/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220411.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, April 11, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 66

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Cole Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Fengler Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
ABINGTON CAREGIVERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Beckford Alleges
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Discloses $18M Class Action Settlement
ACUTUS MEDICAL: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of April 18 Deadline

ADVANCE TRANSPORTATION: Violates DOT TIL Regulations, Suit Says
ALG ENTERPRISES: Court Dismisses Beyan Suit Without Prejudice
ALL COUNTY TOWING: Torres Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
ALL-PRO BAIL BONDS: Bradley Files Suit in N.D. California
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Turner Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari

ALMAY INC: Cosmetic Products Contains PFAS, Anderson Alleges
AMAZON INC: Baron Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
ANADARKO E & P: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Box Elder Suit
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over App Store Overcharges
ASHFORD INC: Class Suit vs Subsidiary Ongoing

BA CREDIT CARD: Approval of Settlement Deal Under Appeal
BARCLAYS BANK: Merchants' Payment Cards Suit Ongoing in New York
BARCLAYS PLC: Investors' Forex-Rigging Class Action Can Proceed
BARCLAYS PLC: Tribunal Rules Against FX Suit on Opt-Out Basis
BINANCE: Wins Class-Action Dismissal Over Unregistered Securities

BRF SA: Settlement in Shareholder Suit Gets Court OK
BURGER KING: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Sandwich Ads
BURT'S BEES: Spindel Sues Over Mislabeled Cosmetic Products
BYTEDANCE TECHNOLOGY: T.K.'s Class Settlement Wins Final Approval
CANDICE BROCE: S.C.G. Files Suit in N.D. Georgia

CANO HEALTH: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of May 17 Deadline
CAR WASH PARTNERS: Franco Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California
CARGILL INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Inflated Beef Prices
CASTLEROCK FARMING: Moreno's 1st Amended Complaint Partly Dismissed
CBL & ASSOCIATES: Chatman Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed

CBL & ASSOCIATES: Faces Lore Securities Suit
CBL & ASSOCIATES: Kemmer Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
CBL & ASSOCIATES: Securities Suit in Delaware Stayed
CELSION CORPORATION: Faces Spar Securities Suit in NJ Court
CIOX HEALTH: Taft Stettinius Attorney Discusses Court Ruling

CLARIVATE PLC: Robbins Geller to Lead Shareholder Class Action
CNO FINANCIAL: Court Grants Burnett's Bid for Class Certification
COLONIAL FIRST: Settles Super Fund Class Action for $56.3 Million
CONDUENT BUSINESS: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Almon Suit
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Wilkerson Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana

CORELOGIC CREDCO: Court Refuses to Strike Fernandez's Class Claims
CORELOGIC CREDCO: Nevels Files FCRA Suit in S.D. California
COVER FX SKIN CARE: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COVER GIRL: Cosmetic Products Contains PFAS, Brown Suit Alleges
COVERGIRL COSMETICS: Pressed Powder Contains PFAS, Solis Alleges

CURALEAF HOLDINGS: Heller Files Labor Class Action
DANBURY FAIR DODGE: Jackson Files Suit in Conn. Super. Ct.
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Athletic Department Releases Gender Equity Plan
DAVIS OIL: Faces Wells Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
DEKALB MARKET HALL: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

DELAWARE DOE: S.E. Files Suit in D. Delaware
DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES: Sued Over Unlawful Termination
DEWITT, MI: Holland Appeals Dismissal of Mask Mandate-Related Suit
DIAGEO PLC: Settles Class Action Over Origins of Irish Beer
DOCUSIGN INC: Collins Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed

DRIP HYDRATION INC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
E. MERGE TECHNOLOGY: Faces Assad Securities Suit in S.D. N.Y.
EMBARK TECHNOLOGY: Kaskela Law Discloses Securities Class Action
EMBARK TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Reminds of May 31 Deadline
ENCON INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Baker Suit Alleges

EXICURE INC: Colwell Shareholder Suit Ongoing in Illinois
EXICURE INC: Puri Shareholder Suit Ongoing in Illinois
FCA LLC: Estevez Sues Over Assemblers' Unpaid Overtime Wages
FIRSTSUN CAPITAL: Besser Sues Over Overdraft Fees
FIRSTSUN CAPITAL: McCollam Sues Over Overdraft Fees

FRESENIUS USA: Cota Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Labor Suit
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Bone Appeals Consolidated Suit Dismissal
GAMER ADVANTAGE: Faces Dawood Suit Over PFAS in Anti-Fog Spray
GATOS SILVER: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 25 Deadline
GILA LLC: Settles Class Action Over Late-Fee Notices for $2.5MM

GILA LLC: Toll Collector Agrees to $2.5 Million Class Settlement
GLOBAL PERSONALS: Aussieker's Class Claims Dismissed W/o Prejudice
GOFUND ADVANCE: Court Grants Haymount's Bid for Prelim. Injunction
GRAND CANYON: Faces Ogdon Suit Over Unaccredited Degree Programs
GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Court Issues Final Judgment in Securities Suit

HALSTED FINANCIAL: Pistone Appeals FDCPA Class Suit Dismissal
HARTFORD CASUALTY: Dr. Jeffrey Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
HOMOLOGY MEDICINES: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of May 24 Deadline
HOMOLOGY MEDICINES: Faces Pizzuto Suit Over Share Price Drop
HOMOLOGY MEDICINES: Robbins Geller Reminds of May 24 Deadline

HOMOLOGY MEDICINES: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of May 24 Deadline
J&J CONSULTING: Faces First Federal Lawsuit Over Ponzi Scheme
JAGUAR LAND: Block Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Class Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Pessin Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
LAKE COUNTY, MT: Class Action Suit Filed Over Jail Conditions

LAWPRACTICECLE LLC: Court Denies Goren's Bid for Summary Judgment
LIFETRADE FUND: Court Issues Final Judgment on Settlement With TMF
LITTLE ADAM AND EVE: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LUCY GOODS INC: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LYCAMOBILE USA INC: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

MARCELLOS PAINTING: Garcia Sues Over Painters' Unpaid Overtime
MARIO TRICOCI HAIR: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
META PLATFORMS: Court Allows Advertisers' Class Action to Proceed
META PLATFORMS: Small Advertisers Win Class Status in Lawsuit
MICHIGAN: Counties Appeal Ruling in Fox Civil Rights Suit

MONTGOMERY WARD: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NASSAU COUNTY DOA: McLauglin Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
NEW YORK, NY: Ordered to Take Steps to Address Jail Conditions
NEW YORK: Jacobson Appeals Racial Discrimination Case Dismissal
NINTENDO CO: Continues to Defend Joy-Con Drifting Class Action

NORTH CAROLINA: Court Dismisses Beyan Suit Without Prejudice
NORTHERN SCANDINAVIA: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PEOPLECONNECT INC: Appeals Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Boshears Suit
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Appeals Ruling in Prisoner Remick's Class Suit
PREFERRED FAMILY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Wilson Says

QUILL LINCOLNSHIRE: Barnes Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
RANGER UP LLC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RAO'S SPECIALTY FOODS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RESET IV LLC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RESOURCE REIT: Wilber Trust Shareholder Suit Ongoing in MD

