that the
hearing that was scheduled for March 7, 2022 would fall in favor of
the players.

What is the USWNT settlement with U.S. Soccer?
In the agreement announced on Feb. 22, the USWNT and its 61
class-action plaintiffs were awarded a $24 million settlement.

That settlement includes $22 million in payments to the class, plus
an additional $2 million "into an account to benefit the USWNT
players in their post-career goals and charitable efforts related
to women's and girls' soccer." Each player can apply for up to
$50,000 from this portion of the fund.

U.S. Soccer also agreed to "commit to providing an equal rate of
pay going forward for the Women's and Men's National Teams in all
friendlies and tournaments, including the World Cup." There were no
further details on this agreement or what it tangibly means, with
the announcement simply stating that "details will be established
by the new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between U.S.
Soccer and the USWNT."

The settlement presents a massive step by the federation to mend
its relationship with the players. Because of the position of the
litigation and the initial decision in favor of the federation,
U.S. Soccer was by no means obligated to settle the lawsuit, and
doing so represents a major move to not just repair relationships
with the players, but also with sponsors and fans.

What is the equal pay settlement's contingency?
There is one major contingency to the settlement agreement between
the USWNT and U.S. Soccer.

As part of the agreement, the settlement is contingent upon the
successful ratification of a new CBA between U.S. Soccer and the
USWNT.

The current CBA expired on December 31, 2021, but was extended
through March 31, 2022 as the two parties continued negotiations on
a new deal. The additional time was welcome: In addition to the
existing lawsuit, women's soccer faced a reckoning in late 2021
with the surfacing of discrimination and abuse allegations in the
domestic National Women's Soccer League.

With the lawsuit now contingently settled, negotiations can resume
on the CBA, which will address salary structure and pay scale.
Having the lawsuit pending during those negotiations would have
made coming to an agreement extremely difficult.

It remains to be seen how the USWNT's collective bargaining
agreement will be similar or different to the USMNT version which
is also in the midst of being negotiated at the same time. It is
unclear with the men and women will come together and agree to
share all revenues evenly, a scenario which the U.S. Soccer
Federation has raised in the past.  

If a new CBA is agreed and ratified, the settlement will officially
close the litigation.

What did the USWNT say about the settlement?
The leaders of the USWNT class action have been emphatic about how
this settlement presents a major win for the players.

Alex Morgan and Megan Rapinoe appeared on national team, calling
the announcement a "monumental step forward in feeling valued."

Still, Rapinoe made a point to say that it shouldn't have come to
this point. "We really do feel like we won in so many ways, but to
even have to go through this at all is unacceptable," Rapinoe said,
"and I think everybody agrees with that."

The USWNT Players' Association also championed the result as a
victory for the players.

"The USWNTPA congratulates the players and their litigation team on
their historic success in fighting decades of discrimination
perpetuated by the U.S. Soccer Federation," the USWNTPA said in a
statement. "Although the settlement reached is an incredible
success, much work remains to be done"

"From the formation of the team in 1985 through the present, the
players on the Women's National Team – despite success on the
field with few parallels in any sport – have always been paid far
less than the men. Despite this, they achieved great success on the
field, and did so with fewer resources than the men's team, while
spending thousands of hours deeply involved in the negotiation of
collective bargaining agreements and the lawsuit that finally
forced the Federation to acknowledge the necessity for equal pay.

The settlement announced on Feb. 23 is an important step in
righting the many wrongs of the past."

What did U.S. Soccer say about the settlement?
U.S. Soccer president Cindy Parlow Cone, who played on the 1999
World Cup-champion women's team, was adamant that the settlement
presents a foundation for building a strong relationship between
the players and the federation moving forward, admitting that the
federation is looking to make amends.

"It wasn't an easy process to get to this point for sure," U.S.
Soccer's president, Cindy Parlow Cone told The New York Times. "The
most important thing here is that we are moving forward, and we are
moving forward together."

