/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220407.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, April 7, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 64

                            Headlines

AGACI INC: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AMERICAN SOFT LINEN: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BELFOR USA: Rodriguez FLSA Suit Removed to N.D. California
BENSUSSEN DEUTSCH: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BETWEEN THE BUN: Faces Daniel Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.

BPS OPCO: Thompson Sues Over Traveling Merchandisers' Unpaid OT
CABELL HUNTINGTON: Blenko Bid to Certify Class Tossed w/o Prejudice
CHEMOURS CO: Nix, et al., Must File Class Cert. Bid by May 18
DELAWARE NORTH: Perez & DNC Terminated as Parties in Class Action
DELTA AIR: Scheduling Order Modified in Lomas Class Action

DJGN LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Benjamin Suit Alleges
DNH/ML PREMIER: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Robbins
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Scheduling Order Entered in Muha Class Suit
EYEQ IMAGING: Sholokhova Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
FIRST DATA: Settlement Class Initially Certified in Floyd Suit

FREEDOM FOREVER: Gomez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
GEORGE EISENHAUER: Motion to Comply Subpoena Filed in Miami Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Arbitration Selection in Chen-Oster Suit Due April 8
GOURMET NUT: Trail Mix Product Deceptively Marketed, Forrett Says
GREENWOOD HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cook Alleges

ICHIBAN GROUP: Bid for Reconsideration Tossed
IRAQ: Bid to Set Schedule for Further Proceedings Filed
ITS LOGISTICS: Filing of Initial Approval Bid Due June 15
JUUL LABS: Beaver County School Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
JUUL LABS: Briggs Labor Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to E.D.N.C.

JUUL LABS: Cattaraugus-Little Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Dickson Public Claims
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Lumberton Township Says
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Homer Community Alleges
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Sprague School Suit Claims

JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Harrison Suit Claims
JUUL LABS: Faces East Valley Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Faces Lamont School Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Faces Palm Springs Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Garfield County Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Utah

JUUL LABS: Granger School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Marketing
JUUL LABS: Grapeview School Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
JUUL LABS: Ludington Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Mich.
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Kittitas School Suit Says
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Oriskany Central Suit Says

JUUL LABS: Oneida-Herkimer-Madison Sues Over E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Pike County Says
JUUL LABS: Quilcene School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: Reading Community Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Mich.
JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Washington Suit Says

JUUL LABS: Westhill Central Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
JUUL LABS: Westmoreland Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Bid to Toss Seidner Suit Denied W/o Prejudice
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Baird Suit Moved From E.D. Va. to W.D. Pa.
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Morrill Suit Says

LASH PRINCESS: Guan Sues Over Lash Technicians' Unpaid Wages
LIBERTY POWER: Sapan Seeks Certification of Sub-class
MICHIGAN: Davis v. MDOC Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim
MISSISSIPPI: Court Stays Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Alexander v. MDOC
MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC: Vorise Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. Cal.

MRS BPO LLC: Heszkel Files Suit in New York Over FCRA Violations
MY USA HEALTH: Navarrette Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
NEO TECHNOLOGY: Settlement Deal in Portier Suit Gets Initial Nod
NEWREZ LLC: Unlawfully Assesses Loan Charges, Funk Suit Alleges
OHIO HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anderson Alleges

OLDS PRODUCTS: Quiroga Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA, WWPCL
OMNICARE INC: Ogungemi Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
PETZL AMERICA: Seeks to Strike Faulhaber's Class Action Claims
POWER HOME: Brennan Landy Files Bid for Class Certification
PREMIUM PARKING: Nunley Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Valet Drivers

RABIN PARKER: Faces Gathen Suit Over Illegal Collection Letters
RESPONDUS INC: Bids to Dismiss Patterson, Wu & Veiga Suits Denied
ROWDY MERMAID: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Tavarez Suit
ROYALTY CARPET: $30K Counsel Costs Award in Estrada Suit Reversed
ROYALTY CARPET: $465K Attys.' Fee Award in Estrada Suit Reversed

ROYALTY CARPET: Order Decertifying Dyer/Derian Class Reversed
RSCR CALIFORNIA: Class Cert. Deadlines Extended in Espinosa Suit
SAND H PARTNERS: Myers Seeks Overtime Pay for Driver Under FLSA
SEATTLE, WA: Oral Argument on Class Cert. Bid Set for April 20
SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Underpays Disability Representatives, Smith Says

SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO: Faces Dunham Suit Over Unlawful Surcharges
SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Faces Brnich Suit Over Defective AFCI Breakers
SMARTLINK LLC: Sarahong, et al., File Bid for Conditional Status
SOCLEAN INC: Litman Consumer Suit Moved From E.D. Va. to W.D. Pa.
SOUTHSIDE PIZZA: Gallant Seeks Proper Wages for Delivery Drivers

UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Without Prejudice Sirleaf v. ICE
UNITED STATES: HBA Directed to File Class Status Bid
VIVINT INC: Cunningham Gets More Time to File Class Cert Reply
VIVINT INC: Parties in Fitzhenry Suit Seek Sched Order Amendment

                            *********

AGACI INC: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Agaci, Inc. The case
is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Agaci, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02591-PAE-OTW
(S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2022).

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

Agaci -- https://agacistore.com/ -- is an online boutique featuring
different styles in young women's fashion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com

AMERICAN SOFT LINEN: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Soft Linen
LLC. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated v. American Soft Linen
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02613 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2022).

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

American Soft Linen -- https://americansoftlinen.com/ -- deliver
the softest and the most water absorbing turkish towels to
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BELFOR USA: Rodriguez FLSA Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RICHARD RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. BELFOR USA GROUP, INC.; BELFOR
ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.; OAKWOOD CONSTRUCTION AND RESTORATION SERVICES,
INC.; 1 800 WATER DAMAGE NORTH AMERICA, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 22CV394662, was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on March 31,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-02071 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, California Labor Code, and California's
Business and Professions Code including unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to
authorize and permit rest periods, non-compliant wage statements,
failure to maintain payroll records, wages not timely paid upon
termination, failure to timely pay wages during employment, failure
to provide reporting time pay, unreimbursed business expenses, and
unlawful business practices.

Belfor USA Group, Inc. is a disaster recovery company,
headquartered in Birmingham, Michigan.

Belfor Environmental, Inc. is an environmental services company
based in Colorado.

Oakwood Construction and Restoration Services, Inc. is a
construction company in Anaheim, California.

1-800 Water Damage North America, LLC is a property damage
restoration company, headquartered in Birmingham, Michigan. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         E. Joseph Connaughton, Esq.
         Jennifer M. Fontaine, Esq.
         PAUL, PLEVIN, SULLIVAN & CONNAUGHTON LLP
         101 West Broadway, Ninth Floor
         San Diego, CA 92101-8285
         Telephone: (619) 237-5200
         Facsimile: (619) 615-0700
         E-mail: jconnaughton@paulplevin.com
                 jfontaine@paulplevin.com

BENSUSSEN DEUTSCH: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bensussen Deutsch &
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Bensussen Deutsch &
Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02670 (S.D.N.Y., March 31,
2022).

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

Bensussen Deutsch & Associates LLC (BDA) -- https://www.bdainc.com/
-- provides promotional marketing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BETWEEN THE BUN: Faces Daniel Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL ORTEGA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BETWEEN THE BUN DELI AND CAFE INC. (D/B/A
BETWEEN THE BUN DELI & CAFE II) and SAM SULLIVAN, Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-01813 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay appropriate
minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide
written wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage
statements.

Mr. Ortega was employed by the Defendants as a stock worker at
Between the Bun Deli & Cafe II in Brooklyn, New York from
approximately May 2021 until on or about December 2021.

Between The Bun Deli and Cafe Inc. is an owner and operator of a
deli under the name Between the Bun Deli & Cafe II, located at 774
Broadway, Brooklyn, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Catalina Sojo, Esq.
         CSM LEGAL, P.C.
         60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 317-1200
         Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

BPS OPCO: Thompson Sues Over Traveling Merchandisers' Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHEL THOMPSON and GEORGE HIGGINS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BPS OPCO, INC. (d/b/a
BrandPoint Services) and DOLGENCORP OF TEXAS, INC. (d/b/a/ Dollar
General), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01244 (E.D. Pa., March 31,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs and similarly situated
traveling merchandisers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek.

Plaintiffs Thompson and Higgins worked for the Defendants as
traveling merchandisers from approximately June 2021 until
approximately November 2021 and from approximately February 2020
until approximately November 2020, respectively.

BPS Opco, Inc., doing business as BrandPoint Services, is a
merchandising company, headquartered in Trooper, Pennsylvania.

Dolgencorp of Texas, Inc., doing business as Dollar General, is a
discount retailer, headquartered in Goodlettsville, Tennessee.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
         THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
         P.O. Box 10099
         Houston, TX 77206
         Telephone: (713) 868-3388
         E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com

                - and –

         Peter Winebrake, Esq.
         WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
         715 Twining Road, Suite 211
         Dresher, PA 19025
         Telephone: (215) 884-2491
         E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com

CABELL HUNTINGTON: Blenko Bid to Certify Class Tossed w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTHA BLENKO and LAURA
MULLARKY, and JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. CABELL HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL, INC., Case No.
3:21-cv-00315 (S.D.W.Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert c. Chambers
entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class,
without prejudice, pursuant to the tentative settlement agreement
reached by the parties and a possible request for extension of
scheduling deadlines if a settlement is not reached.

If necessary, the Court will address refiling of the Motion in a
subsequent scheduling order. The Court directs the Clerk to send a
copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented
parties.

Cabell Huntington is a regional, 303-bed academic medical center
located in Huntington, West Virginia.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ua6LVt at no extra charge.[CC]

CHEMOURS CO: Nix, et al., Must File Class Cert. Bid by May 18
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the three class action lawsuits filed against The Chemours
Company FC, LLC, et al., the Hon. Judge James Dever III entered an
order granting the parties' joint stipulation.

   -- Expert Discovery shall close:             May 6, 2022

   -- The Plaintiffs shall file their           May 18, 2022
      class certification motion on:  

   -- The Defendants shall file their           June 22, 2022
      Opposition to Class Certification on:

   -- The Plaintiffs shall file their           July 20, 2022
      Class Certification Reply on:

The lawsuits are captioned as:

   "BRENT NIX, individually and on behalf of all others
   similarly situated, v. THE CHEMOURS COMP ANY FC, LLC, THE
   CHEMOURS COMPANY, E.I. du PONT de NEMOURS AND COMP ANY, INC.,
   E.I. DUPONT CHEMICAL CORPORATION, ELLIS H. MCGAUGHY, and
   MICHAELE JOHNSON, Case No. 7:17-CV-00189-D (E.D.N.C.);"

   "ROGER MORTON, individually and on behalf of all others
   similarly situated, v. THE CHEMOURS COMP ANY FC, LLC, THE
   CHEMOURS COMPANY, E.1. du PONT de NEMOURS AND COMP ANY, INC.,
   E.I. DUPONT CHEMICAL CORPORATION, ELLIS H. MCGAUGHY, AND
   MICHAEL E. JOHNSON, Case No. 7:17-cv-00197-D (E.D.N.C.);" and

   "VICTORIA CAREY, MARIE BURRIS, MICHAEL KISER, and BRENT NIX,
   individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
   v. E.I. du PONT de NEMOURS AND COMPANY and THE CHEMOURS COMP
   ANY FC, LLC, Case No. 7:17-CV-00201-D (E.D.N.C.)."

Chemours was founded in 2014. The company's line of business
includes the manufacturing and production of agricultural
chemicals.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x1MXFx at no extra charge.[CC]

DELAWARE NORTH: Perez & DNC Terminated as Parties in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID PEREZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. DELAWARE NORTH
COMPANIES, INC., PARKS & RESORTS AT KING'S, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00484-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge
Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California entered an order:

   a. terminating Plaintiff David Perez and Defendant DNC Parks &
      Resorts at King's Canyon, Inc., as parties in the action;
      and

   b. updating the docket to reflect that Plaintiff Maria Socorro
      Vega brings the action as an individual, and on behalf of
      others similarly situated.

Following adjudication of motions to dismiss, Plaintiffs David
Perez and Maria Socorro Vega, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, maintain the putative class action
against Defendants Delaware North Companies, Inc., DNC Parks &
Resorts at King's Canyon, Inc., and DNC Parks & Resorts at Tenaya
Inc. No motion for class certification has been filed. A scheduling
conference has not been held, and is currently scheduled for March
29, 2022. On March 22, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation for
the dismissal of Plaintiff David Perez, and Defendant DNC Parks &
Resorts at King's Canyon, Inc., only.

Rule 41 provides that the parties may voluntarily dismiss an action
by a stipulation of dismissal signed by all who have appeared, but
this is subject to Rule 23(e). Pursuant to Rule 23(e) the "claims,
issues, or defenses of a certified class--or a class proposed to be
certified for purposes of settlement--may be settled, voluntarily
dismissed, or compromised only with the court's approval."

By way of background, Judge Boone explains that Rule 23(e) was
amended on Dec.r 1, 2003, to allow the "parties to a proposed class
action to stipulate to dismissal of the action without any judicial
approval where the class has not yet been certified." "The Advisory
Committee Notes to the 2003 rules amendments confirm that Rule
23(e) does not apply to settlements or dismissals that occur before
class certification." "The drafters of the amendments intended to
'limit the reach of judicial approval' of voluntary dismissals of
class action." While the voluntary dismissal has been considered
problematic, the revised rule does allow the parties to voluntarily
dismiss the action without court approval where the class has not
been certified.

In the case, Judge Boone finds that no class has been certified and
the matter is being dismissed as to these parties only without
prejudice. Therefore, he finds that dismissal does not require
court approval under Rule 23(e), and the Plaintiff and the
Defendant may be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41. He notes, however,
that the docket does not currently reflect that the remaining
Plaintiff Maria Socorro Vega brings the action on behalf of others
similarly situated. He will also direct the Clerk of the Court to
update the docket to so reflect the status of the remaining
Plaintiff.

In light of the stipulation of the parties, Plaintiff David Perez
and Defendant DNC Parks & Resorts at King's Canyon, Inc., will be
terminated in the action, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), without
prejudice.

Accordingly, Judge Boone directed the Clerk of the Court (i) to
terminate Plaintiff David Perez and Defendant DNC Parks & Resorts
at King's Canyon, Inc., as parties in the action; and (ii) to
update the docket to reflect that Plaintiff Maria Socorro Vega
brings the action as an individual, and on behalf of others
similarly situated.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yr3ew5e2 from Leagle.com.


DELTA AIR: Scheduling Order Modified in Lomas Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Frankie Lomas, et al., v.
Delta Air Lines, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00786-JAK-SK (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order that the
Scheduling Order setting forth deadlines for class certification is
modified as follows:

                    Event            Old             New
                                     Deadline        Deadline

  Deadline to file Motion      March 14, 2022   March 14, 2022
   for Class Certification:

  Deadline to file Opposition  April 11, 2022   May 2, 2022
  to Motion for Class
  Certification:

  Deadline to file Reply in    April 25, 2022   May 16, 2022
  Support of Motion for
  Class Certification:

  Hearing on Motion for        May 16, 2022     June 6, 2022
  Class Certification:

  Last day to participate      May 23, 2022     June 13, 2022
  in a settlement
  conference/mediation:

  Last day to file notice      May 27, 2022     June 17, 2022
  of settlement/ joint
  report re settlement:

  Post mediation status        June 6, 2022     June 27, 2022
  conference

Delta Air is one of the major airlines of the United States and a
legacy carrier. One of the world's oldest airlines in operation,
Delta is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3J3vZch at no extra charge.[CC]

DJGN LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Benjamin Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
GARETH BENJAMIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DJGN LLC d/b/a TONY'S STEAKS & SEAFOOD,
Defendant, Case No.1:22-cv-00166-DRC (S.D., Ohio, March 30, 2022
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Benjamin was employed by Defendant as a server.