RETAIL ECOMMERCE: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
REZULT GROUP: Stallworth Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal
RHYTHM OF LIFE CORP: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Vincent Wong Reminds of May 6 Deadline
SAFEMOON LLC: Bronstein, Gewirtz Reminds of May 9 Deadline

SAN JOSE, CA: Wins Bid to Toss Parts of Bohren's 4th Amended Suit
SAN RAFAEL, CA: Homeless Camper Files Class Action Over Noise
SEE OPTICS: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Barnett Suit Denied
SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Gabriele Files Certiorari Bid With Supreme Court
SITE DESIGNS NYC: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

SMARTSHEET INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in Washington Court
STATE FARM: Rogowski Balks at Unfair Insurance Policy Deductions
STOREBOUND LLC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SUNFLORA INC: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SUNRISE SENIOR: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Heredia Suit

T-MOBILE US: Faces Class Suit in Florida Over Debt Collection Calls
T-MOBILE US: Hit With TCPA Class Action Lawsuit in Florida
T-MOBILE USA: Smith Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
TACK ROOM INC: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TASKUS INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of April 25 Deadline

THURSO SURF: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TIE BAR OPERATING: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TMC THE METALS CO: Faces Caper Shareholder Suit in E.D. N.Y.
TMC THE METALS CO: Faces Tran Securities Suit
TOOLS OF MARKETING: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

TRIP MATE: Rivard Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
UNINTERRUPTED LLC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UNIQURL LLC: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
UNITED RENTALS: Sued for Denying Job to Medical Marijuana Patient
USA WASTE-MANAGEMENT: Marcaurel Appeals Data Breach Suit Dismissal

VESTED BUSINESS: Gomez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WALGREEN CO: Court Awards Julian's Counsel $76.4K in Fees & Costs
WAREHOUSE-LIGHTING: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WEBGROUP CZECH: Doe Appeals Case Dismissal, Reconsideration Rulings
WESTCHESTER JEWISH: Cherner Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Cir.

WESTFIELD NATIONAL: Undervalues Total Loss Claims, Tracer Alleges
WINE CELLAR GROUP: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
XOCHITL INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
[*] JALA Receives $51K Cy pres Award from Class Action Proceeds
[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 2 - Be A Sponsor


                            *********

3M COMPANY: Cole Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Cole, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-00954-RMG (D.S.C., March 22,
2022), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


3M COMPANY: Fengler Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
-----------------------------------------------------
Fred Fengler, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-i nterest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:22-cv-00953-RMG (D.S.C., March 22,
2022), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


ABINGTON CAREGIVERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Beckford Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
CAMEILLE BECKFORD, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABINGTON CAREGIVERS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-01261 (E.D. Pa., April 1, 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 Beckford was employed by the Defendant as home health
aide.

ABINGTON CAREGIVERS, LLC is a homecare agency that offers
non-medical, private-duty companionship, homemaking and personal
care in Abington, Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Schreiber, Esq.
          Michael Murphy, Esq.
          MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
          1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 273-1054
          Facsimile: (215) 525-0210
          Email: aschreiber@phillyemploymentlawyer.com
                 murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Discloses $18M Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
topclassactions.com reports that Activision Blizzard agreed to
resolve sexual harassment and discrimination allegations with a $18
million settlement.

The settlement benefits current and former employees who worked for
Activision Blizzard Inc., Blizzard Entertainment Inc., Activision
Publishing Inc., King.Com Inc, or any of their subsidiaries between
Sept.1 , 2016 and March 29, 2022.

Activision Blizzard is a massive video game developer which
published games such as World of Warcraft, Diablo, Overwatch, and
more. In January 2022, Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard for
$68.7 million.

Although Activision Blizzard is a widely successful game developer,
the company may have taken advantage of its employees with
harassment, discrimination, and retaliation during its climb to the
top.

In August 2021, California's Department of Fair Employment and
Housing filed a lawsuit against Activision Blizzard, alleging the
company fostered a "frat boy" culture where female employees were
discriminated against and forced to "continually fend off unwanted
sexual comments and advances by their male coworkers," according to
CNN. This state lawsuit kicked off a series of complaints against
the company, including a lawsuit from the federal government.

The U.S. Equal Employement Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a
lawsuit against Activision Blizzard in September 2021, alleging the
company violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act with sexual
harassment, pregnancy discrimination, and retaliation. Women who
worked at Activision Blizzard allegedly faced repeated instances of
harassment, were denied promotions, and were even fired for
complaining about unfair treatment.

Activision Blizzard denied any allegations of harassment,
discrimination, and retaliation, but agreed to resolve the EEOC
allegations with an $18 million settlement fund.

Under the terms of the settlement, Class Members can recover a cash
payment, which will vary depending on individual experiences.

The EEOC will evaluate each claim form and determine if Class
Members were subject to sexual harassment, pregnancy
discrimination, or retaliation. Based on this evaluation, the EEOC
will determine each claimant's payment amount.

Activision Blizzard is not involved in deciding how much money each
Class Member receives.

Class Members can also benefit from injunctive relief under the
settlement.

Each claimant can have potentially harmful information removed from
their personnel files. This could include removing unfair negative
performance reviews, reclassifying termination as voluntary
resignation, and other changes to make future employment easier.

The settlement website notes that, under both federal law and the
terms of the settlement decree, Class Members are protected from
retaliation after participating in the payment process. Retaliation
could include write-ups, scrutiny, discipline, demotions,
termination, or forced resignation.

The consent decree settlement was granted approval by the Court on
March 29, 2022.

Class Members must file a valid claim form in order to benefit from
the settlement, though no claim deadline is currently listed on the
settlement website.

Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits current and former employees who worked for
Activision Blizzard Inc., Blizzard Entertainment Inc., Activision
Publishing Inc., King.Com Inc, or any of their subsidiaries between
Sept.1 , 2016 and March 29, 2022.

Potential Award
Varies

Proof of Purchase
No proof of purchase applicable

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

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

Claim Form Deadline
No claim deadline is currently listed.

Case Name
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Activision
Blizzard, Inc., et al., Case. No. 2:21-CV07682-DSF-JEM, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California

Final Hearing
03/29/2022

Settlement Website
EEOCActivisionBlizzardConsentDecree.com

Claims Administrator
EEOC v Activision Claims Administrator
c/o Atticus Administration
P.O. Box 64053
St. Paul, MN 55164
info@EEOCActivisionBlizzardConsentDecree.com
888-201-1070

Class Counsel
Anna Y Park
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Defense Counsel
Elena R Baca
Felicia A Davis
Ryan D Derry
PAUL HASTINGS LLP [GN]

ACUTUS MEDICAL: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of April 18 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on April 3 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Acutus Medical, Inc. ("Acutus" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: AFIB) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, and docketed under 22-cv-00388, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all purchasers of Acutus common stock between May 13,
2021 and November 11, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Acutus
common stock during the Class Period, you have until April 18, 2022
to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.