"I'll be the first to admit that the federation has made mistakes
in the past," Cone continued. "As a former player, I understand the
frustration of being treated that way." She added that the
agreement is "just one step towards rebuilding the relationship
with Megan and the rest of the team." [GN]

UPHOLD HQ: Rider Files Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uphold HQ Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Theodore Rider, Jesse W. Smith, Gilles
Boevi, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals v. Uphold HQ Inc., a South Carolina corporation; John
Does 1-10, individuals; Case No. 1:22-cv-01602-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Feb.
25, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.

Uphold -- https://uphold.com/ -- is a multi-asset digital money
platform offering financial services to a global market.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Karl Stephen Kronenberger, Esq.
          KRONENBERGER BURGOYNE, LLP
          150 Post Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Phone: (415) 955-1155
          Fax: (415) 955-1158
          Email: karl@KRInternetLaw.com


VERCY LLC: Johnson-Gruver Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vercy LLC. The case
is styled as Virginia Johnson-Gruver, individually and on behalf of
other similarly situated v. Vercy LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00047-KGB
(E.D. Ark., Feb. 25, 2022).

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

Vercy -- https://vercytax.com/ -- offers personalized tax
preparation, resolution, and consultation services and a full range
of tax relief services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Phone: (615) 485-0018
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com

               - and -

          Jason Michael Ryburn, Esq.
          RYBURN LAW FIRM
          650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 231
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Phone: (501) 228-8100
          Email: jason@ryburnlawfirm.com


W. STANCIL STARNES: Goldfarb Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against W. Stancil Starnes,
et al. The case is styled as Morton Goldfarb, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. W. Stancil Starnes,
Bruce D. Angiolillo, Dana S. Hendricks, Edward L. Rand Jr., Frank
A. Spinosa D.P.M., Howard Friedman, Katisha T. Vance M.D., Kendrick
D. Adkins Jr., M. James Gorrie, Maye Head Frei, Michael Boguski,
ProAssurance Corporation, Robert E. Flowers M.D., Samuel A. Di
Piazza Jr., Thomas A.S. Wilson Jr., M.D., Case No. 2022-0186-MTZ
(Del. Chancery Ct., Feb. 25, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties."

Mr. Starnes is the Executive Chairman of ProAssurance Corporation
-- https://www.proassurance.com/ -- a property and casualty company
that sells professional liability insurance to doctors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Uebler, Esq.
          MCCOLLOM D'EMILIO SMITH UEBLER LLC
          Little Falls Centre Two
          2751 Centerville Road, Suite 401
          Wilmington, DE 19808
          Phone: (302) 468-5963
          Email: tuebler@mdsulaw.com

               - and-

          Jeremy J. Riley, Esq.
          Phone: (302) 468-5960
          Fax: (302) 691-6834


W.K.S. RESTAURANT: Lopez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against W.K.S. Restaurant
Corporation. The case is styled as Rodrigo "Kristy" Ramirez Lopez,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. W.K.S.
Restaurant Corporation, W.K.S. LA Restaurant Corporation, Case No.
22STCV05880 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 16, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."

WKS Restaurant Group -- https://www.wksusa.com/ -- operates some of
the nations favorite brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tagore O. Subramaniam, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Ave., Ste. 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266-2497
          Phone: 310-531-1900
          Fax: 310-531-1901
          Email: tagore@maternlawgroup.com


WESTERN SKY DAIRY: Rafael Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Western Sky Dairy,
LLC. The case is styled as Euligio Rafael, on behalf of himself,
for all similarly situated persons, and the general public v.
Western Sky Dairy, LLC, Case No. BCV-22-100459 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Kern Cty., Feb. 28, 2022).