DJGN LLC owns and operates a Tony's Steaks & Seafood restaurant in
Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          Brian R. Noethlich , Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP
          4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
          Columbus, OH 43219
          Telephone: (614) 221-4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
          Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
                 bnoethlich@barkanmeizlish.com

               - and -

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                 jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

DNH/ML PREMIER: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Robbins
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tina Robbins v. DNH/ML
Premier Senior Living, LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-01164-DNH-M
(N.D.N.Y.), the Court entered a uniform pretrial scheduling order
as follows:

  -- Any motion to join any person as a       April 29, 2022
     party to this action shall be made
     on or before:

  -- Any motion to amend any pleading in      April 29, 2022
     this action shall be made on or
     before:

  -- The parties are directed to file a       May 31, 2022
     status report on or before:

  -- Mandatory Disclosures are to be          March 10, 2022
     exchanged by:

  -- Initial Written Discovery Demands        March 10, 2022
     must be served by:

  -- All discovery in this matter is          March 31, 2023.
     to be completed on or before:

Premier Senior is a senior housing owner and operator with
headquarters in New York City.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3u8Oesl at no extra charge.[CC]

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Scheduling Order Entered in Muha Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLOTTE MUHA, v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-00077-CJC-DFM
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cormac J. Carney entered a scheduling
order as follows:

  1. All discovery, including discovery motions, shall be
     completed by February 16, 2023. Discovery motions must be
     filed and heard prior to this date.

  2. The parties shall have until April 17, 2023 to file and
     have heard all other motions, including motions to join or
     amend the pleadings.

  3. A pretrial conference will be held on Monday, June 12, 2023
     at 03:00 PM. Full compliance with Local Rule 16 is
     required.

  4. The case is set for a jury trial, Tuesday, June 27, 2023 at
     08:30 AM.

  5. The parties are referred to ADR Procedure No. 3 -- Private
     Mediation. The parties shall have until March 2, 2023 to
     conduct settlement proceedings. The parties shall file with
     the Court a Joint Status Report no later than five days
     after the ADR proceeding is completed advising the Court of
     their settlement efforts and status.

  6. The Plaintiff shall have until September 19, 2022 to file
     and have heard any class certification motion.

Experian Information operates as an information services company.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uR65U1 at no extra charge.[CC]

EYEQ IMAGING: Sholokhova Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled YELENA SHOLOKHOVA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. EYEQ IMAGING, INC. and DOES 1 to
20, inclusive, Case No. 21-CIV-06827, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on March 29,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-02016 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code, the California's Business and Professions
Code, and the California Government Code including breach of
contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, fraud based on false promises, failure to pay earned wages
due upon separation, wrongful termination, unjust enrichment,
unlawful and unfair business practices, failure to indemnify for
all necessary expenditures or losses incurred, negligent
misrepresentation, and discrimination based on gender and marital
status.

EyeQ Imaging, Inc. is a digital imaging company based in Alberta,
Canada. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Benjamin M. Gipson, Esq.
         DLA PIPER LLP (US)
         2000 Avenue of the Stars
         Suite 400 North Tower
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-4735
         Telephone: (310) 595-3000
         Facsimile: (310) 595-3300
         E-mail: ben.gipson@us.dlapiper.com

                  - and –

         Andrea R. Ortega, Esq.
         DLA PIPER LLP (US)
         555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
         San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
         Telephone: (415) 836-2500
         Facsimile: (415) 836-2501
         E-mail: andrea.ortega@us.dlapiper.com

FIRST DATA: Settlement Class Initially Certified in Floyd Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUIS FLOYD and TERRY
FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. FIRST DATA MERCHANT SERVICES LLC, SAM'S CLUB MERCHANT
SERVICES, NATIONAL PAYMENT SYSTEMS LLC, and NATIONAL PAYMENT
SYSTEMS OR, LLC d/b/a/ ONE CONNECT PROCESSING, Case No.
5:20-cv-02162-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila
entered an order granting preliminary approval of stipulation and
agreement of settlement, conditional class certification, notice to
settlement class members and entry of scheduling order.

The Settlement Class is preliminarily certified, consisting of the
following:

   "All persons in the United States to whom: a) one or more
   calls (including text messages) were made; b) to a cellular
   telephone number c) that could have promoted First Data or
   Sam's Club Merchant Services’ goods or services; d) using a
   dialing system the same as or similar to that used to call
   any of Plaintiffs and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice;
   e) between March 30, 2016 to the date of preliminary
   approval."

   The following are excluded from the Settlement Class: (1) any
   trial judge and other judicial officers that may preside over
   this case; (2) the Mediator; (3) Defendants, as well as any
   parent, subsidiary, affiliate or control person of
   Defendants, and the officers, directors, agents, servants or
   employees of Defendants; (4) any of the Released Parties; (5)
   any Settlement Class Member who has timely submitted a
   Request for Exclusion by the Opt-Out Deadline; (6) any person
   who has previously given a valid release of the claims
   asserted in the Action; (7) Plaintiffs' Counsel; and (8)
   persons for whom Defendants have a record demonstrating
   "prior express written consent" as defined by the Telephone
   Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and for settlement purposes only,
the Plaintiffs Louis Floyd and Terry Fabricant are hereby appointed
Representative Plaintiffs and the following counsel are hereby
appointed as Class Counsel:

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
          176 Federal Street, Fifth Floor
          Boston, MA 02110

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF MATTHEW P. McCUE
          South Avenue, Suite 3
          Natick, MA 01760

               - and -

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043

               - and -

          Andrew Heidarpour, Esq.
          HEIDARPOUR LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 190-318
          Washington, DC 20004

The Court preliminarily finds that the proposed Settlement Class
meets all the 23 applicable requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)
and (b)(3), and hereby certifies the Settlement Class for
settlement purposes only. The Court hereby preliminarily finds, in
the specific context of the Class Settlement.

  -- The Settlement Fund

     Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall
     deposit a total of $1,600,000 into the Settlement Fund when
     this Settlement becomes Final, as per the terms of the
     Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Fund will be
     maintained by the Settlement Administrator for the benefit
     of the Settlement Class and Class Counsel. All of the
     monies deposited by the Defendants into the Settlement Fund
     will be placed in an interest bearing escrow account
     established and maintained by the Settlement Administrator.
     The interest generated, if any, will accrue to the benefit
     of the Settlement Class and is to be added into
     the Settlement Fund.

  -- Request for Exclusion from the Settlement Class

     Settlement Class Members who wish to be excluded from
     Settlement Class shall mail a written Request for Exclusion
     to the Settlement Administrator, so that it is postmarked
     no later than 90 days after the entry of the Notice Date
     (the "Opt-Out Deadline"), and shall clearly state the
     following: the name, address, telephone number, of the
     individual or entity who wishes to be excluded from the
     Settlement Class, and provide all such information as may
     be required by the Settlement Agreement or requested by the
     Settlement Administrator.

  -- Appointment of Settlement Administrator

     The Court appoints AB Data, Ltd. as the Settlement
     Administrator.

First Data specializes in payment solutions.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36W1SGD at no extra charge.[CC]

FREEDOM FOREVER: Gomez Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALVIN GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FREEDOM FOREVER LLC and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV05814, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March
30, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-02115 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code by failing to (1) authorize meal periods, (2) permit rest
periods, (3) timely pay earned wages, (4) provide complete and
accurate wage statements, (5) timely pay all wages upon separation
of employment, and (6) engage in fair business practices.

Freedom Forever LLC is a solar energy contractor, with its
principal place of business in California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jordan C. Lee, Esq.
         ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
         800 Boylston Street, 30th Floor
         Boston, MA 02199
         Telephone: (617) 824-5150
         Facsimile: (617) 831-8490
         E-mail: jlee@atllp.com

GEORGE EISENHAUER: Motion to Comply Subpoena Filed in Miami Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuit styled MIAMI PRODUCTS &
CHEMICAL CO., AMREX CHEMICAL CO., INC., MIDWEST RENEWABLE ENERGY,
LLC, MAIN POOL AND CHEMICAL CO., INC., PERRY'S ICE CREAM COMPANY,
INC., VANDEMARK CHEMICAL, INC., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. GEORGE EISENHAUER, Case No.
1:22-mc-00006-EAW, petitioners filed a request with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on March 23, 2022
to transfer this motion to the Western District of New York and to
order George Eisenhauer to comply with the subpoena served upon him
in the underlying action styled as In re Caustic Soda Antitrust
Litigation, 1:19-cv-00385-EAW-MJR.

Miami Products & Chemical Co. is a chemical company based in
Dayton, Ohio.

Amrex Chemical Co., Inc. is a chemical company based in Binghamton,
New York.

Midwest Renewable Energy, LLC is an energy company based in
Sutherland, Nebraska.

Main Pool and Chemical Co., Inc. is a swimming pool supply store in
Avoca, Pennsylvania.

Perry's Ice Cream Company, Inc. is an ice cream manufacturer
located in Akron, New York.

VanDeMark Chemical, Inc. is a chemical company based in Lockport,
New York. [BN]

The Petitioners are represented by:          
                  
         C. Andrew Dirksen, Esq.
         CERA LLP
         800 Boylston St., 16th Floor
         Boston, MA 02199
         Telephone: (857) 453-6555
         E-mail: cdirksen@cerallp.com

GOLDMAN SACHS: Arbitration Selection in Chen-Oster Suit Due April 8
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, H. CRISTINA CHEN-OSTER, SHANNA ORLICH, ALLISON GAMBA,
and MARY DE LUIS, Plaintiffs v. GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO. and THE
GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 10-cv-6950 (AT)
(RWL) (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an
Order resolving the class notice issues raised by the Plaintiffs in
their March 21, 2022 letter, and after having considered the
Defendants' response.

The arbitration selection deadline is extended to April 8, 2022.

The class counsel may send the proposed update email, subject to
the following modifications: The word "harmed" must be replaced by
"discriminated against," and a second sentence must be added
reading "In the event that the class action trial is successful,
then whether and to what extent any individual class member is
entitled to damages will need to be determined in separate
trials."

The class counsel may send the proposed final email reminder on
April 7, 2022. The multiple communications with Equity Award
Agreement members is warranted given the relatively uncommon
posture of the choice to be made in a Rule 23 class action (ie,
having to affirmatively act to remain in the class) and is a
consequence of the procedural concerns inherent in Goldman's Equity
Award Agreement arbitration provisions as explained in the Court's
decision on the motion to compel arbitration.

Judge Lehrburger denied the Plaintiffs' request for further orders
about disclosure of names; the current restriction ("... in order
to effectuate an order from the Court") is sufficient.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3pfkezxj from Leagle.com.


GOURMET NUT: Trail Mix Product Deceptively Marketed, Forrett Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Forrett, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Gourmet Nut, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-02045-VKD (N.D.
Cal., March 30, 2022) arises out of the Defendant's deceptive,
misleading, and unlawful practices with respect to its marketing
and sale of its Protein Packed Trail Mix.

The Defendant manufactures and sells its Products throughout the
United States in a variety of physical and e-commerce stores. The
Defendant's marketing stresses the importance of protein
consumption, the health benefits of its Products, and the
high-protein nature of its Products.

Notably, all Products are labeled as "PROTEIN PACKED" despite not
being high in protein. Moreover, in violation of federal
regulations, Defendant attempts to perpetuate this deception by
prominently making protein claims on the Principal Display Panel
and the back of the packaging while also omitting the Percent Daily
Value for protein in the Nutrition Facts panel on the Products'
labels, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff and other reasonable consumers purchased the Products
believing that they were accurately represented. Specifically,
Plaintiff and reasonable consumers believed that the Products
contained accurate label information and representations. The
Plaintiff and other reasonable consumers would not have purchased
the Products if they had known about the misrepresentations and
omissions, or would have purchased them on different terms, says
the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated and seeks to represent a California Class
and a Nationwide Class. The Plaintiff seeks damages, interest
thereon, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, restitution, other
equitable relief, and disgorgement of all benefits Defendant has
enjoyed from its unlawful and deceptive business practices.

The Plaintiff purchased the Products during the class period. The
advertising and labeling on the package of the Products purchased
by Plaintiff, including the high-protein representations, is
typical of the advertising and labeling of the Products purchased
by members of the Class. In June 2020, Plaintiff purchased the
Product and paid approximately $5 per bag from a Walmart store
located in San Jose, California.

The Defendant produces, markets and distributes its consumer food
products in retail stores across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher T. Aumais, Esq.
          Christopher B. Good, Esq.
          Ryan Gustafson, Esq.
          GOOD | GUSTAFSON | AUMAIS LLP
          2330 Westwood Boulevard, Suite 103
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 274-4663
          E-mail: cta@ggallp.com
                  cbg@ggallp.com
                  jrg@ggallp.com

               - and -

          Steffan T. Keeton, Esq.
          THE KEETON FIRM LLC
          100 S Commons, Ste. 102
          Pittsburgh PA 15212
          Telephone: (888) 412-5291
          E-mail: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com

GREENWOOD HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cook Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE COOK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREENWOOD HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00396-WCG (E.D., Wis., March 30, 2022) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed the by Defendant as executive housekeeper.

GREENWOOD HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC provides hospitality
management services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          James A. Walcheske, 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
          Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                 sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                 dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com

ICHIBAN GROUP: Bid for Reconsideration Tossed
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as XUE HUI ZHANG, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, et al., v.
ICHIBAN GROUP, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00148-MAD-TWD
(N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Therese Wiley Dancks entered an order
denying the Defendants' motion for reconsideration.

The Court finds the Defendants' motion for reconsideration to be
timely. However, reconsideration is warranted where the moving
party can show the court "overlooked" facts or controlling law that
"might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by
the court." In the Northern District of New York, a court may grant
a motion for reconsideration where there has been a change in
controlling law, new evidence not previously available comes to
light, or in order "to correct a clear error of law or prevent
manifest injustice."

In their amended complaint, the Plaintiffs allege violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL").
Class certification was granted pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Defendants then filed letter motions concerning potential
conflicts of interest regarding the parties' attorneys based upon
the nature and description of the class certified, and the roles of
various parties at the Defendant restaurants.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NRM0Wq at no extra charge.[CC]


IRAQ: Bid to Set Schedule for Further Proceedings Filed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WYE OAK TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
v. THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ, et al., Case No. 10-cv-1182-RCL (D.D.C.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order on following schedule:

   a. Wye Oak's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
      would be due on April 12 (28 days from issuance of the
      mandate)

   b. The Defendants Response and their Proposed Findings and
      Conclusions would be due on May 10 (28 days later)

   c. Wye Oak's Response to Defendants' Proposed Findings and
      Conclusions would be due on May 24 (14 days thereafter)

In light of the judgment and mandate of the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in this case issued on
February 4, 2022 and March 15, 2022, respectively, which vacated
the judgment entered by this Court on November 15, 2019 and
remanded the matter to this Court for further proceedings, the
Plaintiff Wye Oak Technology, Inc., and Defendants Republic of Iraq
and Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Iraq jointly move the
Court for an order to set the schedule for further proceedings in
this case.