Acutus designs and manufactures a range of tools for catheter-based
ablation procedures and markets and sells its products to hospitals
and electrophysiologists that treat patients with arrhythmias. The
Company's primary product is its AcQMap imaging and mapping system,
which consists of a console, workstation, proprietary software
algorithms, and a single-use catheter that contains ultrasound
transducers and electrodes which collect the data required to
create a comprehensive map of a patient's cardiac anatomy and
electrical propagation pathways and patterns.

To gain a market foothold, Acutus initially lent its
first-generation AcQMap console and workstation to users free of
charge to facilitate the sale of its disposable products. In late
2019, Acutus began to install its second generation AcQMap console
and workstation products with potential purchasers under evaluation
arrangements. Pursuant to these agreements, Acutus places the
AcQMap console and workstation with potential customers free of
charge for a specified period. The Company then attempted to sell
the console and workstation to the potential customers in exchange
for a cash payment, or a contractual commitment to purchase a
minimum amount of its disposable products.

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

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

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.02 per share, or
45.35%, to close at $3.64 per share on November 12, 2021.

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

CONTACT:

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

ADVANCE TRANSPORTATION: Violates DOT TIL Regulations, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL KOFI ANDREWS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ADVANCE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS,
INC., Defendant, Case No.1:22-cv-01705 (N.D. Ill., April 1, 2022)
alleges violation of the DOT's regulatory requirements, known as
the Truth-in-Leasing regulations (the "TIL regulations").

According to the complaint, under federal law, motor carriers such
as the Defendant may transport property in equipment that they
themselves do not own only if the equipment is subject to a written
lease agreement that meets DOT's regulatory requirements, known as
the Truth-in-Leasing regulations (the "TIL regulations").

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has violated the TIL
regulations with respect to drivers with whom they have executed
lease agreements by, inter alia, failing to timely and fully return
escrowed funds; taking undisclosed, unspecified, excessive, and
improper deductions from drivers' compensation and escrowed funds;
failing to properly maintain and account for the drivers' escrowed
funds; and failing to include mandatory provisions, disclosures,
and terms in its lease agreements with drivers.

ADVANCE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, INC. provides logistics services.
The Company offers trucking, expedited freights, intermodal
shipping, warehousing, and cargo vans and charter flights. Advance
Transportation Systems serves customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and-

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


ALG ENTERPRISES: Court Dismisses Beyan Suit Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
Charlotte Division, dismissed without prejudice the lawsuit titled
JAMES L. BEYAN, JR., Plaintiff v. ALG ENTERPRISES LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:22-cv-11-KDB-DCK (W.D.N.C.).

The pro se Plaintiff purported to file the case as a class action
lawsuit pursuant to the Court's federal question and diversity
jurisdiction. On Feb. 10, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiff's
Application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the
Complaint on initial review as frivolous and for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court granted the
Plaintiff 30 days within which to amend his Complaint to correct
the deficiencies identified by the Court. The Plaintiff was
cautioned that the failure to timely comply with the Order would
result in this case's dismissal without further notice.

The February 10 Order was mailed to the Plaintiff at his address of
record on the same day it was entered. On March 3, 2022, the Order
was returned to the Court, marked "return to sender vacant unable
to forward." The Plaintiff has not provided the Court with an
updated address.

District Judge Kenneth D. Bell opines that the Plaintiff failed to
timely comply with the Court's February 10 Order and the time to do
so has expired. Further, he has not informed the Court of his
change of address and he appears to have abandoned this action.
Therefore, the action will be dismissed without prejudice.

Judge Bell, therefore, ordered that the is dismissed without
prejudice for the Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's
February 10, 2022 Order.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated March 21, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4wyp38a9 from Leagle.com.


ALL COUNTY TOWING: Torres Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against All County Towing &
Auto Body, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Norberto Torres,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
who were employed by all county towing v. All County Towing & Auto
Body, Inc., et al., Case No. 152873/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York
Cty., April 4, 2022).

All County -- https://allcountyauto.com/ -- is a comprehensive auto
repair, paint and service center that offers 24-hour damage-free
towing and recovery for all types of vehicles.[BN]


ALL-PRO BAIL BONDS: Bradley Files Suit in N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against All-Pro Bail Bonds
Inc. The case is styled as Bridget Bradley, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. All-Pro Bail Bonds Inc.,
Case No. 3:22-cv-01819-JD (N.D. Cal., March 23, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated Other Personal Property.

All-Pro Bail Bonds Inc. -- https://www.allprobailbond.com/ --
operates as a bail agency. The Company provides bail bonds and
credit finance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaman Salahi, Esq.
          Todd M. Logan, Esq.
          Rafey Sarkis Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          150 California St., Ste. 18th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 212-9300
          Fax: (415) 373-9435
          Email: ysalahi@edelson.com
                 tlogan@edelson.com
                 rbalabanian@edelson.com


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Turner Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Garnet Turner, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of
United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled Garnet Turner, et al., Petitioners v. Allstate Insurance
Company, Respondent, Case No. 21-1310.

Response is due on May 2, 2022.

The Plaintiffs petition for a writ of certiorari to review the
judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit in the case titled JOHN E. KLAAS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee; GARNET TURNER,
JAMES CARTRETTE, BILL HUFF, KATHY SHEPHERD, VERNON BENTLEY, TED
SPEIWAK HERBERT VIDALES, RICHARD SCHOLL, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. ALLSTATE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant–Appellee, Case No. 20-14104.

This appeal arises out of Allstate Insurance Company's decision to
stop paying premiums on retired employees' life insurance policies.
For many years, as part of its employee benefit plan, Allstate
offered employees who met certain qualifications life insurance
that continued into retirement. Allstate provided its employees
with information about life insurance and other offered benefits in
summary plan descriptions. The summary plan descriptions reserved
for Allstate the right to modify or terminate the benefit plan. At
times, Allstate made representations, both orally and in writing,
to employees that their retiree life insurance benefits were "paid
up" or "for life." In 2013, however, Allstate informed former
employees who retired after 1990 that it would stop paying the
premiums on their life insurance policies at the end of 2015, says
the suit.

After Allstate made this decision, two putative classes sued the
company seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. One group -- the
Turner retirees, represented by Garnet Turner and other named
plaintiffs -- is made up of retired former Allstate employees to
whom Allstate no longer provides life insurance. The other group --
the Klaas retirees, represented by named plaintiff John Klaas --
consists of individuals who took part in a special retirement
opportunity with Allstate; the company also decided to stop paying
the premiums for these retirees' life insurance. Both groups of
retirees alleged in the district court that Allstate violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by no longer paying
the insurance premiums. They also alleged that Allstate breached
its fiduciary duty to them by failing to provide full and accurate
information about their retiree life insurance.

After extensive discovery, the district court granted summary
judgment to Allstate on all claims. The district court concluded
that the benefit plan documents unambiguously gave Allstate the
power to terminate the life insurance benefits. The court also
concluded that both the Turner and Klaas retirees' claims for
breach of fiduciary duty were time barred.

On appeal, the Turner named plaintiffs and Klaas argue that the
district court erred by concluding that the language in the benefit
plan documents was unambiguous and by failing to consider extrinsic
evidence. In addition, they assert that the district court
incorrectly determined that their breach of fiduciary duty claims
were untimely.