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

Western Sky Dairy is a manufacturer in Bakersfield,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Farrah Mirabel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE FARRAH MIRABEL
          1070 Stradella Rd, Los Angeles, CA 90077
          Phone: 714-972-0707
          Fax: 949-417-1796
          Email: fmesq@fmirabel.com


WK INDUSTRIAL: Rathke Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA & WWPCL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH RATHKE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. WK INDUSTRIAL SERVICES CORP., Case No. 22-cv-263 (E.D.
Wis., March 1, 2022) is a collective and class action brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws for unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and agreed upon wages,
liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or
injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem
appropriate.

According to the complaint, the Defendant operated (and continues
to operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprived and
failed to compensate the Plaintiff and all other current and former
hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work
performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay for
each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, by failing to
compensate the employees with agreed-upon Shift Premiums, in
violation of the WWPCL, which resulted in overtime violations of
the FLSA.

WK Industrial Services Corporation provides industrial equipment.
The Company offers mechanical assembly, electrical installation,
and project management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

[*] Atkinson Andelson Attorneys Discuss H.R. 4445 Legislation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kieran D. Hartley, Esq. -- kieran.hartley@aalrr.com -- and Ronald
W. Novotny -- rnovotny@aalrr.com -- of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya,
Ruud & Romo, disclosed that California employers should be on alert
that President Biden signed new legislation curtailing the
arbitration of sexual harassment and sexual assault claims. Titled
the "Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual
Harassment Act," the new legislation was passed by Congress as H.R.
4445 and signed into law by the President on March 3, 2022. The
bipartisan motivation behind H.R. 4445 was to give survivors of
sexual abuse their day in court and eliminate the secretive element
of arbitration that often shields these accusations from public
scrutiny.

H.R. 4445 ushers in a sea change to arbitration law. In California,
arbitration agreements are ubiquitous and routinely signed by
employees during the onboarding process. Arbitration agreements
typically mandate that all workplace disputes be litigated and
resolved in a private arbitration rather than a court of law.
Arbitration agreements also typically include a class, collective,
and representative waiver preventing each employee from
representing any person other than themselves in their own
arbitration. Together, the arbitration agreement and class waiver
are effective tools to manage workplace litigation risks. This
practice is currently protected by the Federal Arbitration Act
("FAA"), which almost universally enforces arbitration agreements
with class, collective, and representative waivers, subject to
narrow legal defenses under contract law and narrow exceptions for
certain types of claims.

H.R. 4445 amends the FAA by exempting sexual harassment and assault
claims from arbitration agreements and "joint-action" (i.e. class,
collective, and representative) waivers under certain conditions.
It does so by giving the accuser, and the accuser alone, the right
to "elect" to invalidate the arbitration agreement or joint-action
waiver in a sexual harassment or sexual assault case. In reality,
every accuser will elect to invalidate these agreements. The fact
that the agreements are not invalid until the accuser elects it may
be an important distinction for upholding the legality of
agreements challenged on other grounds.

Importantly, the new legislation only covers "predispute"
agreements, meaning arbitration agreements and joint-action waivers
executed before the dispute at issue arises. In the employment
context, where agreements are usually part of the onboarding
packet, most agreements will be "predispute." But any agreement
entered after the claim arose—for instance, a revised arbitration
agreement signed after a sexual harassment incident occurred—is
unlikely to be affected by H.R. 4555.

Additionally, the legal subject matter covered by H.R. 4445 is
broad. A "sexual assault dispute" includes any dispute involving a
nonconsensual sexual act or sexual contact prohibited by federal
criminal law or similar tribal or state law. A "sexual harassment
dispute" includes any dispute constituting sexual harassment under
federal, tribal, or state law.

It is also important to note that H.R. 4555 applies prospectively
and not retroactively, as it expressly states that the legislation
will apply to claims arising or accruing on or after the date of
enactment. This means that a predispute agreement is still valid
against any sexual harassment or assault claims that "arose" and
"accrued" before the law passed. This is certain to become a
flashpoint for litigation contesting when claims actually arose and
accrued.