A copy of the Parties motion dated March 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35E1ITw at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Allen Foster, Esq.
          Erik D. Bolog, Esq.
          Eric C. Rowe, Esq.
          WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON LLP
          1800 M St., NW, Suite 450N
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 659-6800
          Facsimile: (202) 331-0573
          E-mail: cafoster@wtplaw.com
                  ebolog@wtplaw.com
                  erowe@wtplaw.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Pavich, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq.
          PAVICH LAW GROUP, P.C.
          30 West Monroe 13th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 690-8400
          Facsimile: (312) 853-8401
          E-mail: rpavich@pavichlawgroup.com
                  jleon@ pavichlawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Boaz S. Morag, Esq.
          Nowell D. Bamberger, Esq.
          CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
          One Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 225-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 225-3999
          E-mail: bmorag@cgsh.com
                  nbamberger@cgsh.com


ITS LOGISTICS: Filing of Initial Approval Bid Due June 15
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Guthrie v. ITS Logistics,
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00729-AWI-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered
an order that the parties shall file their motion for preliminary
approval not later than June 15, 2022.

On May 5, 2021, the Defendant removed this action from the Merced
County Superior Court, with the complaint alleging class action and
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims relating to alleged
labor violations.

On August 6, 2021, the Court issued an order setting a case
schedule. On December 9, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation and
proposed order to vacate the case schedule.

As grounds, the parties stated that they were scheduled to
participate in a mediation on March 8, 2022, and vacating the case
schedule would allow them to focus on settlement efforts "without
incurring substantial costs to conduct discovery and prepare
briefing for class certification."

On December 10, 2021, the Court granted the stipulation and
directed the parties to file a joint status report regarding the
results of their mediation.

On March 16, 2022, the parties filed their joint status report,
stating that they have "reached a class and PAGA settlement of the
claims in this action [and] are currently working to finalize and
execute a long-form settlement agreement and anticipate filing a
motion for preliminary approval within 90 days."

ITS Logistics is a premier Third-Party Logistics company that
offers personalized supply chain solutions with dedicated fleet and
asset-lite transportation.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3DE2NqY at no extra charge.[CC]



JUUL LABS: Beaver County School Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BEAVER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02029-WHO (N.D. Cal., March 30, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Beaver County School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 291 North Main Street in Beaver, Utah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Briggs Labor Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to E.D.N.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GRACE BRIGGS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-08811, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of North Carolina on March 30, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
assigned Case No. 5:22-cv-00121-D to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Civil Rights Act of 1866, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the California
Fair Employment Housing Act, the California Government Code, the
California Labor Code, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, and common law.

JUUL Labs, Inc. is an American electronic cigarette company, with
its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Gregory G. Paul, Esq.
         PAUL LAW OFFICES
         1808 Wedemeyer Street, Suite 216
         San Francisco, CA 94129
         Telephone: (844) 374-7200
         Facsimile: (888) 822-9421
         E-mail: gregpaul@paullaw.com

                  - and –

         Jennifer C. Bell, Esq.
         Christopher A. Macey, Jr., Esq.
         BELL & BELL LLP
         1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1254
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 569-2500
         Facsimile: (215) 569-2220
         E-mail: jenniferbell@bellandbelllaw.com
                 christophermacey@bellandbelllaw.com

JUUL LABS: Cattaraugus-Little Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CATTARAUGUS-LITTLE VALLEY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS,
INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS
PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA
CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP
MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01991 (N.D. Cal.,
March 29, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law
and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Cattaraugus-Little Valley Central School District is a unified
school district with its offices located at 25 North Franklin
Street in Cattaraugus, New York.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Dickson Public Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DICKSON PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02009 (N.D. Cal., March 29, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Dickson Public Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 4762 State Highway 199 in Ardmore, Oklahoma.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Lumberton Township Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LUMBERTON TOWNSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02037 (N.D. Cal., March 30, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Lumberton Township School District is a unified school district
with its offices located at 33 Municipal Drive in Lumberton, New
Jersey.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Homer Community Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
HOMER COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01996 (N.D. Cal., March 29, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Homer Community Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 403 Hillsdale Street in Homer, Michigan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Sprague School Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SPRAGUE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02033 (N.D. Cal., March 30, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Sprague School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at P.O. Box 305 in Sprague, Washington.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Harrison Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
HARRISON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02064 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Harrison Community Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 420 Spruce Street in Harrison, Michigan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Faces East Valley Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
---------------------------------------------------------------
EAST VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT (YAKIMA), on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02066 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

East Valley School District (Yakima) is a unified school district
with its offices located at 2002 Beaudry Road in Yakima,
Washington.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Faces Lamont School Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Crisis
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LAMONT SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02031 (N.D. Cal., March 30, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Lamont School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 602 Main Street in Lamont, Washington.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Faces Palm Springs Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Crisis
------------------------------------------------------------------
PALM SPRINGS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02004 (N.D. Cal., March 29, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Palm Springs Unified School District is a unified school district
with its offices located at 150 District Center Drive in Palm
Springs, California.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Garfield County Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Utah
---------------------------------------------------------------
GARFIELD COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02025 (N.D. Cal., March 30, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Garfield County School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 145 East Center Street in Panguitch, Utah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Granger School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Marketing
---------------------------------------------------------------
GRANGER SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02065 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Granger School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 701 E. Avenue in Granger, Washington.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Grapeview School Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAPEVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02032 (N.D. Cal., March 30, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Grapeview School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 822 Mason Benson Road in Grapeview, Washington.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Ludington Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Mich.
------------------------------------------------------------------
LUDINGTON AREA SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02063 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Ludington Area Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 809 Tinkham Avenue in Ludington, Michigan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Kittitas School Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
KITTITAS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 403, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02011 (N.D. Cal., March 29, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Kittitas School District No. 403 is a unified school district with
its offices located at 505 North Pierce Street in Kittitas,
Washington.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Oriskany Central Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORISKANY CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02038 (N.D. Cal., March 30, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Oriskany Central School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 1313 Utica Street in Oriskany, New York.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Oneida-Herkimer-Madison Sues Over E-Cigarette Addiction
------------------------------------------------------------------
ONEIDA-HERKIMER-MADISON BOCES, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02030-WHO (N.D. Cal., March 30, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Oneida-Herkimer-Madison BOCES is a unified school district with its
offices located at 4747 Middle Settlement Road in New Hartford, New
York.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Pike County Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PIKE COUNTY BOARD OF DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS,
INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS
PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA
CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP
MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02006 (N.D. Cal.,
March 29, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance
Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Pike County Board of Developmental Disabilities is a board run
district with its offices located on East North Street in Waverly,
Ohio.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Quilcene School Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
------------------------------------------------------------------
QUILCENE SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02002 (N.D. Cal., March 29, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Quilcene School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 294715 US-101 in Quilcene, Washington.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Reading Community Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis in Mich.
------------------------------------------------------------------
READING COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01987-WHO (N.D. Cal., March 29, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Reading Community Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 301 Chestnut Street in Reading, Michigan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Washington Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02028 (N.D. Cal., March 30, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Washington County School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 121 West Tabernacle in St. George, Utah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Westhill Central Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
------------------------------------------------------------------
WESTHILL CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02008 (N.D. Cal., March 29, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Westhill Central School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 400 Walberta Road in Syracuse, New York.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Westmoreland Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
---------------------------------------------------------------
WESTMORELAND CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02020 (N.D. Cal., March 30, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Westmoreland Central School District is a unified school district
with its offices located at 5176 Route 233 in Westmoreland, New
York.

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

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

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

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

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

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

KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Bid to Toss Seidner Suit Denied W/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTINA C. SEIDNER, JARED MACKRORY, Individually,
and as representatives of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries
of the Kimberly-Clark Corporation 401(k) & Profit Sharing Plan,
Plaintiffs v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION; BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION; BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE OF
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION; and JOHN DOES 1-30, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 3:21-CV-867-L (N.D. Tex.), Judge Sam A. Lindsay of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, denied without prejudice the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Class Action Complaint.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

On April 14, 2021, Plaintiffs Christina C. Seindner and Jared
Mackrory, individually and as representatives of a Class of
Participants and Beneficiaries on behalf of the Kimberly Clark
Corporation 401(k) and Profit Sharing Plan, brought the action
against Defendants Kimberly-Clark, its Board of Directors, its
Benefits Administration Committee, and unidentified individual John
Does 1-30, for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in administering
the Plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of Kimberly-Clark who
participated in the Plan. They allege that the Defendants violated
ERISA by: (1) breaching their duties of loyalty and prudence; and
(2) failing to adequately monitor other fiduciaries. At the heart
of the Plaintiffs' claims is their contention that the Plan paid
third-party service providers "unreasonable and excessive fees" for
various administrative services.

On July 2, 2021, the Defendants moved, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), to dismiss all claims asserted by the
Plaintiffs for failure to state claims upon which relief can be
granted, contending that the allegations in the Plaintiffs'
Complaint are insufficient to support claims for fiduciary breaches
of the duty of prudence, loyalty, and monitoring. The Defendants
assert that the Plaintiffs' allegations with respect to the
individual "Doe" Defendants are particularly lacking, and there is
no body of Texas law that allows a Board of Directors to be sued as
an entity independent of the corporation it serves. In addition,
they contend that the Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to
assert any claims based on the theory of revenue sharing fee
arrangements and, therefore, move to dismiss any such claims
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).

After the Plaintiffs responded to the Defendants' Motion, the
Defendants further contend in their reply brief that the Plaintiffs
abandoned the following claims for failure in their response to
adequately address them or all dispositive issues pertaining to
these claims that were raised in the Defendants' Motion: (1)
fiduciary duty of loyalty claim; (2) claims against the Board of
Directors; and (3) and any claims based on the theory of revenue
sharing fee arrangements.

II. Discussion

After carefully reviewing the Plaintiffs' Complaint and the
parties' submissions, Judge Lindsay agrees, for essentially the
reasons stated in the Defendants' Motion and supporting briefs,
that: (1) the Plaintiffs' claims for fiduciary breaches of the duty
of prudence, loyalty, and monitoring are not sufficiently pleaded
for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6); and (2) the allegations in the
Plaintiffs' Complaint are also insufficient to establish that they
have Article III standing to pursue any claim that the Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by permitting the Plan's
recordkeepers to recoup fees in whole or in part through revenue
sharing.

Further, the Plaintiffs' contention -- that certain deficiencies
may be resolved through discovery and that such issues are,
therefore, not appropriate for a motion to dismiss -- is not a
valid basis for defeating the Defendants' Motion under Rules
12(b)(6) or 12(b)(1). On the other hand, the law as to whether the
Board of Directors can be sued as a legal entity was not
sufficiently briefed by either party. Likewise, the Plaintiffs'
one-sentence conclusory response in a footnote regarding its duty
of loyalty claim was woefully deficient, conclusory, and unhelpful.
Whether such a response amounted to an abandonment of their duty of
loyalty claim is a close call.

Because the Plaintiffs have not previously amended their pleadings,
and it is unclear at this juncture whether amendment would be
futile or unnecessarily delay the resolution of the action, Judge
Lindsay will deny without prejudice the Defendants' Motion and
allow the Plaintiffs to amend their pleadings.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons explained, Judge Lindsay denied without prejudice
the Defendants' Motion and directed the Plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint by April 22, 2022. Failure to do so will result
in dismissal of the action with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6),
without prejudice under Rule 12(b)(1), or both.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yckvy2v7 from Leagle.com.


KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Baird Suit Moved From E.D. Va. to W.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BAIRD RESPIRATORY THERAPY, INC., on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS
N.V.; PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC; and PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-00250, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on March 29, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00501-JFC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of express
warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud by omission, and
unjust enrichment by manufacturing and selling Continuous Positive
Airway Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive Airway Pressure
(BiLevel PAP) devices containing polyester-based polyurethane sound
abatement foam (PE-PUR Foam).

Baird Respiratory Therapy, Inc. is a medical equipment
manufacturer, with its principal place of business in Glenside,
Pennsylvania.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
         Liberato P. Verderame, Esq.
         Shoshana Savett, Esq.
         EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
         411 S. State Street, Suite N-300
         Newtown, PA 18940
         Telephone: (215) 867-2399
         E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com
                 ssavett@edelson-law.com

                   - and –

         Jonathan Shub, Esq.
         SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
         134 Kings Hwy. E, Fl-2
         Haddonfield, NJ 08033
         Telephone: (856) 772-7200
         Facsimile: (856) 210-9088
         E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com

LAKEVIEW LOAN: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Morrill Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER MORRILL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-20955 (S.D. Fla., March 29, 2022) alleges that the
Defendant failed to adequately secure and safeguard electronically
stored, personally identifiable information ("PII") that the
Defendant collected and maintained, including, without limitation,
first and last names, mailing addresses, loan number and/or Social
Security number, as well as additional information provided to
Defendant in connection with a loan application, a loan
modification, or other items regarding loan servicing.

Lakeview is the fourth largest mortgage servicing company in the
United States servicing mortgage loans for over 1.4 million
customers. This includes processing payments, managing escrow, and
providing customer service in connection with mortgage loans.

According to the complaint, Lakeview maintains contact details and
other personal information about individuals in connection with
their mortgages. Individuals entrust the Defendant, or the
companies that do business with the Defendant, with an extensive
amount of their sensitive PII. The Defendant makes public
statements that it understands the importance of protecting such
information. For example, in its website Privacy Policy, Lakeview
represents that it "recognizes the importance of keeping the
personal information you provide to us private and secure," that it
"use[s] the latest technology to ensure that your personal
information is secure," and that it "respects your privacy."

Despite these proclamations, however, in early December 2021, the
Defendant allegedly learned that an unauthorized actor breached its
system and accessed and acquired electronic files containing the
PII of the Defendant's customers, including Plaintiff's and Class
Members' data (the "Data Breach"). The data included, at least,
Plaintiff's and Class Members' first and last names, mailing
addresses, loan numbers and Social Security numbers, and in some
instances "information provided in connection with a loan
application, loan modification, or other items regarding loan
services." The PII was compromised due to the Defendant's alleged
negligent, careless, and intentional acts and omissions and the
failure to protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members.

The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered concrete injury as a
result of Defendant's conduct. These injuries include: (i)
fraudulent misuse of the stolen PII that is fairly traceable to
this Data Breach; (ii) lost or diminished value of PII; (iii)
out-of-pocket expenses associated with the prevention, detection,
and recovery from identity theft and/or unauthorized use of their
PII; (iv) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to
mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach, including but
not limited to lost time; and (v) the present and immediate risk to
their PII, which: (a) remains unencrypted and available for
unauthorized third parties to access and abuse; and (b) may remain
backed up in Defendant's possession and is subject to further
unauthorized disclosures so long as Defendant fails to undertake
appropriate and adequate measures to protect the PII.

The Plaintiff Jennifer Morrill is a resident and citizen the State
of California and intends to remain domiciled in and a citizen of
the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Rosenthal, Esq.
          DBR LAW, P.A.
          1900 Glades Road, Suite 270
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 853-0991
          E-mail: daniel@dbrlawfirm.com
                  rose@dbrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
          Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
          THE ARNOLD LAW FIRM
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 777-7777
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com

               - and -

          Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 1820
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: byrd@whafh.com


LASH PRINCESS: Guan Sues Over Lash Technicians' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Liling Guan, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Lash Princess 56 Inc. d/b/a Lash Princess 56
d/b/a Lash Princess, Oscar Lin, and Qinyu Liu a/k/a Ula Liu, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02552 (S.D.N.Y., March 29, 2022) seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid spread
of hours compensation, compensation for failure to provide wage
notice at the time of hiring and failure to provide paystubs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Defendants allegedly engaged in a pattern and practice of
failing to pay their employees, including the Plaintiff,
compensation for all hours worked, and overtime compensation for
all hours worked over 40 each workweek and spread of hours, as well
as failing to provide their employees, including Plaintiff, with
wage notice at the time of hiring and wage statements.