However, after careful consideration of the briefs and record, and
with the benefit of oral argument, the Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners Garnet Turner, et al. are
represented by:

          W. Lewis Garrison Jr., Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          2224 1st Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          E-mail: lewis@hgdlawfirm.com

ALMAY INC: Cosmetic Products Contains PFAS, Anderson Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY ANDERSON; AUDREY MCCAULEY; and TANIA POKORSKI; individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
ALMAY, INC.; and REVLON, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02722
(S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2022) is a class action brought by the
Plaintiffs and the Class who purchased Almay products, which are
marketed as clean, healthy, and non-toxic cosmetic products but
which contain harmful per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS")
(collectively, the "Products")

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Products are not
clean, healthy, or non-toxic as they contain potentially harmful
chemicals that are in no way clean or healthy. The Defendants do
not disclose that the Products contain PFAS, a chemical which is
entirely inconsistent with Defendants' marketing and advertising,
and the disclosure of which would inevitably impact their sales and
standing in the clean beauty market.

No reasonable consumer would deem the Products clean if they knew
that they contained harmful PFAS. If the Defendants had disclosed
to the Plaintiffs and putative Class Members that the Products
contained PFAS, the Plaintiffs and putative Class Members would not
have purchased the Products or they would have paid less for them,
says the suit.

Almay, Inc. operates as a cosmetics company. The Company
manufactures and sells cosmetics and beauty products for women
which includes eye, face, and lip products, as well as offers
makeup removers. Almay serves clients in the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrei Rado, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
          GROSSMAN PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          Facsimile: (212) 868-1229

               -and -

          Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 389-0600
          Email: mweiner@pswlaw.com

               -and -

          Rachel Soffin, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
          GROSSMAN PLLC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          Email: rsoffin@milberg.com

               -and -

          Harper T. Segui, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
          GROSSMAN PLLC
          825 Lowcountry Blvd., Suite 101
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Email: hsegui@milberg.com
          
               -and -

          Erin Ruben, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
          GROSSMAN PLLC
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Email: eruben@milberg.com

AMAZON INC: Baron Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mary Baron, Calhea Johnson, Malika McLean, Tony
Watson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Amazon Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-09636-AJN-SN was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
(Foley Square), to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington on April 4, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00446-JCC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Amazon.com, Inc. -- http://www.amazon.com/-- is an American
multinational technology company which focuses on e-commerce, cloud
computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          121 King Street, Suite 8
          Chappaqua, NY 10514
          Phone: (914) 860-4994
          Email: cramirez@milberg.com

               - and -

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Road Ste 412
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Phone: (516) 268-7080
          Fax: (516) 234-7800
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Thomas J Tobin, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE (SEA)
          1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 4900
          Seattle, WA 98101-3099
          Phone: (206) 359-3157
          Email: ttobin@perkinscoie.com


ANADARKO E & P: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Box Elder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William J. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado denied the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment on the Named Plaintiffs' Allocation Claim in the lawsuit
styled BOX ELDER KIDS, LLC, C C OPEN A, LLC, and GUEST FAMILY
TRUST, by its Trustee CONSTANCE F. GUEST, individually and on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. ANADARKO E & P ONSHORE, LLC, ANADARKO LAND CORPORATION, and
KERR-MCGEE OIL AND GAS ONSHORE, LP, Defendants, Case No.
20-cv-2352-WJM-SKC (D. Colo.).

Plaintiffs Box Elder Kids, LLC ("Box Elder"), C C Guest A, LLC ("CC
Open A"), and the Guest Family Trust, by its Trustee Constance F.
Guest, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, bring this breach of contract lawsuit against
Anadarko E & P Onshore, LLC, Anadarko Land Corporation, and
Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas Onshore, LP (collectively, "Anadarko" or
"Defendants"), alleging that Anadarko failed to pay them the
correct monetary amount pursuant to the terms of their surface
owner agreements ("SOAs") with Anadarko.

Before the Court is the Defendants' F.R.C.P. 56 Motion for Summary
Judgment on the Named Plaintiffs' Allocation Claim.

I. Background

The Plaintiffs own surface land in Weld County, Colorado. Box Elder
and CC Open A own the surface lands on contiguous pieces of
property in Section 25 of Township 2 North, Range 65 West. Guest
Family Trust owns the surface lands in the southwest quarter of
Section 13, Township 2 North, Range 65 West, one mile north of Box
Elder's and CC Open A's lands.

Anadarko Land owns the interests in the mineral estate under the
Plaintiffs' lands; however, it does not itself develop or operate
oil and gas wells. Instead, it leases the right to explore for and
develop the mineral estate beneath the Plaintiffs' lands to
operators, including its affiliate Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP
("KMOG"), an entity that drills and operates oil and gas wells.
KMOG operates all of the oil and gas wells at issue on the
Plaintiffs' lands. There are 46 wells drilled on the Plaintiffs'
lands, which produce oil and gas from inside, as well as outside
the boundaries of the Plaintiffs' surface lands.

A. Relevant Agreements

The minerals under Box Elder's surface lands are subject to an oil
and gas lease entered into between Union Pacific Resources Company
as lessor and United States Exploration, Inc., as lessee on May 15,
1998, and recorded at Reception No. 2614700 in the Weld County
Clerk and Recorder's Office. The minerals under CC Open A's and
Guest Family Trust's surface lands are subject to an oil and gas
lease entered into between Union Pacific Railroad Company as lessor
and Pan American Petroleum Corporation as lessee on Jan. 8, 1971,
and recorded at Reception No. 1561890 in the Weld County Clerk and
Recorder's Office. All of the wells that produce or produced oil
and gas from the Plaintiffs' lands are subject to one of these two
leases. The Defendants contend that Anadarko Land is the
successor-in-interest lessor and KMOG is the successor-in-interest
lessee of the two leases.

Box Elder's and CC Open A's predecessor-in-title to their
respective surface lands, Zelda H. Shaklee, entered into a SOA (the
"Shaklee SOA") on Nov. 3, 1989, with Anadarko Land's
predecessor-in-title to the minerals, Union Pacific Resources. The
Shaklee SOA is recorded at Reception No. 2198107 in the Weld County
Clerk and Recorder's Office.

Guest Family Trust's predecessors-in-title to the surface lands,
Raymond R. Guest and Constance F. Guest, entered into a SOA (the
"Guest SOA") on June 20, 1973, with Champlin Petroleum Company (now
Anadarko E&P). The Guest SOA is recorded at Reception No. 1622005
in the Weld County Clerk and Recorder's Office.

Section 2 of the Shaklee SOA contains payment provision, which
gives the surface owner a contractual right to cash payments based
on the value of oil and gas produced from or allocated to the lands
covered by the SOAs. The Guest SOA contains a nearly identical
payment provision, except that it omits the explanatory
parenthetical.

The SOAs define the term "unitization agreement" as any operating
agreement, or any other agreement covering the exploration or
development for or the production of oil, gas or associated liquid
hydrocarbons, or any pooling, communitization, unit or other
agreement whereby the described premises may be included with other
lands in proximity thereto as a unit area under a plan of unit or
joint exploration, development and operation.