Finally, H.R. 4445 applies to a "case" that "relates to" a sexual
assault dispute or sexual harassment dispute. It is not clear
whether this means that an entire lawsuit is shielded from
arbitration, or whether the court must keep the sexual harassment
or sexual assault causes of action in court and send the rest to
arbitration. Until this question is resolved, Plaintiffs might
strategically add irrelevant sexual harassment or sexual assault
allegations to commonplace employment lawsuits in an attempt to
shield themselves from arbitration.

Employers should bear in mind that H.R. 4445 may not be the last
major change to the FAA. In a statement extolling the success of
H.R. 4445, the Biden Administration called on Congress to enact
similar changes for other workplace claims, such as wage theft,
racial discrimination, and unfair labor practices. For now,
employers should prepare for the impact of H.R. 4445. Revisions to
arbitration agreements may be in order in light of H.R. 4445.
Employers with questions regarding the business implications of
H.R. 4445 or the use of arbitration agreements to manage workplace
disputes may contact the authors of this Alert or their usual
employment counsel at AALRR. [GN]

[*] Freedom Convoy Class Action Plaintiff to Pursue Claims, Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Monika Gul, writing for CityNews Everywhere, reports that the
demonstration may be over but the lead plaintiff in a class-action
lawsuit against the "Freedom Convoy" in downtown Ottawa says she
still is planning to hold participants to account.

The lawsuit on behalf of residents and businesses is looking for
more than $300 million in damages from truckers and donors.

Zexi Li, the face of the lawsuit, says she is still planning to
take protestors to court, arguing the damage has been done.

"We were tortured by sound for days, we were harassed in our
streets, we were honked at in the streets. They even honked at
animals and when I say honk, people have to really remember that
this isn't just like a car beep. This is a well over 100 decibels
of blaring horns that are blasting your ears at levels that can
cause deafness and hearing damage instantly," she told CityNews.

"The end of the day, these participants are all adults. They
knowingly made these decisions, we gave them ample opportunity to
leave and mitigate these consequences and they chose not to take
those offers. And at the end of the day, they don't deserve to get
off scot-free."

While some convoy participants have been arrested and face charges,
Li believes they should be held to account not just criminally but
through civil litigation as well.

"This is far from over, not only from a litigation perspective, not
only from an accountability perspective, but from the perspective
of this movement as a whole is very clear and misunderstood. Like,
there's a lot of misinformation spreading around out there," she
said.

Li adds, "It's just unbelievable, because they these people are
going to stop at nothing and based on the actions that we have seen
and the words that continue to spread, they have no plans on
stopping anytime soon."

She says she has received threats and online harassment since she
came forward to speak out against the protesters.

Li would also like to see an inquiry, arguing politicians and
police departments failed because things never would have gotten as
bad as they did -- if the law was upheld.

"Not only into the actions of the police department, but in
addition to that, the lack of action taken by the municipal,
provincial and federal governments it's lasted far longer than it
ever should have," she said.

"The response from all levels was incredibly disappointing and
complete. I keep saying this, but it was a complete dereliction of
duty from all of those that are supposed to protect us. They
decided to play political games, and they decided to be wishy washy
on the matter. Well, all of us suffered for it."

The lawyer representing residents and businesses in the
class-action lawsuit says he's hired private investigators to
identify individual truckers and has collected lists of license
plates.

He says damages will be sought from donors to the convoy,
demonstrators, a Bitcoin expert who has helped the demonstrators,
as well as protest organizers.[GN]

[*] Holland & Knight Attorneys Discuss ERISA Class Action Rulings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd D. Wozniak, Esq., Lindsey R. Camp, Esq., Chelsea Ashbrook
McCarthy, Esq., and Megan C. Eckel,E sq. of Holland & Knight,
disclosed that courts around the country continue to approach the
enforceability of class-action waivers and arbitration provisions
in ERISA plan documents differently. This alert discusses recent
decisions addressing these issues in ERISA litigation as district
courts evaluate the enforceability of arbitration provisions and
class-action waivers against plan participants.