From on or around April 29th, 2021, to on or around September 10th,
2021, the Plaintiff was employed as a lash technician at
Defendants' company located at 162 W 56th St., FL No. 201, New
York. The Plaintiff primarily did lash extensions for
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yuezhu Liu, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
          E-mail: yliu@hanglaw.com


LIBERTY POWER: Sapan Seeks Certification of Sub-class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL SAPAN, individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. LIBERTY POWER
CORP, L.L.C., LIBERTY POWER SUPER HOLDINGS, LLC, LIBERTY POWER
HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 8:21-cv-01749-MEMF-KES (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs Paul Sapan and the putative class move the Court
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an
order certifying a sub-class against two defendants, Liberty Power
Super Holdings LLC and Liberty Power Corp, LLC.

The Plaintiffs contend that the sub-class since all requirements of
subsections (a) and (b)(3) are met in this case. The sub-class
numbers in the 16 hundreds of thousands, the claims are common, the
named plaintiff is typical, and the representation by the named
plaintiff and counsel are more than adequate.

Common issues and facts predominate in this simple Telephone
Consumer Protection Act case. Class treatment is clearly superior
where the individual cases would be for small damages awards and
potentially disparate injunctive relief. And the case is manageable
where sub-class members can be identified by reference to common
facts and reference to the official telephone records, the
Plaintiffs add.

Liberty Power distributes electricity. The Company offers
electricity to residential, large commercial, and business
sectors.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 17, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NJ8fOd at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin Prato, Esq.
          PRATO & REICHMAN, APC
          Prato & Reichman
          8555 Aero Dr Ste. 303
          San Diego, CA 92123
          Telephone: (619) 886-0252
          Facsimile: (619) 241-8309
          E-mail: jmprato@gmail.com

MICHIGAN: Davis v. MDOC Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRIS DAVIS, Plaintiff v. HEIDI WASHINGTON, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-129 (W.D. Mich.), Magistrate Judge
Maarten Vermaat of the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Michigan, Northern Division, denied the Plaintiff's motions for
class certification, for temporary restraining order, and to
appoint counsel.

I. Background

The Plaintiff is presently incarcerated with the Michigan
Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the Kinross Correctional
Facility (KCF) in Kincheloe, Chippewa County, Michigan. The events
about which he complains occurred at that facility. The Plaintiff
sues MDOC Director Heidi Washington, KCF Warden Mike Brown, the
MDOC, and the State of Michigan. He indicates he is suing the
individual Defendants in their official capacities.

The Plaintiff alleges generally that the Defendants have failed to
mitigate the risks of COVID-19 transmission at KCF. He reports that
"nine highly contagious prisoners originally housed at Marquette
Branch Prison (MBP), who had tested positive for COVID-19, were
anonymously, intentionally and deliberately transferred into the
KCF population to contaminate the majority of the KCF population."
The Plaintiff does not indicate who was responsible for the
transfer.

The Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants disregarded CDC
recommendations because the KCF school principal, who was showing
symptoms of COVID-19 and was known to be positive for the deadly
virus, was let into the facility. Other persons likewise let
several officers and other staff into the facility without testing
them. The Plaintiff complains that it is impossible to socially
distance at KCF. He notes that he contracted the virus during
November of 2020.

The Plaintiff identified several other parties as Plaintiffs;
however, Plaintiff Davis was the only person to sign the complaint
and, thus, the only person the Court recognizes as a party
plaintiff to the action. The Plaintiff purports to bring the action
on behalf of a class of prisoners who experience lingering
side-effects that impede their ability to carry out normal
day-to-day tasks. He also identifies a subclass of prisoners who
are over the age of 45 and medically vulnerable.

The Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and
treble damages. He also seeks class certification, a temporary
restraining order, and the appointment of counsel.

II. Discussion

The lawsuit is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c)
and Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiff
consented to proceed in all matters in the action under the
jurisdiction of a United States magistrate judge.

The case is presently before the Court for preliminary review under
the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat.
1321 (1996) (PLRA), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1915(e)(2) and
1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(c). The Court is required to
conduct this initial review prior to the service of the complaint.
Service of the complaint on the named Defendants is of particular
significance in defining a putative defendant's relationship to the
proceedings.

The Plaintiff has consented to a United States magistrate judge
conducting all proceedings in the case under 28 U.S.C. Section
636(c). That statute provides that "upon the consent of the
parties, a full-time United States magistrate judge may conduct any
or all proceedings and order the entry of judgment in the case."

Because the named Defendants have not yet been served, Judge
Vermaat concludes that they are not presently parties whose consent
is required to permit him to conduct a preliminary review under the
PLRA, in the same way they are not parties who will be served with
or given notice of this opinion.

Under the PLRA, the Court is required to dismiss any prisoner
action brought under federal law if the complaint is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.
Judge Vermaat must read the Plaintiff's pro se complaint
indulgently, and accept Plaintiff's allegations as true, unless
they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Applying these
standards, he will dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint for failure to
state a claim.

III. Conclusion

Judge Vermaat will construe the Plaintiff's complaint as a pleading
filed under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Having conducted the review
required by the PLRA, he determines that the Plaintiff's complaint
will be dismissed because release is not an available remedy under
Section 1983, the Defendants are immune from any claim for money
damages, Defendants State of Michigan and the MDC are immune from a
claim for prospective injunctive relief, and, with regard to the
Plaintiff's claim for prospective injunctive relief against
Defendants Washington and Brown in their official capacities, the
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim, under 28 U.S.C. Sections
1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(c).

Judge Vermaat must next decide whether an appeal of the action
would be in good faith within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. Section
1915(a)(3). Although he concludes that the Plaintiff's claims are
properly dismissed, he does not conclude that any issue the
Plaintiff might raise on appeal would be frivolous. Accordingly, he
does not certify that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Should the Plaintiff appeal this decision, the Court will assess
the $505 appellate filing fee pursuant to Section 1915(b)(1),
unless the Plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis,
e.g., by the "three-strikes" rule of Section 1915(g). If he is
barred, he will be required to pay the $505 appellate filing fee in
one lump sum.

For these reasons, Judge Vermaat denied the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification, his motion for temporary restraining order,
and his motion to appoint counsel.

A judgment consistent with the Opinion will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/44mw4hx7 from Leagle.com.


MISSISSIPPI: Court Stays Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Alexander v. MDOC
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDREW ALEXANDER, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. PELICIA E.
HALL, ET AL., Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-21-SA-JMV (N.D.
Miss.), Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi, Greenville Division,
granted the motion Defendants' to stay the case pending a ruling on
their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint Against
Marshal Turner and to Partially Vacate Prior Order.

I. Procedural History

The case was filed on Feb. 10, 2020. On Nov. 2, 2021, the Court
entered an order setting aside entry of default and granting in
part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The
stay that had been imposed since July 21, 2020, was then lifted,
and a case management conference was held on Dec. 3, 2021.
Following the conference, a case management order (class
certification scheduling order) was entered. On Dec. 17, 2021, the
Defendants filed an answer to the Amended Complaint.

On Jan. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
effectuate late service upon Defendant Marshal Turner. On Feb. 8,
2022, the Court entered an order granting the motion and giving the
Plaintiffs 10 days to serve Defendant Marshal Turner. According to
the proof of service, Defendant Turner was served on Feb. 11, 2022.
Then, on March 4, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Complaint against Defendant Marshal
Turner on immunity grounds and to partially vacate the Court's
prior order under Rule 54.

The Defendants then filed a motion to stay pursuant to Local
Uniform Civil Rule 16(b)(3)(B), seeking a stay of all discovery
against all the Defendants pending a ruling on the motion to
dismiss and vacate. The Plaintiffs responded in opposition, arguing
that under the local stay rule, the Court should only stay
discovery as to Defendant Marshal Turner. The Defendants replied on
March 16, 2022.

The parties have stipulated that discovery should be stayed as to
Defendant Marshal Turner. The question before the Court is whether
discovery should be stayed as to the "other Defendants," including
Wendell Banks, Brenda S. Cox, Audrey Fields, Stanley Flagg, Verlena
Flagg, Pelicia E. Hall, Terry Haywood, Earnest King, Peggy Lathan,
Claude Lee, Jeworski Mallett, Laquitta Meeks, Jewel Morris, Timothy
Morris, Gloria Perry, Lee Simon, Marylen Sturdivant, Tommy Taylor,
Caren Webb, Olivia Westmoreland, and Leather Williams.

II. Law & Analysis

Judge Virden is not persuaded by the other Defendants' argument
that all discovery should be stayed due to their pending Motion to
Vacate the Court's Prior Order. Furthermore, she recognizes the
Plaintiffs' desire to propel the action forward through discovery
in light of prior extended stay of this case. Nonetheless, Marshal
Turner, who was not served by the Plaintiffs until Feb. 11, 2022,
has filed an immunity motion, and Judge Virden finds that in order
to promote judicial efficiency and effectively manage the docket of
the proposed class action, discovery should be stayed as to the
other Defendants while Defendant Marshal Turner's immunity motion
is pending.

Another concern is that even if discovery is stayed as to Defendant
Turner, he would be compelled to participate in the depositions of
the other defendants and/or fact witnesses if they are taken while
Defendant Turner's motion to dismiss asserting qualified immunity
is pending, which would be contrary to the protections afforded
public officials by qualified immunity.

Judge Virden recognizes that some courts in the Fifth Circuit have
allowed written discovery to proceed against non-immune defendants
during the pendency of an immunity motion. However, she says, the
Court has previously found it proper to stay all discovery in
accordance with the local rule, even when an immunity motion is
asserted on behalf of fewer than all defendants in a
multi-defendant case.

III. Conclusion

After weighing the competing interests of the parties, Judge Virden
exercises her inherent discretion to stay discovery. She granted
the motion to stay and stayed all proceedings, excluding discovery
relating to qualified immunity. The Defendants will notify Judge
Virden within seven days of a decision on Defendant Marshal
Turner's immunity motion and will submit a proposed order lifting
the stay.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3pfa9cdp from Leagle.com.


MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC: Vorise Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled EARLENE VORISE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC US, INC. and DOES
1-10, inclusive, Case No. 22CV007314, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on March 29,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-02017 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to
pay minimum wages and overtime pay, failure to provide accurate
wage statements, failure to reimburse for business expenses,
failure to pay all wages owed upon termination, and unfair
competition.

Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. is a company that manufactures and
sales electrical and electronic products and systems, headquartered
in Cypress, California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Barbara J. Miller, Esq.
         David J. Rashe, Esq.
         Joseph A. Govea, Esq.
         MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
         Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7153
         Telephone: (714) 830-0600
         Facsimile: (714) 830-0700
         E-mail: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com
                 david.rashe@morganlewis.com
                 joseph.govea@morganlewis.com

MRS BPO LLC: Heszkel Files Suit in New York Over FCRA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEVORAH HESZKEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MRS BPO, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
509225/2022 (N.Y., Sup., Kings Cty., March 30, 2022) alleges
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

MRA BPO, L.L.C. provides business process outsourcing services. The
Company offers back office, accounts receivable, and customer
relationship management services. MRA BPO serves customers in the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eliyahu Babad, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 121
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          Email: EBabad@SteinSaksLegal.com

MY USA HEALTH: Navarrette Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled STEPHANIE NAVARRETTE, GUILLERMO HERNANDEZ, and OREL
ZAMORA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. MY USA HEALTH, LLC; KLB NATIONAL, LLC; JERRY GRIDER; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 30-2021-01230591-CU-OE-CXC, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on March 30, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:22-cv-00698 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code including unpaid minimum wages, meal period
violations and rest period violations.

My USA Health, LLC is a healthcare company in California.

KLB National, LLC is a limited liability company in Nevada. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         David L. Martin, Esq.
         Shelly D. Song, Esq.
         MARTIN LAW FIRM, PC
         19800 MacArthur Blvd., Ste. 680
         Irvine, CA 92612
         Telephone: (949) 491-4805
         E-mail: dave@employmentdefenselaw.com
                 shelly@employmentdefenselaw.com

NEO TECHNOLOGY: Settlement Deal in Portier Suit Gets Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Portier v. NEO Technology
Solutions, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-30111 (D. Mass.), the Hon.
Judge Timothy S. Hillman entered an order denying without prejudice
in view of the Court's preliminary approval of the Parties'
settlement agreement:

  -- motion to certify class;

  -- motion to strike motion to certify class; and

  -- motion to strike notice of motion and motion to exclude and
     to strike opinions and expert declaration of gary olsen in
     support of plaintiffs motion for class certification.

The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Other Statutory
Actions.

NEO Tech is a global supplier of electronic manufacturing
services.[CC]

NEWREZ LLC: Unlawfully Assesses Loan Charges, Funk Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD A. FUNK and RACHAEL FUNK, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. NEWREZ LLC d/b/a SHELLPOINT
MORTGAGE SERVICING, EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., EQUIFAX
INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, and TRANS UNION, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00301 (W.D. Tex., March 30, 2022) seeks redress for
violations of the Texas Debt Collection Act, Tex. Fin. Code Section
392 et seq., breach of contract, violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs' claims arise from Shellpoint's alleged unlawful
assessment of charges to Plaintiffs' mortgage loan. Specifically,
Shellpoint unilaterally purchased and charged Plaintiffs for a
property insurance policy despite having actual knowledge that
Plaintiffs maintained their own property insurance policy. Despite
Plaintiffs' repeated disputes of the erroneous insurance charges,
Shellpoint refused to reverse the charges it unfairly assessed to
Plaintiffs' mortgage loan.

As a result of Shellpoint's conduct, the Plaintiffs' mortgage loan
fell into default status despite the fact that Plaintiffs were
contractually current on their mortgage loan. Moreover, Shellpoint
destroyed Plaintiffs' credit scores by falsely reporting their
mortgage loan as past due when in fact it was current, the lawsuit
says.

Shellpoint's conduct in unilaterally purchasing a property
insurance policy despite having actual knowledge that a borrower
maintains his/her own policy is a widespread practice that has
injured hundreds, if not thousands, of consumers in Texas.

Specifically, the insurance policies unilaterally purchased by
Shellpoint are significantly more expensive than the insurance
policies that are independently maintained by consumers, including
Plaintiffs.

Shellpoint allegedly receives kickbacks from the insurer that
issues the insurance policies that Shellpoint unilaterally
purchases on behalf of consumers without a valid basis.
Accordingly, Shellpoint profits from its scheme and the scheme
results in significant monetary loss to Texas consumers as
consumers are forced to pay for more expensive insurance policies
to bring their mortgage loans current.

The Plaintiffs own the real property located at 3302 Maywood
Avenue, Unit B, Austin, Texas 78703. In July 2007, Plaintiffs
obtained a first mortgage loan from First Horizon Home Loans,
secured by the Property. At the time Plaintiffs purchased the
Property, the Property served as Plaintiffs' principal residence.

Shellpoint is a mortgage servicer that services mortgage loans
nationwide, including mortgage loans issued to Texas consumers.
Shellpoint does business in Texas and maintains nerve-center
operations in Houston, Texas.

Experian is a credit reporting agency that is in the business of
assembling, evaluating, and disbursing information concerning
consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports and credit
files to third parties bearing on a consumer's creditworthiness,
credit standing, and credit capacity. Experian maintains its
principal place of business in Costa Mesa, California and maintains
nerve-center operations in Dallas, Texas.

Equifax is a credit reporting agency that is in the business of
assembling, evaluating, and disbursing information concerning
consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports and credit
files to third parties bearing on a consumer's creditworthiness,
credit standing, and credit capacity. Equifax maintains its
principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.