The Plaintiffs also entered into Surface Use Agreements and Surface
Damage Agreements to compensate them "for any and all normal and
customary detriment, depreciation, injury or damage to the Lands or
crops growing thereon that may occur as a result of [KMOG's]
drilling and completion operations on the Lands."

B. Modification of the SOA Payments

Until 2010, Anadarko paid surface owners whose lands were subject
to an SOA 2 1/2% of the value of all the oil and gas produced from
a well located on their lands, including oil and gas allocated to
other lands. The Defendants contend that as a result, "surface
owners without wellheads on their surface lands were not paid on
oil and gas produced from and allocated to the minerals underneath
their lands produced by a wellhead off their surface lands."

Thereafter, Anadarko sent the Plaintiffs letters, which stated that
the SOA payments have generally been made to the owner of surface
upon which a well has been located without consideration to
language contained in the SOA providing that, under certain
circumstances, such payments should be allocated among various
surface owners. The letters add, among other things, that the
numerous unforeseen changes in the legal, business and surface use
environments, dictate that Anadarko adjust the calculation of the
SOA payments to give effect to the language providing for
allocation of such payments among certain surface owners.

The Defendants contend that after 2010: (1) KMOG paid the
Plaintiffs for the oil and gas allocated to the Plaintiffs' lands
for each of the 46 wells in direct proportion to each Plaintiff's
share of the surface relative to the total area of the applicable
spacing or pooling agreement; and (2) Anadarko paid each Plaintiff
on the value of oil and gas produced from wells located off the
Plaintiffs' lands that are allocated to the Plaintiffs' land under
a unitization agreement. The Plaintiffs deny that Anadarko paid
them the correct value of oil and gas produced from wells located
off the Plaintiffs' lands that are allocated to the Plaintiffs'
land under a unitization agreement.

C. Procedural History

The Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit on Aug. 7, 2020, and filed
the First Amended Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial
on Oct. 5, 2020, which includes a single count for breach of
contract based on underpayments based on the Defendants'
proportional allocation interpretation of the SOAs, as well as the
Defendants' purported unlawful deduction of certain costs, unlawful
embedding deduction, and reduction volumes on check details.

The Defendants filed the Motion on July 29, 2021. The Plaintiffs
responded on Aug. 19, 2021, and the Defendants replied on Sept. 2,
2021. This action was reassigned to Judge Martinez on Aug. 9,
2021.

II. Analysis

In the Motion, the Defendants clarify that they seek "summary
judgment on the allocation claim only as it applies to the three
named Plaintiffs" and that the Motion "does not address and does
not seek summary judgment on Plaintiffs' claim that Defendants
improperly deducted certain costs from SOA payments." The Court
limits its analysis and ruling accordingly.

For purposes of the Motion, the parties' breach of contract dispute
relates to the proper interpretation of Section 2 of the SOAs,
which provides that Anadarko agrees, so long as it is receiving oil
and/or gas production from or oil and/or gas royalties upon
production from the described premises or allocated thereto under
the provisions of a unitization agreement, to pay or cause to be
paid to the Landowner in cash the value on the premises of two and
one-half percent (2-1/2%) of all the oil and gas and associated
liquid hydrocarbons hereafter produced, saved, and marketed
therefrom or allocated thereto.

The Defendants argue that because "the production from each of the
46 wells is allocated amongst mineral owners based on each owner's
fractional share of surface ownership in the unit" pursuant to
unitization agreements, the Court should grant summary judgment in
their favor.

The Defendants further contend that because all oil and gas
production attributable to the 46 wells on the Plaintiffs' lands
are subject to unitization agreements, the Plaintiffs are not
entitled to any percentage of the value of the oil and gas
allocated to other lands and that the SOA payment provision does
not vary the payment methodology based on the physical location of
a wellhead.

By contrast, the Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants' current
payment practices violate the SOAs because each SOA, on its face
and by its terms, requires payment to the Plaintiffs of 2.5% on
100% of the production from wells on their land (i.e., the way the
Defendants and their predecessors paid them for +/- 80 years). The
Plaintiffs argue that "the calculation of the production payment is
different for SOA lands on which there are wells and facilities
from which oil and gas is 'produced, saved and marketed' and SOA
lands that have no surface disturbance, but minerals are being
drained."

The Plaintiffs further contend that to the extent the contract
language is fairly susceptible to more than one interpretation, it
is ambiguous and must be construed by the trier-of-fact in
connection with the history of the interpretation of the contract
provision.

After carefully considering the plain language of the SOAs and the
parties' respective arguments, the Court concludes that Section 2
is ambiguous on its face. While the Court recognizes that all of
the Plaintiffs' 46 wells are subject to a unitization agreement,
Judge Martinez opines that he cannot conclude that the plain
language of the SOAs provide that the Plaintiffs are not entitled
to any percentage of the value of the oil and gas allocated to
other lands. On the other hand, the Court also cannot conclude that
the plain language of the SOAs clearly sets forth the two different
payment scenarios articulated by the Plaintiffs.

Because Section 2 of the SOA is fairly susceptible to more than one
interpretation, the Court concludes that the contract language is
ambiguous, and must, therefore, be interpreted by the trier of fact
after considering competent evidence bearing upon the construction
given to the instrument by the parties themselves, by their acts
and conduct in its performance.

Accordingly, the Motion is denied.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth, the Court orders that the Defendants'
F.R.C.P. 56 Motion for Summary Judgment on the Named Plaintiffs'
Allocation Claim is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated March 21, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mr2y4n7n from Leagle.com.


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over App Store Overcharges
--------------------------------------------------------
Rob Pegoraro, writing for PCMag, reports that a Dutch non-profit
wants to put a €5 billion dent into Apple–the sum it plans to
seek in a class-action lawsuit targeting alleged App Store
overcharges.

The Consumer Competition Claims Foundation is seeking roughly $5.6
billion in damages and is inviting EU users who have purchased an
iPhone or iPad app or made an in-app purchase with either device to
join the claim.

"Consumers have been overcharged 5 billion euros for their app and
in-app purchases and should demand a refund," the foundation's site
says. "Apple has reaped this excess profit by abusing its market
dominance at the expense of European consumers."

That Amsterdam-based non-profit does not seem to have filed the
lawsuit in question yet; its PR firm did not respond to an email
sent on March 30 asking about that. Apple PR did not respond to a
request for comment either.

Apple's tight control over App Store digital transactions–it
requires them to flow through its own payment system, takes a cut
of 15% or 30%, and bans developers from even mentioning other
payment alternatives in their apps–has long drawn objections from
developers and customer advocates.

More recently, European regulators have moved to take action
against Apple. In late December, the Dutch government's Authority
for Consumers & Markets instructed Apple to ease its App Store's
"unreasonable conditions" and allow dating-app providers to use
payment systems of their choice, lest it incur fines topping out at
EUR50 million.

Apple replied that it would allow dating apps to use alternative
payment methods. But Cupertino revealed that its new "StoreKit
External Purchase" entitlements would require dating-app developers
to ship separate app builds for the Dutch market and then give
Apple a 27% cut of their proceeds anyway.

Apple developer documentation describes that commission as "a
reduced rate that excludes value related to payment processing and
related activities."