Finding a Mandatory Class-Action Waiver and Arbitration Provision
Unenforceable
In Smith v. Brd. of Dirs. of Triad Mfg., Inc., 13 F.4th 613, 615
(7th Cir. 2021), the Seventh Circuit evaluated whether an
arbitration and class-action waiver provision that provides "[a]ll
Covered Claims must be brought solely in the Claimant's individual
capacity and not in a representative capacity or on a class,
collective, or group basis[,]" and that the "Claimant may not seek
or receive any remedy which has the purpose or effect of providing
additional benefits or monetary or other relief to any Eligible
Employee, Participant or Beneficiary other than Claimant" is
enforceable against a participant asserting ERISA § 502(a)(2)
claims. Id. (emphasis added)

In rendering its decision that this specific provision is
problematic, the Seventh Circuit observed that individual
arbitration is not incompatible with ERISA: "Because Smith
participated in a defined contribution plan, LaRue . . . governs,
and the [Supreme] Court made clear in LaRue that [ERISA 502(a)]
'authorize[s] recovery for fiduciary breaches that impair the value
of plan assets in a participant's individual account.'" Id. at 622
(citing LaRue, 552 U.S. at 256). Therefore, the narrow issue in
Smith was whether the specific arbitration provision at issue
conflicted with ERISA. The court found that the clause "Claimant
may not seek or receive any remedy which has the purpose or effect
of providing additional benefits or monetary or other relief to any
Eligible Employee, Participant or Beneficiary other than Claimant"
was problematic as it could arguably bar the award of any
injunctive relief (i.e., removal of a fiduciary) that is
specifically allowed under ERISA even in a single-plaintiff case.
Based on the Seventh Circuit's reasoning, it appears the
arbitration clause would have been fully enforceable had the
highlighted phrase "or other relief" been left out of the
arbitration provision.

On Sept. 10, 2021, the same day as the Smith decision, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware denied the defendants'
motion to dismiss and compel arbitration because the court found
that the plaintiff-participant had not consented to the plan's
arbitration provision. Henry v. Wilmington Tr., N.A., 2021 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 171927, 2021 WL 4133622 (D. Del. Sept. 10, 2021). In
Henry, the plan was amended after the initial ESOP formation
transaction to add a section titled "ERISA Arbitration and Class
Action Waiver." Despite that mandatory arbitration provision, the
plaintiff filed suit in federal court alleging the
defendant-trustee caused the plan to buy shares of the company's
stock for more than fair market value. In response, the defendants
moved to dismiss the complaint and compel individual arbitration.

The plaintiff argued that the arbitration provision was invalid
because he never gave voluntary and knowing consent to the
provision. The defendants asserted that the plan was governed by
Virginia state law and, thus, Virginia state law governed whether
the parties had a valid arbitration agreement. Relying on the Ninth
Circuit's decision in Dorman v. Charles Schwab, the defendants
argued that "[a] plan participant agrees to be bound by a provision
in the plan document when he participates in the plan while the
provision in in effect." 780 F. App'x 510, 512 (9th Cir. 2019). The
district court declined to follow Dorman because, in the district
court's opinion, the Ninth Circuit provided no reasoning for its
decision. Instead, the district court looked to Virginia state law
to determine whether the arbitration provision was valid. Because
at this stage of the proceedings, the plaintiff could plausibly
support his assertion that he did not have notice of the
arbitration provision and did not give consent, the district court
denied the motion without prejudice.

Because the court did not compel arbitration, it held that the
class-action waiver (which was part of the arbitration provision)
could not be enforced at that time. However, in a footnote, the
court cited to Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1614,
1628 (2018) to "suggest [] that very little will satisfy
[plaintiff's] burden [to displace the Federal Arbitration Act],
except a clear and express command by Congress that an arbitration
provision requiring a class action waiver is void." The court could
not "see that ERISA §§ 409(a) and 410(a) clear this hurdle."