Trans Union is a credit reporting agency that is in the business of
assembling, evaluating, and disbursing information concerning
consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports and credit
files to third parties bearing on a consumer's credit worthiness,
credit standing, and credit capacity. Trans Union maintains its
principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Ave., Ste. 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 575-8180
          E-mail: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com

OHIO HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anderson Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
EDONIA ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OHIO HEALTHCARE PLUS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. Case: 2:22-cv-01837-JLG-EPD (S.D., Ohio, March 30, 2022) seeks
to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, unlawfully retained
tips, liquidated damages, penalties, interest, attorneys' fees, and
costs, under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Anderson was employed by the Defendant as home health
aide.

OHIO HEALTHCARE PLUS, LLC is a state-licensed provider of nursing
care, therapy and social services that are specifically designed
for application in the client's home. We are fully committed to
achieving the best health possible for our clients in Columbus,
Ohio as this is the community we belong to and the community we
love to serve. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 230-2955
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7034 Braucher St NW, Suite B
          North Canton, OH 44720
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

OLDS PRODUCTS: Quiroga Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA, WWPCL
--------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMON QUIROGA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. OLDS PRODUCTS CO. OF ILLINOIS, Case No.
2:22-cv-00390-BHL (E.D. Wis., March 29, 2022) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive
relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.

The Plaintiff and all other similarly situated are current and
former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees of the Defendant.

The Defendant operated an alleged unlawful compensation system that
deprived and failed to compensate them 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: (1) shaving time (via electronic timeclock rounding)
from the Plaintiff's and all other hourly-paid, non-exempt
employees' weekly timesheets for pre-shift and post-shift hours
worked and/or work performed, to the detriment of the employees and
to the benefit of Defendant, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL;
and (2) failing to include all forms of non-discretionary
compensation, such as monetary bonuses, incentives, awards, and/or
other rewards and payments, in all current and former hourly-paid,
non-exempt employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation
purposes, in violation of the FLSA
and WWPCL.[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

OMNICARE INC: Ogungemi Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------------
TOPE OGUNGEMI, IKYFENU IKAHYTUGBE, OLUGBENGA OLATUNJI, ABIODUN
ADEJUMO, OLANREWAJU OLADAPO, OLEUFEMI OLAJUYIGBE, OBAKEYE JAIYEOLA,
OLASUNKANMI OLORUNDUYILEMI, OLADIMEJI NELSON, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
OMNICARE, INC., NOW COURIER, INC., and PRIORITY DISPATCH, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00649-SEB-DLP (S.D. Ind., March 31,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act including failure to pay appropriate
minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, unlawful payroll
deductions, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs have worked as delivery drivers for the Defendants
from 2011 to the present.

Omnicare, Inc. is a healthcare company, with its principal place of
business in Ohio.

NOW Courier, Inc. is a courier service provider, with its principal
place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Priority Dispatch, Inc. is a courier service provider, with its
principal place of business in Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Mark R. Waterfill, Esq.
         2230 Stafford Rd. STE 115, PMB 379
         Plainfield, IN 46168
         Telephone: (317) 501-6060
         E-mail: mark@waterfilllaw.com

PETZL AMERICA: Seeks to Strike Faulhaber's Class Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRAIG FAULHABER, and those
similarly situated, v. PETZL AMERICA, INC. d/b/a Petzl, Case No.
1:22-cv-00102-DDD-SKC (D. Colo.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order granting his motion to strike the class action
allegations from the complaint.

This lawsuit involves a rock climbing accident that occurred on
September 19, 2021. Mr. Faulhaber alleges that the product he was
using (i.e., a Shunt) failed to catch him during a fall, which
resulted in serious injuries. As such, this is a rather typical
product liability action. However, this case has not been pleaded
as a typical product liability action, but rather has been
improperly pleaded as a class action.

Petzl manufactures and distributes sporting and recreation goods.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 17, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35IbJ2e at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. McLeod, Esq.
          Samuel R. Thomas, Esq.
          MCLEOD │ BRUNGER PLLC
          10374 Park Meadows Drive, St. 260
          Lone Tree, CO 80124
          E-mail: smcleod@mcleodbrunger.com
                  sthomas@mcleodbrunger.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jordan Lipp, Esq.
          Sara Kiridly, Esq.
          CHILDS MCCUNE LLC
          821 17th Street, Suite 500
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 296-7300
          Facsimile: (720) 625-3637
          E-mail: jlipp@childsmccune.com
                  skiridly@childsmccune.com



POWER HOME: Brennan Landy Files Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENNAN LANDY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. POWER HOME TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a North Carolina
limited liability company, Case No. 5:21-cv-00341-FL (E.D.N.C.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23 and 55:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "All persons in the United States from four years prior to
      the filing of this action through the date notice is sent
      to the Class who (1) received a telemarketing call made by
      Power Home Technologies or any of Power Home's sub-
      dealers, vendors, lead generators, or agents either
      promoting Power Home's goods or services or that could
      have resulted in the installation of a home security
      system by Power Home, (2) on the person's telephone, (3)
      using an artificial or pre-recorded voice, and (4) for
      whom Defendant claims prior express written consent
      was obtained in the same manner as Defendant claims prior
      express written consent was obtained to call the
      Plaintiff;" and

   2. granting him leave to conduct discovery to identify Class
      members and determine the amount of damages they are
      entitled to prior to the entry of final judgment in this
      case.

This case challenges the Defendant's widespread violations of the
Telephone Consumer Act (TCPA), specifically the Defendant's
practice of blasting (either directly or via its downline agents)
pre-recorded telemarketing calls without prior express consent.

The Plaintiff filed his Class Action Complaint on August 23, 2021,
but, to date, Defendant has failed to appear or otherwise respond,
the lawsuit says.

The Class meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) and of Rule 23(b)(2)
and (b)(3) and should be certified. Additionally, as the Court in
Jackson v. Paycron, Inc. did, the Court should permit discovery in
addition to certifying the Class, the lawsuit adds.

The Defendant is a limited liability company headquartered in North
Carolina. To market its products and services, the Defendant
(directly or via downline agents and lead generators) blasted
pre-recorded telemarketing calls to consumers nationwide. In
Plaintiff's case, he received at least one pre-recorded call from
the Defendant that advertised Defendant's products and services.
The Plaintiff never consented to receive any calls from the
Defendant, nor does the Plaintiff have any prior business
relationship or dealings with the Defendant.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 17,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36VESaK
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          L. Phillip Hornthal, III, Esq.
          301 East Main Street
          Elizabeth City, NC 27909
          Telephone: (252) 698-0214
          Facsimile: (252) 335-4223

               - and -

          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          999 E Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, Colorado 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213-0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
          E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com


PREMIUM PARKING: Nunley Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Valet Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA NUNLEY, Individually, and on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated current and former employees v. PREMIUM PARKING
SERVICES, LLC, a Louisiana Limited Liability Company, Case No.
2:22-cv-02194 (W.D. Tenn., March 29, 2022) is a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum wages,
overtime pay, and other damages owed to the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated current and former valet drivers who are members
of a class defined as:

   "All current and former hourly-paid valet drivers who work (or
   have worked) for Defendant "full time" for at least one (1) year

   at any time during the applicable limitations period covered by

   this Collective Action Complaint (i.e., two years for FLSA
   violations and, three years for willful FLSA violations) up to
   and including the date of final judgment in this matter, and who

   are the Named Plaintiffs or elect to opt-in to this action
   pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section."

The Plaintiff and those similarly situated have worked more than 40
hours per week within weekly pay periods during all times relevant
and material to this Complaint. But the Defendant failed to pay
Plaintiff and those similarly situated at least the FLSA minimum
wage rates of $7.25 per hour within weekly pay periods during all
times relevant and material to this collective action, the lawsuit
says.

Mr. Nunley was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid valet
driver within the past three years preceding the filing of this
collective action lawsuit.

Premium Parking owns, operates, and manages parking facilities and
valet services in Tennessee and other states in the United States.
The Defendant’s business is to provide parking and valet services
to its customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT,
          OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com

RABIN PARKER: Faces Gathen Suit Over Illegal Collection Letters
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heidi L. Gathen, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Rabin Parker Gurley, P.A., Case No. 146636684 (Fla. Cir.,
Pinellas Cty., March 29, 2022) is a class action brought under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for the benefit of Florida
consumers whose rights have been violated by Rabin Parker.

Ms. Heidi is a natural person who at all relevant times resided in
Pinellas County, Florida. She is obligated, or allegedly obligated,
to pay a debt owed or due, or asserted to be owed or due, the
Defendant. The Plaintiff's obligation, or alleged obligation, owed
or due, or asserted to be owed or due, arises from a transaction in
which the money, property, insurance, or services that are the
subject of the transaction were incurred primarily for personal,
family, or household purposes --  namely, community association
assessments for her personal property (the "Debt").

Allegedly, the Defendant's July 20 letter to Plaintiff opens with
the following message: "Please be advised that this office
represents Bonaventura Community Association, Inc. ("Association").
This letter is to inform you that an Amended Claim of Lien has been
filed against your property for failure to pay your assessments due
to the Association. The Defendant's letter continues, "The
Association intends to begin foreclosure proceedings unless the
below amounts are paid in full within 45 days from the date of this
letter." To be sure, Plaintiff's claims and those of the members of
the class originate from the same standardized initial debt
collection letter utilized by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff
possesses the same interests and has suffered the same injuries as
each member of the class, says the suit.

The Plaintiff satisfies Rule 1.220(a)(4) because she will fairly
and adequately protect the interests of the members of the class
and has retained counsel experienced and competent in class action
litigation.

Rabin Parker is a premier community association law firm offering
legal services to communities across central Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
          Boca Raton, FL 33487
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
                  jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com

RESPONDUS INC: Bids to Dismiss Patterson, Wu & Veiga Suits Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, COURTNIE PATTERSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESPONDUS, INC. and LEWIS
UNIVERSITY, Defendants; CHENG WU, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RESPONDUS, INC. Defendant;
LUCIUS VEIGA, MICHAEL STERCHELE, and ALEX PARKER ZIMMERMAN, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. RESPONDUS, INC., Defendant, Case Nos. 20 C 7692, 21 C 1785, 21 C
2620 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division:

    (i) denied Respondus' three motions to dismiss; and

   (ii) granted in part and denied in part Lewis' motion to
        dismiss the Patterson complaint.

I. Introduction

The Opinion concerns three putative class actions brought under the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), 740 ILCS 14/1 et
seq. In each case, the Plaintiffs are current or former students
who took an exam using Respondus Monitor, a software program that
their schools used to administer online exams without a proctor.
Respondus Monitor employs a student's webcam and microphone to
record the student and their examination environment. The
Plaintiffs allege that the program captures various types of
biometric data, including scans of students' facial geometry.

All three sets of Plaintiffs have sued the company that makes
Respondus Monitor (Respondus, Inc., a Washington-based company),
and one Plaintiff has also sued her school (Lewis University, a
private university in Illinois). All the Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants violated BIPA by failing to obtain their informed,
written consent to the collection of their biometric data, 740 ILCS
14/15(b), and by failing to publicly disclose a compliance policy
regarding the retention and destruction of biometric data in their
possession. Some Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants
unlawfully profited from their biometric data, id. Section
14/15(c), and unlawfully disclosed their biometric data to third
parties.

Respondus and Lewis have moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' BIPA
claims on several grounds. The motions have generated a host of
subsidiary disputes, including questions of civil procedure and
contract law. After resolving these threshold issues, Judge
Pallmeyer reaches the BIPA claims, addressing standing in addition
to the issues briefed by the parties.

II. Procedural Background

A. Patterson v. Respondus Inc. & Lewis University (No. 20 C 7692)

On Nov. 16, 2020, Jerrie Hinds filed a putative class-action
complaint against Respondus in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois. On Dec. 23, 2020, Respondus removed the case to this
district under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). The
case was assigned to this court. On Jan. 22, 2021, Hinds filed the
operative First Amended Complaint, in which Courtnie Patterson was
joined as a plaintiff and Lewis University was added as a
defendant. Hinds has since voluntarily dismissed her claims,
leaving Patterson as the sole remaining named plaintiff. Patterson
claims that both Respondus and Lewis violated BIPA sections 15(a),
15(b), 15(c), and 15(d).

Ms. Patterson sues on behalf of herself and two proposed classes,
defined (with exclusions not relevant in the case) as follows:

       a. Respondus Monitor Class: All persons who took an exam
using Respondus Monitor in the state of Illinois at any time during
the five years prior to the filing of this Complaint through
trial.

       b. Lewis University Class: All persons who took an exam
using Respondus Monitor as a student of Lewis in the state of
Illinois at any time during the five years prior to the filing of
this Complaint through trial.

B. Wu v. Respondus, Inc. (No. 21 C 1785)

On April 2, 2021, Phillip Bridges and Cheng Wu filed a putative
class-action complaint against Respondus in this district,
premising federal jurisdiction on the CAFA. The case was initially
assigned to Judge Sara Ellis, but it was reassigned to the Court as
related to Patterson. Bridges voluntarily dismissed his claims,
leaving Wu as the sole remaining named plaintiff. The same
attorneys represent Plaintiffs Patterson and Wu, and apart from the
fact that the Wu complaint does not name Lewis University as a
defendant, it is essentially identical to the Patterson complaint.
Like Patterson, Wu sues on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated and claims that Respondus violated BIPA sections 15(a),
15(b), 15(c), and 15(d).

Mr. Wu proposed the following class definition (with exclusions not
relevant in the case): All persons who took an assessment using
Respondus Monitor in Illinois at any time during the five years
prior to the filing of this Complaint through Jan. 20, 2021.

C. Veiga, et al. v. Respondus, Inc. (No. 21 C 2620)

On March 31, 2021, Lucius Veiga, Michael Sterchele, and Alex Parker
Zimmerman filed a putative class-action complaint against Respondus
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Respondus removed
the case to this district under the CAFA. The case was initially
assigned to Judge John Lee, but, like Wu, it was reassigned to this
court as related to Patterson. Plaintiffs Veiga, Sterchele, and
Zimmerman are represented by different attorneys than Plaintiffs
Patterson and Wu, and the allegations in their complaint are
slightly different. The Veiga Plaintiffs claim that Respondus
violated BIPA sections 15(a) and 15(b).

Like the Patterson and Wu Plaintiffs, the Veiga Plaintiffs seek to
represent a class. They have proposed the following class
definition (again, with exclusions not relevant in the case): All
Illinois citizens, who used Respondus Monitor's software for a
remotely proctored exam from 2016 through 2020, and whose biometric
information or identifiers were collected, captured, purchased,
received through trade, or otherwise obtained by Respondus in
Illinois in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act.

D. Respondus' Three Motions to Dismiss

On June 4, 2021, Respondus filed motions to dismiss in Patterson
and Veiga. Its supporting memoranda of law were largely the same in
each case. The three motions have been exhaustively briefed. In the
Opinion, Judge Pallmeyer addresses the Patterson and Wu cases
together because these Plaintiffs filed nearly identical
complaints, are represented by the same counsel, and filed nearly
identical response briefs. The Veiga case differs slightly, so the
court addresses that motion separately at times.

E. Lewis' Motion to Dismiss

On June 4, 2021, Lewis filed a motion to dismiss in Patterson, the
only case in which it is a defendant. That motion, too, is fully
briefed. Because Lewis' motion raises different legal issues than
Respondus' motions, Judge Mayer addresses it separately.
III. Analysis

A. Respondus' Motions to Dismiss

The Patterson, Wu, and Veiga Plaintiffs all allege that Respondus
violated sections 15(a) and 15(b) of BIPA. The Patterson and Wu
Plaintiffs also allege that Respondus violated sections 15(c) and
15(d). Respondus contends that the Plaintiffs have failed to state
a claim. Before addressing the parties' arguments on this score,
the court pauses to identify the documents (other than the
complaints themselves) that are properly considered on these Rule
12 motions, and to resolve choice-of-law issues.