That did not impress Dutch regulators, who have since fined Apple
up to that €50 million maximum but on March 28 expressed more
optimism about an "adjusted proposal" from Apple.

The EU's in-progress Digital Markets Act would also require Apple
to open up iOS and iPadOS, including a mandate to allow sideloading
that Apple has decried as an invitation to widespread hacking (even
as its macOS continues to allow app installs outside of the Mac App
Store).

Meanwhile, Apple remains well-positioned to absorb even the
multi-billion-dollar damages sought in this new class-action
lawsuit. In its latest quarterly-earnings announcement, the company
reported $37.1 billion in cash and cash equivalents on hand. [GN]

ASHFORD INC: Class Suit vs Subsidiary Ongoing
---------------------------------------------
Ashford Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended January 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 25, 2022, that one of its subsidiaries is
facing a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California in and for the County of Contra Costa on
December 20, 2016 alleging violations of certain California
employment laws. The court has entered an order granting class
certification with respect to a statewide class of non-exempt
employees who were allegedly deprived of rest breaks as a result of
the subsidiary's previous written policy requiring employees to
stay on premises during rest breaks and a derivative class of
non-exempt former employees who were not paid for allegedly missed
breaks upon separation from employment.

Ashford Inc. is a Nevada corporation that provides products and
services primarily to clients in the hospitality industry.


BA CREDIT CARD: Approval of Settlement Deal Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
BA Credit Card Funding, LLC disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2022, that a series of
putative class actions and individual actions were filed directed
at interchange fees associated with Visa and MasterCard payment
card transactions. These actions, which were consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under the
caption In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount
Antitrust Litigation, named Visa, MasterCard and several banks and
bank holding companies, including Bank of America Corporation
(BAC), as defendants. A settlement was approved but is under
appeal.

In 2005, a group of merchants alleged that defendants conspired to
fix the level of default interchange rates and that certain rules
of Visa and MasterCard were unreasonable restraints of trade.
Plaintiffs sought compensatory and treble damages and injunctive
relief.

On October 19, 2012, defendants reached a settlement with respect
to the putative class actions that the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit rejected.

In 2018, defendants reached a settlement with the representatives
of the putative Rule 23(b)(3) damages class to contribute an
additional $900 million to the approximately $5.3 billion held in
escrow from the prior settlement. BAC's additional contribution is
not material to BAC.  

The District Court approved that settlement with the putative Rule
23(b)(3) damages class on December 13, 2019, but that approval is
being appealed.

BA Credit Card Funding, LLC is into backed securities based in
Delaware.


BARCLAYS BANK: Merchants' Payment Cards Suit Ongoing in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays Dryrock Issuance Trust disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2022, that a class
action was filed against its affiliate, Barclays Bank Delaware
(BBD), alleging that Visa USA, MasterCard and their member banks
conspired to fix interchange fees and unlawfully bundle several
separate and distinct services in violation of the U.S. antitrust
laws and also alleging that the company imposed other restraints on
merchants in connection with accepting payment cards and that such
alleged restraints violated the antitrust laws.

BBD is a defendant in a number of putative class action cases
commenced in 2005 in various federal district courts by merchants
alleging that Visa U.S.A., Inc., MasterCard International and their
member banks conspired to fix interchange fees and unlawfully
bundle several separate and distinct services, such as payment
protection and transaction processing costs, in violation of the
U.S. antitrust laws.

The merchants also alleged that the defendants imposed other
restraints on merchants in connection with accepting payment cards
and that such alleged restraints violated the antitrust laws. Visa,
MasterCard and several other payment card issuing banks are also
defendants in the proceedings, which have been consolidated into a
single proceeding in the Eastern District of New York, MDL No.
1720.

The merchants' complaints sought an unspecified amount of damages
and injunctive relief. By an order dated January 9, 2008, the court
dismissed class damage claims prior to January 1, 2004;
accordingly, the period over which any damages may be awarded is
January 1, 2004 to the date of the award.

On July 13, 2012, the parties filed a proposed settlement agreement
with the court under which the defendants agreed to pay the class
plaintiffs $6.05 billion, to make network rule changes and to give
other relief. The 2012 class settlement included a provision
pursuant to which Visa and MasterCard would reduce U.S. interchange
rates 10 bps during an eight-month period from July 29, 2013
through March 29, 2014. On the same day, defendants announced that
they reached an agreement in principle to settle with a group of
individual plaintiffs that were not members of the class. The 2012
class settlement was approved by District Judge John Gleeson on
December 13, 2013, who then entered an agreed form of final
judgment on January 14, 2014.

A number of merchants, including several large retailers, elected
against participation in the 2012 class settlement, "opting out" of
that settlement and pursuing separate actions on the same or
similar claims as those alleged by the putative class plaintiffs.
Some of these merchants commenced new actions against Visa,
MasterCard, and certain member banks, not including BBD, which
remain pending. Although the class settlement fund was reduced to
account for opt-outs, resulting in a refund to BBD of a portion of
its share of the class settlement fund, total settlement payments
by BBD to opt-out plaintiffs may be higher than the amount of that
refund. If so, BBD will be liable for its share of the excess over
the refund under the terms of a judgment sharing agreement with
Visa, MasterCard, and the other payment card issuing bank
defendants. As of the date hereof, Visa and MasterCard have settled
a number of these opt-out actions and BBD has contributed to the
settlement of those actions in accordance with the judgment sharing
agreements. The amount of those settlements has exceeded what each
of those plaintiffs would have been paid as a result of the 2012
class settlement.

The National Retail Federation and a number of merchants appealed
the judgment entering the 2012 class settlement to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On June 30, 2016,
the Second Circuit reversed District Judge Gleeson's ruling
approving the 2012 class settlement and remanded the action back to
the Eastern District of New York.

Following remand of the case, the District Court reappointed
counsel to represent members of the putative class seeking
primarily (but not exclusively) damages pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and appointed new counsel to represent
class members seeking primarily equitable relief pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

Counsel for the putative class members moved for leave to file an
amended complaint adding factual allegations and legal theories to
conform to developments in the law, as well as damage claims for
additional years of alleged damages. On September 27, 2017,
Magistrate Judge James Orenstein granted the plaintiffs' motion to
amend in part and denied it in part, allowing the plaintiffs to
amend their complaints to add their additional legal and factual
theories, but holding that those theories would only apply to the
preceding four years and would not relate back to the date of
filing of the initial complaints in 2005. On October 30, 2017, the
plaintiffs filed their amended complaint.

The plaintiffs also appealed Magistrate Judge Orenstein's ruling to
District Judge Margo Brodie. On August 30, 2018, District Judge
Brodie set aside Magistrate Judge Orenstein's ruling, holding that
plaintiffs' additional legal and factual theories related back to
the original filing dates for the Rule 23(b)(3) complaints and, for
similar reasons, that comparable theories advanced by merchants
that elected not to participate in the 2012 class settlement and
are suing the same defendants separately were entitled to have had
their claims considered to be tolled such that they would be
treated as timely.