The Henry court applied Virginia state contract law in analyzing
whether to enforce the arbitration and class-action waiver at
issue. The defendants may have had greater success if they had
argued that federal common law, not state law, governs and/or that
doctrines such as direct benefits estoppel avoid the necessity of
establishing a participant had the requisite knowledge of, and gave
consent to, the addition of the arbitration and class-action waiver
provision to the plan.

On Nov. 2, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York also denied a motion to compel individual arbitration,
holding that the plaintiff had the right under ERISA §§ 409(a)
and 502(a)(2) to recover remedies for the plan as a whole and that
this right could not be waived. Cedeno v. Argent Trust Co., 2021
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212926, 2021 WL 5087898 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2021).
In Cedeno, the plan document, adopted in 2017, included a section
titled "Mandatory and Binding Arbitration" and set forth a
procedure for resolving disputes. The plaintiff brought his
complaint alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties under ERISA, thereby causing the plan to suffer losses, and
sought relief on behalf of the plan as a whole.

Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration. The plaintiff
opposed the motion on the following ground:

the subsection of the arbitration procedure limiting an arbitration
to provide a remedy solely with respect to a participant's
individual account and to prevent the arbitrator from awarding any
relief for the benefit of the plan that goes beyond a benefit for
the individual participant's account is void, and because that
subsection is not severable from the arbitration procedure, the
entire arbitration procedure must fail, and defendants' motion to
compel arbitration must therefore be denied.

The defendants argued that a participant in a defined contribution
plan did not have the statutory right to seek plan-wide relief and
was limited to relief for that participant's individual account.
The defendants also argued that the plan document's arbitration
section included language preventing the plaintiff from recovering
losses to the entire plan. The district court found the defendants'
arguments unconvincing.

The Cedeno decision relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc., 552 U.S. 248 (2008)
and the limited nature of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
decision in Smith. As support, the district court concluded that
the plan's arbitration provision was unenforceable and "clearly
contrary to law, because it attempts to limit remedies that ERISA
expressly provides." Stated differently, the district court
concluded that a class-action waiver that prohibits a participant
from recovering any remedy under ERISA § 409(a) on behalf of all
other participants' plan accounts is necessarily invalid. The
Cedeno decision appears to have misapplied LaRue and Smith to reach
this result.

Enforcing a Mandatory Class-Action Waiver and Arbitration
Provision
On Jan. 20, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida granted the defendants' motion to compel individual
arbitration of the plaintiffs' ERISA claims, thus preventing the
plaintiffs from bringing the action on behalf of a putative class
of similarly situated individuals. Holmes v. Baptist Health S.
Fla., Inc., No. 21-22986-Civ-Scola, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10834,
2022 WL 180638 (Jan. 20, 2022). In Holmes, the employer sponsored a
defined contribution plan to facilitate employee retirement savings
in which each participant has a separate account based on the
amounts individually contributed. The plaintiffs alleged defendants
"breached their fiduciary duties by failing to review and contain
costs and by investing in high-cost investment funds despite the
availability of similar funds with lower costs or better
performance histories."

The plan was amended in 2020, pursuant to the plan sponsor's
unilateral ability to amend the plan, to include an arbitration
provision and class-action waiver. The arbitration provision also
"precludes individuals that bring an arbitration claim from
receiving 'remedial or equitable relief' that provides 'additional
benefits or monetary relief to any person … other than the
Claimant[.]'"

In response to the defendants' motion to compel arbitration, the
plaintiffs argued the arbitration agreement was not enforceable
because 1) the arbitration agreement and its waiver of certain
plan-wide remedies violated the "effective vindication" doctrine;
and 2) the arbitration agreement was not binding since it was added
to the plan by a unilateral amendment in 2020. The district court
addressed both arguments.