1. Incorporation-by-Reference Doctrine

a. Patterson and Wu

The Patterson and Wu Plaintiffs each attached the same two
documents to their respective complaints against Respondus: (1) a
copy, dated Nov. 2, 2020, of a Respondus webpage containing the
"Respondus Monitor-Student Terms of Use," and (2) a copy, also
dated November 2, 2020, of a Respondus webpage containing the
"Respondus Privacy Policy." Respondus then attached two additional
documents to its motions to dismiss: (3) a copy, dated June 2,
2021, of a Respondus webpage entitled "Privacy Center Overview,"
and (4) a copy, also dated June 2, 2021, of another Respondus
webpage entitled "Additional Privacy Information—Respondus
Monitor." Respondus contends that these two additional documents
were incorporated into the Plaintiffs' complaints by reference
because the Privacy Policy, which the Plaintiffs did attach, "links
to" the Privacy Center, which in turn "links to" the Additional
Information page.

Judge Pallmeyer declines to consider Respondus' two additional
documents at this stage. She opines that although the broader
contents of Respondus' website may be relevant at a later stage of
this litigation, "allowing Respondus to cherry pick portions of the
website to introduce via a motion to dismiss simply because the
complaint implicates that website would convert an examination of
the complaint into full-blown summary judgment analysis." She also
notes that the face of Respondus' two documents suggests that they
were generated on June 2, 2021 -- in other words, well after these
lawsuits began. In deciding Respondus' motions to dismiss the
Patterson and Wu complaints under Rule 12, the Court will consider
only the two documents attached to the Plaintiffs' complaints: The
Student Terms and the Privacy Policy.

b. Veiga

The Veiga Plaintiffs attached no documents to their complaint, but
Respondus attached the following documents to its motion to
dismiss: (1) an archived copy, dated Jan. 16, 2021, of the Student
Terms, (2) an undated copy of the Privacy Policy,9 (3) a copy,
dated June 2, 2021, of the Privacy Center, and (4) a copy, also
dated June 2, 2021, of the Additional Information page. In other
words, Respondus wants the court to consider, in the context of the
Veiga case, (1) the same two documents that the Patterson and Wu
Plaintiffs attached to their own complaints, plus (2) the same two
documents that Respondus itself (unsuccessfully) introduced in its
motions to dismiss the Patterson and Wu complaints.

Judge Pallmeyer holds that although the Veiga complaint does
briefly refer to the Student Terms, it does so mainly to support an
allegation that Respondus recently removed uses of the word
"biometric" on its website. And because Respondus' sole argument in
favor of considering the Privacy Policy is that it is incorporated
by reference into the Student Terms, Judge Pallmeyer likewise
declines to consider the Privacy Policy. The Additional Information
page has no reliable date-related information other than the date
on which the PDF was generated, and the content itself has quite
possibly been subject to change during the years relevant to the
Plaintiffs' claims (and even since the litigation began). In
deciding Respondus' motions to dismiss the Veiga complaint under
Rule 12, the Court will consider no exhibits.

2. Choice of Law

Another preliminary issue is which state's substantive laws apply
to the Plaintiffs' claims against Respondus. Under Illinois
choice-of-law rules, this state's laws presumptively apply to a
dispute unless there is an actual conflict with another state's
laws or the parties agree that forum-state law does not apply.
Respondus contends that the parties have entered such an agreement.
It points to a choice-of-law provision contained in the Student
Terms, which states that Washington law, not Illinois law, applies
to disputes related to the use of Respondus Monitor. Because BIPA
is an Illinois statute, applying Washington law would likely
foreclose every one of the Plaintiffs' claims against Respondus.

Judge Pallmeyer has determined that the Court will consider the
Student Terms in deciding the Patterson and Wu motions but not the
Veiga motion. That difference affects how the Court analyzes
Respondus' choice-of-law argument in each case. Judge Pallmeyer
opines that because Respondus' choice-of-law argument relies on a
document that the Court will not consider in deciding this motion,
she rejects the argument and will apply Illinois law in the Veiga
case.

Because the Patterson and Wu Plaintiffs attached a version of the
Student Terms to their pleadings, Judge Pallmeyer will consider
this document in deciding Respondus' motions to dismiss these
complaints and, specifically, in resolving the choice-of-law issue.
She finds that, under the circumstances in which the Student Terms
are alleged to be presented, this provision was "so difficult to
find, read, or understand that the Plaintiff cannot fairly be said
to have been aware he was agreeing to it." Given these procedural
defects, Judge Pallmeyer declines to enforce the choice-of-law
provision.

Judge Pallmeyer also finds, separately, that enforcing the
choice-of-law provision would violate Illinois public policy.
Because Illinois has enacted BIPA, and Washington is connected to
this dispute only by virtue of the Defendant's domicile, Illinois
has a materially greater interest in the litigation. Judge
Pallmeyer therefore declines to enforce the choice-of-law
provision.

3. Failure to State a Claim Under BIPA

Having determined which documents are properly considered on
Respondus' Rule 12 motions and concluded that Illinois law applies
in all three cases, Judge Pallmeyer turns to Respondus' arguments
that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under BIPA. Again,
however, she is mindful that standing is a key component of federal
court jurisdiction, and a court must always "satisfy itself that
jurisdiction is secure." As she explained, a plaintiff must
establish that it has standing for each claim it asserts.
Distinctions between the Plaintiffs' various BIPA claims prove
critical in these cases.

a. Section 15(a) and Standing

The Patterson, Wu, and Veiga Plaintiffs all claim that Respondus
violated section 15(a) of BIPA, which requires a private entity in
possession of biometric data to develop, publicly disclose, and
comply with a retention schedule and guidelines for destroying the
data within specified time limits. They allege that Respondus "does
not have a written policy made available to the public establishing
a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying"
biometric data, particularly scans of facial geometry. The Veiga
Plaintiffs claim, somewhat similarly, that Respondus "did not
provide to the Plaintiffs and the putative Class Members a publicly
available retention schedule or guidelines for permanently
destroying" such biometric data.

In its motions to dismiss, Respondus says that "the documents that
the Plaintiffs incorporate by reference in their Complaints
demonstrate that Respondus did have a publicly available retention
and destruction policy in effect during the timeframe alleged in"
each complaint.

Judge Pallmeyer opines that without allegations of a more concrete
and particularized harm, such as the unlawful retention of their
biometric data beyond the time limits set by section 15(a), the
Plaintiffs lack standing to assert these claims in federal court.
She will therefore remand the Patterson and Veiga complaints'
section 15(a) claims against Respondus. She will dismiss without
prejudice the Wu complaint's section 15(a) claim against
Respondus.

b. Section 15(b)

The Patterson, Wu, and Veiga Plaintiffs all claim that Respondus
violated section 15(b) of BIPA, which requires a private entity
that collects or otherwise obtains an individual's biometric data
to first obtain the individual's informed, written consent. The
Plaintiffs claim that Respondus violated section 15(b) because it
collected their biometric data, particularly scans of facial
geometry, without (1) informing them in writing that it was doing
so, (2) informing them in writing of the purpose and length of the
term for which it was doing so, or (3) receiving a written release
executed by them. (

Respondus argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim
because, in its view, they have "alleged that Respondus did, in
fact, provide all disclosures and obtain all consents allegedly
required by BIPA." It relies on both the Student Terms and the
Additional Information page. In the Veiga case, however, neither
exhibit is properly considered under Rule 12, so Judge Pallmeyer
rejects the argument as to that complaint. In Patterson and Wu,
only the Student Terms exhibit is properly considered, so Judge
Pallmeyer will evaluate Respondus' argument in light of the single
document.

Judge Pallmeyer agrees with the Plaintiffs that the language
Respondus cites is not clear enough, by itself, to satisfy section
15(b)'s informed-consent requirements. She therefore rejects
Respondus' argument that the Student Terms satisfy section 15(b),
and she concludes that the Patterson and Wu Plaintiffs have stated
a claim for a violation of this provision.

c. Section 15(c) and Standing

The Patterson and Wu Plaintiffs (but not the Veiga Plaintiffs)
claim that Respondus violated section 15(c) of BIPA. Specifically,
the Plaintiffs claim that Respondus profited from their biometric
data, namely scans of their facial geometry, "through contracts it
has with Institutions for the Respondus Monitor service." Respondus
believes that the Plaintiffs read the statutory language much too
broadly.

Judge Pallmeyer opines that without more substantial allegations
about how they were personally affected by Respondus' alleged
profiting from their biometric data, the Plaintiffs have failed to
establish standing to maintain their section 15(c) claim in federal
court. She will remand the Patterson complaint's section 15(c)
claim against Respondus, and will dismiss without prejudice the Wu
complaint's section 15(c) claim against Respondus.

d. Section 15(d)

The Patterson and Wu Plaintiffs (but not the Veiga Plaintiffs)
claim that Respondus violated section 15(d) of BIPA. Specifically,
the Plaintiffs claim that Respondus violated section 15(d) because
it "discloses or disseminates students' biometric identifiers or
biometric information to the student's Institution without the
student's consent to the disclosure." Respondus now argues that
Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim. In its view, the policies
that were disclosed to Plaintiffs "repeatedly specify that
third-party institutions have access to the data collected by
Respondus Monitor."

Judge Pallmeyer holds that without receiving notice that their
biometric data was being collected (or was otherwise in the
possession of Respondus), the Plaintiffs could not possibly have
consented to the further disclosure of that data to third parties.
She therefore concludes that the Patterson and Wu complaints have
stated a claim for a violation of section 15(d).

e. Deriving Biometric Data Through Photographic Means

Finally, Respondus makes a halfhearted argument that the
Plaintiffs' allegations do not concern "biometric identifiers" or
"biometric information" within the meaning of BIPA. Specifically,
Respondus suggests that any information derived through
photographic means, such as a video recording, is categorically
excluded from BIPA's definitions of "biometric" data. Respondus
cites no case law to support this contention. Indeed, several
courts have rejected the theory, and the Court will, as well. The
"bottom line" is that "a 'biometric identifier' is not the
underlying medium itself, or a way of taking measurements, but
instead is a set of measurements of a specified physical component
(eye, finger, voice, hand, face) used to identify a person." Judge
Apllmeyer is satisfied that the Plaintiffs' allegations concern
biometric data as defined in BIPA.

B. Lewis' Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff Courtnie Patterson alleges that Lewis University violated
sections 15(a), 15(b), 15(c), and 15(d) of BIPA. In this motion,
Lewis asks the Court to dismiss Patterson's claims because (1)
Lewis is exempt from BIPA, (2) Patterson's claims are time barred,
and (3) Patterson has failed to state a claim.

1. BIPA's Exemption for "Financial Institutions"

Judge Pallmeyer recognizes the complexity of the administrative
landscape created by the GLBA, especially as amended by the
Dodd-Frank Act.  The GLBA grants several agencies rulemaking or
enforcement power, and one or more of those agencies may well have
issued regulations or other policy statements that would provide a
more decisive answer to the question in the case -- whether Lewis
is "subject to Title V of the GLBA and the rules promulgated
thereunder." But Judge Pallmeyer cannot dismiss the case on the
dubious basis that Lewis has presented, and she is unwilling to
untangle this web of agency authority without the benefit of
further briefing. Based on the information it has been shown, she
rejects Lewis's argument that it is exempt from BIPA under section
25(c).

2. Statute of Limitations

The parties agree that BIPA itself contains no statute of
limitations. Patterson believes that the Court should simply
enforce Illinois' five-year catchall statute of limitations, which
applies to "all civil actions not otherwise provided for." Lewis,
on the other hand, asserts that BIPA claims are governed by
Illinois's one-year rule for "actions for slander, libel or for
publication of matter violating the right of privacy." According to
Lewis, the shorter limitations period would bar Patterson's claims.

Judge Pallmeyer declines to dismiss any of Patterson's claims for
untimeliness, as it is not clear from the complaint that Lewis'
alleged violations of sections 15(c) and 15(d) fell outside the
one-year period before the complaint was filed. Even if Patterson
stated a claim for a violation of section 15(c) by Lewis, it is not
clear when the violation occurred.

3. Failure to State a Claim Under BIPA

Having rejected, for now, the argument that Lewis is exempt from
BIPA under section 25(c), as well as Lewis' timeliness challenge,
Judge Pallmeyer turns to the merits of Patterson's BIPA claims
against Lewis. Lewis moves to dismiss the complaint for various
reasons. In evaluating Patterson's claims, Judge Pallmeyer again
recognizes her "independent duty to ensure" that the case is
properly in federal court.

First, Patterson has adequately sketched out how Respondus Monitor
obtains or generates biometric data, how Lewis or its agents may
freely access that data, and even how Lewis may dictate how or when
that biometric data is shared or disposed of. She has therefore
sufficiently pleaded that Lewis was "in possession of" her
biometric data.

Second, Patterson has not established Article III standing for her
section 15(a) claim against Lewis. It will therefore remand this
claim. Patterson's allegations about retention and destruction are
entirely conclusory. She does not meaningfully allege that Lewis
violated the "full panoply" of section 15(a)'s requirements by
unlawfully retaining her biometric data beyond the time limits set
by the provision. She merely parrots the statutory language without
making any specific factual allegations about retention. Judge
Pallmeyer will therefore remand this claim.

Third, Patterson adequately alleges that Lewis took an active step
to "collect" or "obtain" her data, as required by section 15(b).
Fourth, without more substantial allegations about how she was
personally affected by Lewis' alleged profiting from her biometric
data, Patterson has failed to establish standing to maintain a
section 15(c) claim against Lewis in federal court. Judge Pallmeyer
will remand this claim.

Finally, Patterson's complaint never alleges that Lewis did
disclose biometric data. She has therefore failed to state a claim
against Lewis under section 15(d). This claim is dismissed without
prejudice.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons she explained, Judge Pallmeyer denied Respondus'
motion to dismiss the Patterson complaint, but she remanded the
Plaintiff's section 15(a) and 15(c) claims against Respondus for
lack of standing. She denied Respondus' motion to dismiss the Wu
complaint as well, but she dismissed without prejudice the
Plaintiff's section 15(a) and 15(c) claims for lack of standing.
She also denied the Respondus' motion to dismiss the Veiga
complaint, but she remanded the Plaintiffs' section 15(a) claim for
lack of standing.

Judge Pallmeyer granted in part and denied in part Lewis' motion to
dismiss the Patterson complaint. The Plaintiff's section 15(b)
claim survived the motion, but the section 15(a) and 15(c) claims
against Lewis are remanded for lack of standing, and the section
15(d) claim is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a
claim.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8bcsrj from
Leagle.com.


ROWDY MERMAID: CMP, Scheduling Order Entered in Tavarez Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTORIANO TAVAREZ,
Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
ROWDY MERMAID INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-09782-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered a civil case management plan and
scheduling order as follows:

  -- All fact discovery shall be           July 21, 2022
     completed no later than:

  -- Initial requests for production       April 22, 2022
     of document to be served by:

  -- All expert discovery shall be         Sept. 2, 2022
     completed no later than:

Rowdy Mermaid operates as a beverage company.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3j4hf23 at no extra charge.[CC]

ROYALTY CARPET: $30K Counsel Costs Award in Estrada Suit Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JORGE LUIS ESTRADA, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants
v. ROYALTY CARPET MILLS, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No.
G059350 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the
Fourth District, Division Three, reversed the trial court's order
awarding the Plaintiffs $30,248.07 in costs.