Counsel for the putative class members filed a separate complaint
seeking broad equitable relief against allegedly anticompetitive
conduct as well as Visa and MasterCard network rules. On January
16, 2019, BBD and the other bank defendants moved to dismiss the
claims.  On November 20, 2019, the court denied the bank
defendants' motion to dismiss. BBD and the other bank defendants
filed answers to the complaint on May 18, 2020.

On June 1, 2020, defendants and the class plaintiffs each moved for
summary judgment on various issues, which motions have been fully
briefed as of December 21, 2020 and are pending before the District
Court. On December 18, 2020, the class plaintiffs moved to certify
a class, and District Judge Brodie granted the motion for class
certification on September 27, 2021.

Barclays Dryrock Issuance Trust is into backed securities based in
Delaware.


BARCLAYS PLC: Investors' Forex-Rigging Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Fieldhouse, writing for thearmchair trader, reports that the
Competition Appeal Tribunal said that investors can proceed with
class action suits against banks accused of unlawfully rigging
forex markets over the period 2007-2013. Banks like Barclays,
Citibank and JP Morgan, among others, have already been fined over
€1bn for running FX trading cartels that exchanged commercially
sensitive information and trading plans.

A collective proceedings application in UK courts brought by FX
Claim UK has been certified by the CAT, but this can only move
forward under an opt-in basis. Law firm Hausfield which represents
FX Claim UK says it will appeal the ruling.

An original opt-out collective proceedings order was brought by
Philip Evans, the special adviser for competition, consumer and
trade policy at FIPRA (and formerly an inquiry chair at the UK's
Competition and Markets Authority). Evans is the prime mover behind
FX Claim UK.

So far investors affected by the forex market rigging cartels, of
which there were two in operating during this period, have not been
compensated. This includes private traders as well as larger forex
market participants like hedge funds and pension funds.

Investors should note that the CAT ruling was by no means
unanimous. Tribunal member Paul Lomas, a former partner at law firm
Freshfield Bruckhaus Deringer, felt that claims should be assessed
on an opt-out basis only. He explained that he expected more than
40,000 potential proposed class members might not opt in, largely
because they were not aware of the suit against the banks.

"If these claims are blocked from continuing on an opt-out basis,
tens of thousands of individuals and businesses will be excluded
from the opportunity to recover compensation in relation to
admitted anti-competitive behaviour by the banks," said Evans.
"That would be contrary to the principle of access to justice that
underpins the collective action regime."

Evans said he planned to refer the case to the UK's Court of
Appeal.

More than one claim pursuing damages in UK
There are also some other competing claims against the banks in the
forex rigging cartel. This includes one brought by Michael
O'Higgins under the name FX Class Representative Limited. O'Higgins
is the former chair of the UK Pensions Regulator.

According to the original European Commission findings, traders
employed by the banks, who were involved in FX spot trading, had
reached an underlying understanding to exchange, and had exchanged,
current or forward-looking commercially sensitive information about
their trading activities with respect to FX spot trading of through
private, online chat rooms. The Commission also found that the
information was shared on an extensive and recurrent basis and
that, in addition, the traders occasionally coordinated their
trading activities.

Lawyers for fund managers already suing the banks involved,
including major asset managers like Allianz and hedge fund Brevan
Howard, last year told a London court that the cartels were highly
sophisticated, with traders using over 200 different chat rooms and
that further anti-competitive practices at the banks could still
come to light. US courts have already allowed institutional
investors to pursue class-action lawsuits against 15 major banks.

Investors who feel they may have been affected and would like to
participate in the claim can contact FX Claim UK here. Individual
traders and investors who entered into FX spot and/or outright FX
trades with members of the cartel during the period under review
may be eligible. [GN]

BARCLAYS PLC: Tribunal Rules Against FX Suit on Opt-Out Basis
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stapleton at professionalpensions.com reports that a
tribunal to deal with an application for a collective proceedings
order in a legal action against Barclays, Citigroup, JP Morgan,
Royal Bank of Scotland and UBS for foreign exchange rigging has
ruled against a class action on an opt-out basis.

The ruling by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) follows a
hearing held last July which considered whether a £1bn-plus claim
against the banks could proceed as a collective action and, if so,
whether it should be certified on an opt-in basis (in which class
members must actively opt-in to the proceedings at the outset) or
opt-out (in which class members are automatically included in the
claims unless they choose to opt-out).

The tribunal also looked at which of two class representatives
would be most suitable to take the claim forward - the so-called
'carriage' part of the claim.

The two claims considered by the tribunal included one being
brought by the former chairman of The Pensions Regulator Michael
O'Higgins, the so-called UK Foreign Exchange Cartel Claim, and a
second being brought by former Competition and Markets Authority
inquiry chair Phillip Evans, a claim called FX Claim UK.

On the first issue, the tribunal found that the proceedings should
be certified as collective proceedings.

However, it declined to certify them on an opt-out basis - largely
basing its decision on concerns about the strengths of the claims
and its view that opt-in proceedings would be practicable.

Despite this, the tribunal's decision was not unanimous - with a
dissenting opinion from the third member of the tribunal, Paul
Lomas, stating that he believed the claims should proceed on an
opt-out basis.

On the second issue, the tribunal said it did not need to consider
carriage as they were minded to rule against opt-out proceedings
but noted if the claims were to continue on an opt-out basis, they
would have decides carriage in favour of Evans' application, FX
Claim UK.

Disappointment

Both the class representatives in the action expressed their
disappointment at the decision ruling out an opt-out basis claim.

O'Higgins said: "This decision is extremely disappointing, because
this claim is exactly the sort of the claim that opt-out
proceedings were introduced to facilitate in order to provide
access to justice to all entities affected by the illegal behaviour
of cartelists.

"The application I brought was based on strong foundations, solid
legal and economic principles and evidence from distinguished
experts. In particular, it followed the binding European Commission
decisions in which the banks conceded liability and similar
proceedings in the US, where the banks agreed to a settlement of
over $2bn (£1.52bn)."

Evans added: "I am disappointed however with the CAT's refusal to
authorise the action as opt out proceedings, deciding instead that
each class member should opt-in before the claims can continue.

"Based on my background in consumer welfare, I have first-hand
knowledge of the practical difficulties of opt-in legal
proceedings, which I presented to the tribunal. In my view, the CAT
has underestimated these challenges although one of the three CAT
members recognised this and stated that the proceedings should be
certified on an opt-out basis."

Evans added: "If these claims are blocked from continuing on an
opt-out basis, the result will be that tens of thousands of
individuals and businesses will be excluded from the opportunity to
recover compensation in relation to admitted anti-competitive
behaviour by the banks. That would be contrary to the principle of
access to justice that underpins the collective action regime."

Moving forward

Both O'Higgins and Evans said they intended to appeal the
decision.

Hausfeld is the law firm behind the FX Claim UK. Partner and global
co-chair Anthony Maton stated: "The CAT has refused to allow these
claims to proceed other than on an opt-in basis which, as I
testified to the CAT, is impracticable. It also means that
thousands of UK businesses will be denied the chance to recover
compensation in relation to illegal conduct which the banks have
admitted and in relation to which they have paid billions of
dollars in compensation to affected customers in the US and Canada.