The plaintiffs first asserted that the plan's arbitration agreement
triggered the "effective vindication" doctrine, a judge-made
exception to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) that seeks to
balance the competing federal policies in enforcing arbitration
agreements and in vindicating the plaintiffs' rights to pursue
statutory remedies, because it prevented the effective vindication
of rights guaranteed in ERISA §§ 409(a) and 502(a)(2).

The plaintiffs relied on the Seventh Circuit's decision in Smith to
support their argument: "where the Seventh Circuit held that an
arbitration clause, which precluded relief that provided
'additional benefits or monetary or other relief to any' other
individual, was unenforceable under the effective vindication
doctrine, as the clause prohibited plan-wide relief that ERISA
expressly permitted." However, the defendants countered that such
plan-wide relief as sought by the plaintiffs was available only to
those who brought a class action on behalf of the plan and,
further, that any waiver of a remedy unique to a representative or
class action is permissible.

The district court declined to follow the Smith rationale and held
that the arbitration agreement at issue was valid and enforceable
given the FAA's pro-arbitration policy and the rarity with which
courts apply the effective vindication doctrine. Moreover, the
arbitration clause at issue was narrower than the one in Smith,
"[t]hus, while the arbitration clause in Smith completely denied
some types of statute-authorized relief to the Plan, the clause
here does not, as individual claimants can each recover the harm to
their defined contribution accounts, and they can recover Plan-wide
relief that does not provide additional benefits or monetary relief
to others."

Next, the plaintiffs contended that the arbitration agreement was
not binding on them because they did not knowingly or personally
agree to it when it was unilaterally adopted by the 2020 amendment.
The district court dismissed this argument because under ERISA §
409(a), the claims belong to the plan, not the individual
participants and, "[t]herefore, the relevant inquiry is not whether
individual participants agreed to the arbitration but whether the
Plan agreed to arbitrate." Because the plan expressly provided for
unilateral amendment by the plan sponsor, and the plan consented to
the 2020 amendment – which included the arbitration agreement and
class action waiver – the district court found that those
bringing claims on the plan's behalf must arbitrate.

Lastly, plaintiffs argued that the arbitration agreement was
binding only on those who were participating in the plan at the
time the arbitration agreement was added. The district court
restated its previous conclusion that because the plan agreed to
arbitration, any claims on behalf of the plan must be brought in
arbitration, regardless of the individual participant's status at
the time of the amendment.

In summary, the district court held that the plan consented to
arbitrate and that the plaintiffs who bring claims on behalf of the
plan must arbitrate their claims on an individual basis.

Conclusion and Considerations
As the law continues to develop on the enforceability of ERISA plan
arbitration provisions and class-action waivers, we should receive
additional guidance from the Circuit Courts of Appeal so that plan
sponsors who want to include arbitration provisions and
class-action waivers in their plan document can do so knowing they
will be enforced.

Holland & Knight's ERISA litigators have significant experience
advising plan sponsors regarding the pros and cons of including
arbitration provisions and class-action waivers in plan documents
and other employment-related documents and can help identify best
practices to increase the likelihood that those provisions, if
adopted, will be enforceable.

For more information or questions regarding these decisions or
ERISA, contact the authors or another member of Holland & Knight's
ERISA Litigation Team. [GN]

[*] U.S. Class Action Defense Spending Up 16% in 2021
-----------------------------------------------------
The 2022 Carlton Fields Class Action Survey reveals that U.S. class
action defense spending grew a record-breaking 16% in 2021,
crossing the $3 billion threshold for the first time. Class action
spending is expected to rise again in 2022.

This increase in defense spending relates to another key finding in
this year's report: companies can anticipate a 27% increase in
class action caseload in 2022. According to the survey, the current
portfolio reveals the highest number of both ongoing and total
matters since the inception of the survey 11 years ago.

Interestingly, the number of companies facing bet-the-company class
action matters dropped substantially -- seven times lower than in
2020 -- while lower exposure matters are on the rise. Specifically,
the number of companies facing lower exposure class action matters
grew more than 20 percentage points.