The lawsuit is a wage and hour class action and representative
action under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA; Lab. Code
Section 2698, et seq.). Generally, the Plaintiffs alleged their
employer, Royalty, which is now known as Royalty Carpet Mills, LLC,
failed to provide compliant meal and rest breaks. They asserted
claims against Royalty for meal and rest break violations as well
as several derivative claims.

Following trial, the court awarded the Plaintiffs a $630,348.31
judgment in January 2020. The Plaintiffs then filed a timely
memorandum of costs under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1032 and
1033.5, requesting $48,896.52 in reimbursable costs. Royalty filed
a motion to tax various items. The Plaintiffs largely conceded and
agreed to $18,586.95 in reductions. The hearing on Royalty's motion
to tax costs was initially set for March 20, 2020, but it was
continued to June 19, 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In April 2020, the Plaintiffs' counsel discovered two items
totaling $4,318.78 had been accidentally omitted from the
memorandum of costs: (1) $3,736.20 paid to Simpluris, Inc., to
provide class notice; and (2) $582.58 paid to a Royalty consultant
for costs incurred responding to a business records subpoena
seeking documents relating to Royalty's meal and rest period
policies. Royalty did not respond to the Plaintiffs' request to
stipulate that these costs be added to the memorandum of costs.

So, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended
memorandum of costs to add these two items. The motion for leave
was heard the same day as Royalty's motion to tax costs. Following
the hearing on both motions, the court awarded the Plaintiffs
$30,248.07 in costs but denied the motion for leave to add the two
omitted items. The Plaintiffs appeal this order, arguing the trial
court abused its discretion by denying the motion for leave.

In the companion opinion, the Court of Appeals partially reversed
the judgment. It also reversed an order by the court decertifying a
portion of the Plaintiffs' class claims based on meal break
violations and dismissing as unmanageable a related representative
claim under PAGA. The Court of Appeals instructed the trial court
to retry these class claims and PAGA claim on remand.

Due to these rulings, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial
court's order awarding costs. On remand, the Plaintiffs may file a
new memorandum of costs following the new trial on these claims. At
that point, the court may redetermine the correct amount of costs
to which the Plaintiffs are entitled for the entire action under
Code of Civil Procedure sections 1032 and 1033.5. The parties will
bear their own costs on this appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3f4zw7mb from Leagle.com.

Ginez, Steinmetz & Assoc., Rudy Ginez, Jr.; CE Smith Law Firm and
Clifton E. Smith for the Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Baker & Hostetler, Daniel F. Lula -- dlula@bakerlaw.com -- Vartan
S. Madoyan -- vmadoyan@bakerlaw.com -- and Joseph S. Persoff for
the Defendant and Respondent.


ROYALTY CARPET: $465K Attys.' Fee Award in Estrada Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JORGE LUIS ESTRADA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants
v. ROYALTY CARPET MILLS, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No.
G059681 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California for the
Fourth District, Division Three, reversed the trial court's award
of attorney fees and costs.

The lawsuit is a wage and hour class action and representative
action under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA; Lab. Code
Section 2698, et seq.). Generally, the Plaintiffs alleged their
employer, Royalty, which is now known as Royalty Carpet Mills, LLC,
failed to provide compliant meal and rest breaks. They asserted
claims against Royalty for meal and rest break violations as well
as several derivative claims. At trial, they prevailed on a
fraction of their claims, and the trial court awarded them a
$630,348.31 judgment.

The Plaintiffs then filed a motion for attorney fees and costs,
seeking $2,097,150 in fees and $130,052.33 in costs under Code of
Civil Procedure section 1021.5, PAGA (Lab. Code, Section 2699,
subd. (g)(1)), and the common fund and substantial benefit
doctrines. The trial court awarded $465,379.15 in fees to be paid
by Royalty and $130,052.33 in costs to be paid from the judgment.

Typically, in class action settlements, the parties settle for a
gross amount, known as a common fund, and plaintiffs request a
percentage of the common fund (frequently one-third) as attorney
fees. In the case, though the award of attorney fees was to be paid
directly by Royalty and not taken from the judgment, the trial
court still awarded fees based primarily on a common fund
percentage calculation. Specifically, it reverse-engineered a
common fund using two components: (1) two-thirds of the fund would
consist of the total monetary benefit provided to Royalty's
employees (total employee benefit) as a result of the lawsuit; and
(2) the remaining one-third would be the allowable amount of
attorney fees.

The court started its common fund calculation by determining the
total employee benefit was $930,758.31. It arrived at this sum by
adding together (1) the $630,348.31 judgment awarded to the
Plaintiffs, and (2) the $300,410 in total settlements that Royalty
paid to individual putative class members after the lawsuit was
filed. Since the court concluded two-thirds of the common fund
would consist of the total employee benefit, it appears to have
derived the amount of the common fund by dividing the total
employee benefit ($930,758.31) by two-thirds. This resulted in a
common fund of $1,396,167.47. The court then calculated attorney
fees as one-third of this amount, leading to a fee award of
$465,379.15.

The Plaintiffs appeal the court's award of attorney fees and costs,
arguing they are entitled to a higher amount.

The Court of Appeal opines that it cannot address their arguments
due to the rulings made in the companion opinion. First, it found
the trial court incorrectly failed to apply the relation back
doctrine to the meal period claim of Royalty's employees at its
location in Porterville, California. Second, it found that the
court erred by decertifying the meal period class claims of its
Orange County employees and by dismissing their related PAGA claim
as unmanageable.

Due to these rulings, the Court of Appeals reversed the court's
order. On remand, the Plaintiffs may file a new motion for attorney
fees and costs following the new trial. At that point, the trial
court will recalculate an appropriate amount of attorney fees and
costs. The Plaintiffs may appeal again if they believe the court's
new award is unreasonable. The parties will bear their own costs on
the appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/8msx8588 from Leagle.com.

Ginez, Steinmetz & Assoc., Rudy Ginez, Jr.; CE Smith Law Firm and
Clifton E. Smith for the Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Baker & Hostetler, Daniel F. Lula -- dlula@bakerlaw.com -- Vartan
S. Madoyan -- vmadoyan@bakerlaw.com -- and Joseph S. Persoff for
the Defendant and Respondent.


ROYALTY CARPET: Order Decertifying Dyer/Derian Class Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JORGE LUIS ESTRADA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants
v. ROYALTY CARPET MILLS, INC., Defendant and Appellant, Case Nos.
G058397, G058969 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California
for the Fourth District, Division Three:

    (i) reversed the trial court's order decertifying the
        Dyer/Derian class and dismissing the related PAGA claim
        as unmanageable; and

   (ii) affirmed and reversed various aspects of the court's
        judgment.

I. Background

The Plaintiffs in the case were employees at three separate carpet
manufacturing facilities operated by Defendant Royalty, which is
now known as Royalty Carpet Mills, LLC. They alleged representative
claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA; Lab. Code
Section 2698 et seq.), and class claims primarily based on
purported meal and rest period violations. They sought premium pay
under section 226.7 for these violations and asserted derivative
claims for waiting time and wage statement penalties, among
others.

The trial court initially certified two classes: One for employees
that worked at a facility in Porterville (the Porterville class)
and another for employees that worked in two separate facilities in
Orange County (the Dyer/Derian class).

The Porterville class consists of "all former nonexempt, hourly
employees of Royalty, who worked at the Porterville carpet
manufacturing and warehouse facility at any time from Dec. 13, 2009
through June 14, 2017." It also certified three subclasses within
the Porterville class: (1) a meal period subclass to determine
whether Porterville's on-premises meal policy was lawful; (2) a
rest period subclass to determine whether Royalty's rest period
policies at Porterville were facially lawful; and (3) a release
subclass to determine whether Porterville class members' settlement
releases were enforceable.

The Dyer/Derian class is composed of "all former nonexempt, hourly
employees of Royalty, who worked at either the Dyer or Derian
carpet manufacturing and warehouse facility at any time from Dec.
13, 2009 through June 14, 2017." The court certified three
subclasses within this class: (1) a meal period subclass to
determine whether Dyer/Derian class members were provided timely
first meal periods and/or deprived of second meal periods; (2) a
rest period subclass to determine whether Royalty's rest period
policies at Dyer and Derian were facially lawful; and (3) a release
subclass to determine whether the Dyer/Derian class members'
settlement releases were enforceable.

Finally, the court certified subclasses for all derivative claims
tied to the certified issues, including claims for premium pay,
wages statement penalties, waiting time penalties, and unfair
business practices. Five named plaintiffs were found to be suitable
class representatives for the Dyer/Derian class, and four named
plaintiffs were found to be suitable representatives for the
Porterville class.

Following the presentation of evidence at trial, the court
decertified the Dyer/Derian class.

As to the first cause of action for meal period violations, the
court issued an order decertifying the Dyer/Derian meal period
subclass. The court found there were too many individualized issues
to support class treatment. That order likewise dismissed the
portion of the PAGA claim (sixth cause of action) based on meal
period violations at Dyer and Derian because the individualized
issues made it unmanageable.

The court also confirmed its prior rulings granting Royalty's
mid-trial motions to decertify the rest break subclasses (second
cause of action) and for judgment on the Plaintiffs' third cause of
action for wage statement penalties and fourth cause of action for
waiting time penalties. Finally, as to the eighth cause of action
concerning the validity of the releases, the court found this issue
was only relevant to the Porterville class' meal period claims
since the Dyer/Derian class had been decertified and it had found
no liability on the rest break claims. The court ruled these
releases were valid because there was a bona fide dispute as to
whether Royalty owed the Porterville class any premium pay for meal
period violations.

Since the trial court decertified the Dyer/Derian meal period
subclass, it granted judgment to four of the named Dyer/Derian
plaintiffs on their individual meal period claims and derivative
UCL claims. Though the court dismissed their representative PAGA
claims based on unmanageability, it found the named Dyer/Derian
Plaintiffs had established individual PAGA violations and awarded
each of them PAGA penalties. These four named plaintiffs were
awarded amounts ranging from $9,516.01 to $27,047.84, consisting of
unpaid premium pay, prejudgment interest at a rate of 7%, and
individual PAGA penalties.

The court entered judgment on Jan. 16, 2020. Both sides now appeal
the judgment, and the Plaintiffs also appeal the court's order
decertifying the Dyer/Derian meal period subclass and dismissing
the related Dyer/Derian PAGA claim as unmanageable.

II. Discussion

The Plaintiffs make several contentions on appeal: (1) certain
releases in settlement agreements that Royalty made with individual
class members prior to trial are invalid; (2) the court erred in
finding the Porterville class's meal period claim, which was added
in an amended complaint, did not relate back to any prior
complaint; (3) the court abused its discretion by decertifying the
Dyer/Derian class; (4) the court incorrectly applied a seven
percent prejudgment interest rate to premium pay awarded under
section 226.7 rather than a 10 percent rate; (5) the court's
judgment for Royalty on the Porterville class's derivative waiting
time and wage statement claims was wrong; and (6) the court
mistakenly dismissed the PAGA meal period claims of the Dyer/Derian
employees on unmanageability grounds.

As explained in its Opinion, the Court of Appeals agrees with three
of these contentions. It finds the court erred in failing to apply
the relation back doctrine, in decertifying the Dyer/Derian class,
and dismissing the PAGA claims as unmanageable.

The Court of Appeals publishes the Opinion primarily due to our
discussion concerning unmanageable PAGA claims. Currently, only one
published California opinion, Wesson v. Staples the Office
Superstore, LLC (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 746 (Wesson), addresses this
issue. It concluded courts have inherent authority to strike
unmanageable PAGA claims.

While it understands the concerns expressed in Wesson, the Court of
Appeals reach the opposite conclusion. Based on its reading of
pertinent Supreme Court authority, chiefly Arias v. Superior Court
(2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, and Kim v. Reins International California,
Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73, it finds that a court cannot strike a
PAGA claim based on manageability. These cases have made clear that
PAGA claims are unlike conventional civil suits and, in particular,
are not class actions. Allowing dismissal of unmanageable PAGA
claims would effectively graft a class action requirement onto PAGA
claims, undermining a core principle of these authorities. It would
also interfere with PAGA's purpose as a law enforcement mechanism
by placing an extra hurdle on PAGA plaintiffs that is not placed on
the state.

That said, the Court of Appeals opines that courts are not
powerless when facing unwieldy PAGA claims. Courts may still, where
appropriate and within reason, limit the amount of evidence PAGA
plaintiffs may introduce at trial to prove alleged violations to
other unrepresented employees. If plaintiffs are unable to show
widespread violations in an efficient and reasonable manner, that
will just reduce the amount of penalties awarded rather than lead
to dismissal.

As for Royalty, it makes two arguments in its cross-appeal. First,
it asserts the trial court incorrectly found it liable to the
Porterville class for meal period violations.

The Court of Appeals finds that the court correctly ruled that the
meal policy at Porterville, which required employees to remain at
the facility during meal breaks, violated governing law. Second,
while the court dismissed the Dyer/Derian employees' PAGA meal
period claim as unmanageable, it awarded the named Plaintiffs
individual PAGA penalties. Royalty contends courts cannot award
PAGA penalties to individual plaintiffs because such claims can
only be brought in a representative capacity. The Court of Appeals
need not address this argument given its finding that the court
erred by dismissing the PAGA claim as unmanageable.

III. Disposition

In light of the foregoing, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial
court's order decertifying the Dyer/Derian meal period subclasses
and dismissing the portion of the Dyer/Derian PAGA claim based on
meal period violations. On remand, the court will hold a new trial
on both claims. As to both, the Court of Appeals left it in the
court's discretion to determine whether additional witnesses or
other evidence will be allowed in light of the principles set forth
in its Opinion.

As to the judgment, first, the Court of Appeals reversed the
portion limiting recovery on the Porterville class's meal period
claim to violations occurring between Nov. 17, 2012, through June
14, 2017, and restricting the class period to these dates. On
remand, the court will recalculate damages on this claim so they
reflect meal period violations occurring at Porterville between
Oct. 22, 2010, and June 14, 2017, and it will expand the class
period for this claim accordingly. Second, the portion of the
judgment awarding individual PAGA penalties to Plaintiffs Jorge
Luis Estrada, Paulina Nava Medina, Jose Garcia, and Martin Garcia
is reversed based on the Court of Appeals' finding that the court
improperly dismissed their representative PAGA claim as
unmanageable.

Finally, it reversed any portion of the judgment that is
inconsistent with its Opinion. The judgment is affirmed in all
other respects. Each party will bear their own costs on the
appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p9bhwmm from Leagle.com.

Ginez, Steinmetz & Assoc., Rudy Ginez, Jr.; CE Smith Law Firm and
Clifton E. Smith for the Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Baker & Hostetler, Daniel F. Lula -- dlula@bakerlaw.com -- Vartan
S. Madoyan -- vmadoyan@bakerlaw.com -- and Joseph S. Persoff for
the Defendant and Respondent.


RSCR CALIFORNIA: Class Cert. Deadlines Extended in Espinosa Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Raylene Espinosa v. RSCR
California, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-08084-JAK-KK (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order continuing
the current deadlines and the class certification hearing as
follows:

            Event                   Old             New  
                                    Deadline        Deadline

  Deadline to file Motion for    June 1, 2022     Sept. 1, 2022
  Class Certification:

  Deadline to file Opposition    Aug. 1, 2022     Oct. 17, 2022
  to Motion for Class
  Certification:

  Deadline to file Reply in      Aug. 31, 2022    Oct. 31, 2022
  Support of Motion for
  Class Certification:

  Hearing on Motion for Class    Sept. 12, 2022   Nov. 14, 2022
  Certification

  Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off   Jan. 16, 2023    March 1, 2023

  Initial Expert Disclosures:    Nov. 16, 2022    March 15, 2023

  Rebuttal Expert Disclosures    Dec. 16, 2022    March 29, 2023

  Expert Discovery Cut-Off:      Jan. 16, 2023    April 12, 2023

  Last day to file All Motions   Feb. 16, 2023    April 17, 2023
  (including discovery
   motions)

RSCR California. was founded in 2007. The company's line of
business includes providing employment services.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3u7twJo at no extra charge.[CC]


SAND H PARTNERS: Myers Seeks Overtime Pay for Driver Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHAD MYERS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
SAND H PARTNERS, LLC, LRH ENT INC., ZXB LOGISTICS INC., and HAS ENT
INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00495 (N.D. Ohio, March 29, 2022) challenges
the Defendants policies and practices that violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act as well as the Ohio overtime compensation statute.

The Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of himself and other members of a class of
persons who assert factually related claims under Ohio
wage-and-hour statutes. The Plaintiff is a resident of Ohio who was
employed by the Defendants as a driver within the last three years.


The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were routinely
required to work more than 40 hours per workweek. But the
Defendants failed to pay the required overtime compensation to
Representative Plaintiff and the Ohio Class Members, the lawsuit
says.BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
          1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 230-2955
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B
          North Canton, OH 44720
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


SEATTLE, WA: Oral Argument on Class Cert. Bid Set for April 20
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUNTERS CAPITAL, LLC, et
al., v. CITY OF SEATTLE, Case No. 2:20-cv-00983-TSZ (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge Thomas S. Zilly entered an order that:

  1. Oral argument (to be conducted in person, at the United
     States Courthouse in Seattle) on Plaintiffs' motion for
     class certification is set for Wednesday, April 20, 2022,
     at 10:00 a.m.

  2. Counsel should be prepared to focus their oral argument on
     the following:

     a. Whether named plaintiffs Greenus Building, Inc., Madrona
        Real Estate Investors IV LLC, and Madrona Real Estate
        Investors VI LLC are members of the proposed Class. The
        Plaintiffs did not address these entities in their
        motion for class certification or include them in their
        chart of named plaintiffs.

     b. Whether Plaintiffs intend to pursue their claims in this
        action for properties located outside the proposed class
        area. Hunters Capital LLC's Dunn Motors Buildin, and
        Colman Building are located outside the proposed class
        area. Redside Partners LLC's building at 1323 E Pine St
        is located outside the proposed class area.

     c. The application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to
        Plaintiffs' claims. Counsel should focus on the
        commonality and typicality requirements under Rule 23(a)
        (2) and (3).

     d. Proposed methods for case management if: (i) the Court
        denies Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, or
        (ii) some named plaintiffs are not members of the
        proposed Class.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36W96dx at no extra charge.[CC]

SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Underpays Disability Representatives, Smith Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BONNIE SMITH and JOYLEALIA WARTIAN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT
SERVICES INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02201-JPM-tmp (W.D.
Tenn., March 31, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for
its failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and for breach of contract under Florida and Michigan
State Laws.

Plaintiffs Smith and Wartian worked for the Defendant as disability
representatives from September 16, 2019 to December 19, 2020 and
from February 7, 2016 to December 19, 2020, respectively.

Sedgwick Claims Management Services Inc. is an information
technology (IT) service management company, with its principal
place of business in Memphis, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Mary E. Lytle, Esq.
         David V. Barszcz, Esq.
         LYTLE & BARSZCZ, P.A.
         533 Versailles Drive, 2nd Floor
         Maitland, FL 32751
         Telephone: (407) 622-6544
         Facsimile: (407) 622-6545
         E-mail: mlytle@lblaw.attorney
                 dbarszcz@lblaw.attorney

SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO: Faces Dunham Suit Over Unlawful Surcharges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MAUREEN E. DUNHAM; and FRANK NOVAK, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.1:22-cv-00300-DNH-DJS (N.D.N.Y., March
30, 2022) is an action arising from the Defendant's deceptive
bait-and-switch scheme of covertly tacking on a hidden 4% Supply
Chain Surcharge (the "Surcharge") to every sale transaction at the
cash register once it's often too late for the customer to rescind
their purchase.

According to the complaint, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic,
supply chain shortages increased throughout the nation for raw
materials, such as paint. Feeling the pressure of rapidly rising
manufacturing costs, the Defendant decided to shift this cost onto
customers. But instead of raising its list prices in a transparent
manner, the Defendant chose to add the Surcharge on to sales after
the customer has decided to make a purchase.

This alleged deceptive practice allows the Defendant to hide the
true prices of its products. Customers are induced to make
purchases in reliance on the lower listed price and then are duped
at the cash register into paying 4% more than the prices advertised
by the Defendant. The Defendant's conduct is deceptive and illegal,
as it obstructs customers' ability to engage in fair and accurate
price comparisons in the marketplace and to shop around for the
best value for their money.

THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY manufactures, distributes, and sells
paints, coatings, and related products. The Company's products are
sold to professional, industrial, commercial, and retail customers
primarily in North and South America. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD PLLC
          1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          Email: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com

               - and -

          Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD PLLC
          950 Gilman Street, Suite 200
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          Email: sgold@kalielgold.com

               - and -

          Justin S. Nematzadeh, Esq.
          NEMATZADEH PLLC
          101 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (646) 799-6729
          Email: jsn@nematlawyers.com

SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Faces Brnich Suit Over Defective AFCI Breakers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Brnich Electric LLC, Performance Electric, Inc., Artistic
Electric Inc., Bolt Electric LLC, and Charles Vodicka, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Siemens Industry,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01229-MHC (N.D. Ga., March 29, 2022) is a
class action complaint on behalf of the Plaintiffs and a class of
all similarly situated electrician businesses and individual
consumers against Siemens involving defective Arc Fault Circuit
Interrupters (AFCI) breakers.

Siemens is one of several companies that has designed and
manufactured AFCI breakers. It offers standalone AFCI breakers and
combo breakers that perform multiple functions. Siemens' AFCIs,
however, fail to adequately distinguish between harmless and
dangerous electrical arcs.

According to the complaint, Siemens' defective AFCI breakers suffer
from nuisance tripping, where the breakers frequently and
unnecessarily trip even where no dangerous electrical arc is
present and there is no risk of electrical harm. Specifically,
Siemens has failed to update its AFCIs to identify and ignore
harmless arcing signatures caused by common appliances, especially
as new appliances have been developed and electrical codes have
expanded the locations where homeowners are required to use AFCIs.
Rather, Siemens AFCIs trip in the presence of common appliances,
even though they do not pose a risk due to electrical arcing,
leading to excessive and frequent nuisance tripping.

Siemens recognizes that nuisance tripping imposes significant costs
on homeowners and electricians. In advertising its electrical
services, Siemens recognizes that "[t]he costs of downtime are
great, in terms of both lost productivity and equipment
replacement, as are the costs of operating inefficient or unsafe
systems."

AFCI are a type of circuit breaker with electronic components
designed to protect homes and businesses from an electrical arc
fault -- a potential dangerous electrical condition where the
electrical current travels through an unintended medium, usually
the air, instead of through the circuit as intended. Unintended and
dangerous electrical arcs pose a serious risk of an electrical fire
and of injury.

AFCI breakers are complex devices. Manufacturers must design and
use sophisticated circuitry to identify dangerous electrical arcing
and trip the breaker in response. Using advanced circuitry, AFCI
breakers monitor aspects of the circuit and current in that circuit
to identify potential signatures of electrical arcs. When the AFCI
breaker identifies a dangerous electrical arc, the breaker trips to
stop the current and prevent the electrical arc from causing a fire
or other harm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles H. Van Horn, Esq.
          BERMAN FINK VAN HORN P.C.
          3475 Piedmont Road, NE Suite 1100
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 261-7711
          Facsimile: (404) 233-1943
          E-mail: cvanhorn@bfvlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
          Jason P. Johnston, Esq.
          Michael J. Laird, Esq.
          Rachel K. Tack
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          1100 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
          E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
                  jason.johnston@zimmreed.com
                  michael.laird@zimmreed.com
                  rachel.tack@zimmreed.com

SMARTLINK LLC: Sarahong, et al., File Bid for Conditional Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHAJEEMAS SARAHONG, et
al., Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly Situated
Employees, v. SMARTLINK, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00328-BPG (D. Md.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their
motion for conditional certification and issuance of
court-authorized notice for the alleged wage and overtime claims
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Smartlink is a national talent solutions and telecom services
company which delivers solutions for the development, engineering
and maintenance.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 17,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x3VpE9
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
          Scott E. Nevin, Esq.
          Kelly A. Burgy, Esq.
          The Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl
          36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 244-7005
          Facsimile: (410) 244-8454
          E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com
                  snevin@nicholllaw.com
                  kaburgy@nicholllaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert M. Gittins, Esq.
          ECCLESTON & WOLF, P.C.
          Baltimore-Washington Law Center
          7240 Parkway Drive, 4th Floor
          Hanover, MD 21076-1378
          Telephone: (410) 752-7474
          Facsimile: (410) 752-0611
          E-mail: gittins@ewmd.com


SOCLEAN INC: Litman Consumer Suit Moved From E.D. Va. to W.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RICHARD LITMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SOCLEAN, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00250,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on March 29, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00501-JFC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of contract,
unjust enrichment, breach of warranty, fraudulent
misrepresentation, and violation of Virginia Consumer Protection
Act by marketing a defective continuous positive airway pressure
(CPAP) sanitizing device.

SoClean, Inc. is a manufacturer of cleaning devices, with its
principal place of business at 12 Vose Farm Road, Peterborough, New
Hampshire. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Theodore H. Huge, Esq.
         THEODORE HUGE LAW FIRM, LLC
         180 Spring Street
         Charleston, SC 29403
         Telephone: (843) 805-8031
         Facsimile: (843) 636-3375
         E-mail: ted@thehugelawfirm.com

                 - and –

         Michael C. Rader, Esq.
         Edward "Kip" Robertson, Esq.
         Edward Chip Robertson, Esq.
         James P. Frickleton, Esq.
         4000 W. 114th St., Suite 310
         Leawood, KS 66211-2298
         Telephone: (913) 266-2300
         Facsimile: (913) 266-2366
         E-mail: mrader@bflawfirm.com
                 krobertson@bflawfirm.com
                 crobertson@bflawfirm.com
                 jimf@bflawfirm.com

SOUTHSIDE PIZZA: Gallant Seeks Proper Wages for Delivery Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA GALLANT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. SOUTHSIDE PIZZA, LLC, Case No. 4:22CV00019-TTC (W.D.
Va., March 29, 2022) is a collective action against the Defendant
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Virginia
Minimum Wage Act.

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

Specifically, the Defendant employed Plaintiff as an hourly-paid
delivery driver from January of 2017 until present. The Defendant
also employed other hourly-paid Delivery Drivers within the three
years preceding the filing of this lawsuit.

The Defendant owns and operates Domino's Pizza franchises in
Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Helen T. Vu, Esq.
          HALPERIN LAW CENTER
          4435 Waterfront Drive, Suite 100
          Glen Allen, VA 23060
          Telephone: (804) 527-0100
          Facsimile: (804) 597-0209
          E-mail: helen@hlc.law

               - and -

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

UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses Without Prejudice Sirleaf v. ICE
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Hannah Lauck of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, Richmond Division, dismissed the case, MOMULU
V.S. SIRLEAF, Plaintiff v. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:21CV785 (E.D. Va.), without
prejudice.

The Plaintiff, a federal detainee proceeding pro se, submitted the
action to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California. The Plaintiff labeled the action as a "TORTURE VICTIM
PROTECTION ACT CLASS ACTION." By Order entered on Dec. 13, 2021,
the District Court for the Central District of California informed
the Plaintiff that he could not represent other individuals and
transferred the action to the Court.

The Plaintiff's current allegations fail to provide the particular
constitutional right that was violated by the Defendants' conduct
and also fail to provide each Defendant with fair notice of the
facts and legal basis upon which his or her liability rests.
Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on Jan. 19, 2022, the
Court directed the Plaintiff to submit a particularized complaint
within 14 days of the date of entry thereof. It warned the
Plaintiff that the failure to submit the particularized complaint
would result in the dismissal of the action.

More than 14 days have elapsed since the entry of the Jan. 19, 2022
Memorandum Order. The Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized
complaint or otherwise respond to the Jan. 19, 2022 Memorandum
Order.

Accordingly, Judge Lauck dismissed the action without prejudice.

An appropriate order will accompany the Memorandum Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 23, 2022 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/3rvhdxmp from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: HBA Directed to File Class Status Bid
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAITIAN BRIDGE ALLIANCE,
et al., v. JOSEPH BIDEN, ALEJANDRO J. MAYORKAS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-03317 (D.D.C.), the
Hon. Judge Emmet G. Sullivan entered an order that the Plaintiffs
must file their motion for class certification on or before 90 days
after a Local Civil Rule 16.3 scheduling conference is held or, if
only Administrative Procedure Act claims remain following a
decision on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, 90 days after the
Court's decision on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Administrative
Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision.

The United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S.
federal executive department responsible for public security,
roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other
countries.[CC]

VIVINT INC: Cunningham Gets More Time to File Class Cert Reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, ROBERT
HOSSFELD and ANDREW PERRONG, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, v. VIVINT, INC., and DSI DISTRIBUTING, INC.
d.b.a DSI SYSTEMS, Case No. 2:19-cv-00568-DBB-CMR (D. Utah), the
Hon. Judge David Barlow entered an order extending the Plaintiffs'
deadline for filing a reply memorandum in support of Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification to and including April 11, 2022.

Vivint provides smart home products and services.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 17, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3j3bMbQ at no extra charge.[CC]

VIVINT INC: Parties in Fitzhenry Suit Seek Sched Order Amendment
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK FITZHENRY, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. VIVINT, INC., et al.,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00501-DAK-CMR (D. Utah), the Plaintiff and
Defendant ask the Court to enter an order amending the scheduling
order in this case as follows:

  -- Last day to serve written discovery:      June 13, 2022

  -- Close of fact discovery:                  July 13, 2022

  -- Final date for supplementation            July 14, 2022
     of disclosures and discovery
     under Rule 26(e):

  -- Party bearing burden of proof:            July 18, 2022

  -- Counter disclosures:                      August 29, 2022

  -- Party bearing burden of proof:            August 1, 2022

  -- Counter reports:                          Sept. 15, 2022

  -- Last day for expert discovery:            Oct. 17, 2022

  -- Deadline to file Motion for               Oct. 17, 2022
     Class Certification:

Vivint is a public smart home company in the United States and
Canada.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 17, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3u8uk0N at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan P. Misny, Esq.
          Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
          Jonathan P. Misny, Esq.
          MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
          1114 Dublin Road
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 488-0400
          Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
          E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com
                  misny@mmmb.com

               - and -

          Jared B. Pearson, Esq.
          PEARSON LAW FIRM, PLLC
          9192 South 300 West, Suite 35
          Sandy, UT 84070
          Telephone: 801.888.0991
          E-mail: jared@pearsonlawfirm.org

The Defendant is represented by:

          Melanie J. Vartabedian, Esq.
          Nathan R. Marigoni, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP
          One Utah Center, Suite 800
          201 South Main Street
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111-2221
          Telephone: (801) 531-3000
          Facsimile: (801) 531-3001
          E-mail: vartabedianm@ballardspahr.com
                  marigonin@ballardspahr.com


                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***