Corporate counsel identified COVID-19 as causing increased numbers
of labor and employment claims -- especially wage and hour,
discrimination, and workplace safety suits. The survey found that
companies expect these and other pandemic-related claims, along
with data privacy claims, to lead the next wave of class actions,
as work-from-home and hybrid models persist.

Corporate counsel also expect additional consumer fraud class
actions in the coming year. Notably, consumer fraud class actions
were also reported as posing the largest threat to companies,
particularly claims concerning the use of social media and
environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) disclosures
and practices.

Overall, corporate counsel reported that they rely on early case
assessment and proactive risk management as their primary
management strategies -- together accounting for two-thirds of the
strategies in use.

"We look at the facts and assess whether we have liability and then
do right by the people who are coming after us," said one survey
respondent, a vice president and assistant general counsel for a
global financial services company. "These are our customers with
whom we have a special relationship, and we take it seriously as
these are stakeholders in our enterprise."

John Clabby, a Carlton Fields shareholder who oversees the Class
Action Survey with shareholder Matthew Allen said, "From this
year's survey, it is clear that in-house counsel responsible for
class action management are having to do more with less. Each is
handling more class actions than in recent years, while overall
headcount for corporate counsel is down the equivalent of a full
attorney from 2018."

Allen added that this year's findings highlight the importance of
corporate counsel's remaining intentional in how they handle class
actions. "Class action plaintiffs' lawyers are getting more
creative, particularly in the COVID environment. Early case
assessment will offer the best strategy toward finding a solution
to resolving class actions in the most economical way.

"It is important that companies and their outside firms be vigilant
and proactive to mitigate their risk," said Allen.

To review the full survey's findings, download the 2022 Carlton
Fields Class Action Survey at https://ClassActionSurvey.com.
Additional key findings include:

   -- The number of settlements of open putative class actions
jumped as top legal decision-makers reported they were able to
settle their older matters. Claims-made settlements and changes to
business practices increased from last year, and were the most
common notable settlement features.

   -- More companies are opting for hourly rates to move through
their caseload after years of experimentation with alternative fee
arrangements.

   -- The increased caseload, variability of issues among cases,
and unpredictable staffing needs find in-house counsel increasingly
relying on outside counsel to defend class actions. Retaining
trusted counsel ranks as the most effective tool to
reduce and control class action cost.

   -- While companies used 15% fewer law firms overall for their
legal needs than in 2020, they continue to use a small group of law
firms as class action counsel -- 4.5 firms on average.

   -- Fewer companies than last year report defense costs for class
actions being paid for by insurance, but those that had coverage
stated that insurance was covering a larger percentage of costs.
This may reflect both savvy buyers and better-tailored insurance
products.

The 2022 Carlton Fields Class Action Survey is based on interviews
with general counsel or senior in-house counsel at more than 400
Fortune 1000 and other large companies. The survey, now in its 11th
year, is widely recognized as a powerful resource for in-house
counsel who want to manage class actions effectively and
efficiently. Surveyed companies had an average annual revenue of
$23.7 billion and median annual revenue of $14.1 billion. They
operate in more than 25 industries, including banking and financial
services, consumer goods, energy, high tech, insurance,
manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, professional services, and retail
trade.

About Carlton Fields: Carlton Fields has more than 330 attorneys
and government and financial services consultants serving clients
from offices in California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, New
Jersey, New York, and Washington, D.C. The firm is known for its
national litigation practice, including class action defense, trial
practice, white collar representation, and high-stakes appeals; its
insurance practice, including life and financial lines, property
and casualty, reinsurance, and title insurance; its regulatory
practice; and its handling of sophisticated business transactions
and corporate counseling for domestic and international clients.
For additional information, visit www.carltonfields.com. (Carlton
Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP.)

Contacts
Kate Barth (813) 229-4154 or kbarth@carltonfields.com [GN]


                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***