"The CAT has recognised that our client, Mr Evans, should have
carriage of these claims and we therefore intend to take the case
to the higher courts to reverse this decision, allowing ordinary
businesses compensation for the illegal behaviour of the banks as
parliament intended."

The action comes after a European Commission ruling in May 2019
found that, between 18 December 2007 and 31 January 2013, traders
employed by the banks exchanged commercially sensitive information
and trading plans and occasionally coordinated their trading
strategies through various private, online professional chatrooms,
contrary to EU competition law. The commission fined the banks more
than €1bn (£860m) collectively.

The CAT tribunal consisted of Justice Marcus Smith, Paul Lomas and
Professor Anthony Neuberger.

Update: This article was updated at 15:47 on 1 April to reflect the
fact that O'Higgins had also decided to appeal the decision. [GN]

BINANCE: Wins Class-Action Dismissal Over Unregistered Securities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Owotunse Adebayo at cryptopolitan.com reports that in the last few
years, Binance has been somewhat a figure that has been reconciled
with controversies due to so many issues. However, things like that
are changing for the crypto exchange with this latest revelation.
According to reports, a judge in a federal US court has dismissed a
class-action lawsuit against the parent company of the crypto
exchange.

Investors claimed Binance sold unregistered securities
According to the full reports, the case was dismissed because
Binance had not broken any law by not registering with the SEC
before offering services to its users. The class action claimed
that Binance had sold unregistered securities to traders between
2017 and 2018. The first complaint filed in New York was among
investors who claimed that they invested in nine tokens, including
BNT, in the same time duration.

Binance Coin price analysis: BNB tests $400 previous high, swift
breakout to follow?
However, another complaint was filed with the complainants
eliminating some tokens from the list of assets. According to the
investors, the price of the tokens dipped drastically after they
bought them from the crypto exchange. At the time, they prayed the
court to mandate Binance to return their funds and the small fees
they were charged as transaction fees on the crypto exchange.

Judge says the filing of the lawsuit was late
The complainants claimed that Binance rode on the wave that digital
assets brought into the market to woo investors off their funds.
They also claimed that the exchange helped ICOs and other crypto
projects lure in users and charged them fees in return. They
claimed that investors who purchased the tokens expected them to
bring in a considerable amount of returns, one which did not happen
for a long time during the period.

In his verdict, the Judge mentioned that the investors were too
late with their complaint as they delayed it for about a year
before filing. Even though the better part of the tokens involved
was bought in 2018, the investors filed the lawsuit early in April
2020. The investors claimed that owing to the SEC recognizing the
assets as securities in the same period, the timeline to file a
lawsuit should have begun then.

However, the Judge discovered that the said timeline started when
the issue started, not when they discovered it. The court also
claimed that the securities law does not cover Binance because it
doesn't have a physical office in the country. Although the
exchange has a domain hosting its web services in the country, it
was not enough to convict the Changpeng Zhao-led investment.
Coinbase has also suffered a lawsuit as far back as March 11, with
investors claiming that the exchange is selling unregistered
securities. [GN]

BRF SA: Settlement in Shareholder Suit Gets Court OK
----------------------------------------------------
BRF S.A. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 25, 2022, that a settlement for the shareholder
class action was approved in October 2020.

On March 12, 2018, a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed
against the company, some of its former managers and a current
officer in the U.S. Federal District Court in the Southern District
of New York. On July 2, 2018, the Court appointed the City of
Birmingham Retirement and Relief System lead plaintiff in the
action, or the Lead Plaintiff.

On December 5, 2018, the Lead Plaintiff filed an amended complaint
that sought to represent all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's American Depositary Receipts
(ADRs) during the period from April 4, 2013, through and including
March 2, 2018.

The class action alleged, among other things, that the company and
certain of its officers or directors engaged in securities fraud or
other unlawful business practices related to the regulatory issues
in connection with the Carne Fraca Operation and Trapaça
Operation.

On December 13, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On
January 21, 2020, the Lead Plaintiff filed an opposition motion,
and, on February 11, 2020, the company and the other defendants
filed our response. While the court's decision on the motion to
dismiss was still pending, the parties reached an agreement on
March 27, 2020 to settle this class action for an amount equivalent
to R$204,436 thousand (US$40,000 thousand, translated to reais at
the exchange rate of R$5.1109 as of March 27, 2020). The court
approved this settlement on October 23, 2020.

BRF S.A. is a producer of fresh and frozen protein foods based in
Brazil.


BURGER KING: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Sandwich Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
Cortney Moore, writing for Fox Business, reports that a number of
Burger King customers are taking the fast food chain to court,
alleging "consumer fraud" as related to the company's sandwich
ads.

In a 26-page class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District
Court in Southern Florida, attorneys Anthony J. Russo and James C.
Kelly are representing plaintiffs who believe they were misled by
the sandwich sizes that Burger King displays in its
advertisements.

"Burger King advertises its burgers as large burgers compared to
competitors and containing oversized meat patties and ingredients
that overflow over the bun to make it appear that the burgers are
approximately 35% larger in size, and containing more than double
the meat than the actual burger," the complaint states.

It entered the FLSD docket on March 28, 2022.

Attorney James Kelly told FOX Business that the complaint aims to
get Burger King and other fast food chains to advertise their menu
items in a way that reflects reality.

"We are ultimately seeking changes to the photos for the materially
overstated menu items and fairness across the industry on the
issue," he said in an email.

The menu items that are named in the complaint for being
"overstated" in advertisements include the chain's iconic Whopper
and King lines, the breakfast-time Croisann'Wich (fully loaded and
egg & cheese) and Double Sausage sandwich, and other burger options
that include bacon or cheese.

A spokesperson for Burger King told FOX Business in an email that
the corporation "does not comment on pending or potential
litigations."

The complaint requests a jury trial. It alleges that the
discrepancy between the advertised sandwiches and the appearance of
the menu items in real life is a "deceptive trade practice" that
could be interpreted as false advertising.

Russo and Kelly name four plaintiffs in the complaint, one of whom
is from Florida; the other three are from New York.

The plaintiffs claim they wouldn't have purchased sandwiches from
Burger King if they were aware "that said burgers were much smaller
than advertised."

At least 100 plaintiffs are included in this pending class-action
lawsuit, the complaint says.

"Burger King's advertisements for its burger and menu items are
unfair and financially damaging consumers as they are receiving
food that is much lower in value than what was promised," the
complaint argues.

"Burger King's actions are especially concerning now that
inflation, food and meat prices are very high and many consumers,
especially low income consumers, are struggling financially."

The complaint goes on to list food reviewers, YouTubers and
consumers on Twitter who published content stating they also
believe Burger King's menu items don't match its advertisements.

"The matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000,
exclusive of interest and costs," wrote Russo of the Florida-based
Russo Firm, and Kelly, of the New York-based Law Office of James C.
Kelly, in the complaint.

Burger King is headquartered in Miami.[GN]

BURT'S BEES: Spindel Sues Over Mislabeled Cosmetic Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
CAROLINE SPINDEL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BURT'S BEES, INC. and THE CLOROX
COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-01928 (N.D. Cal., March 25,
2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged deceptive labeling,
marketing, and sale of their cosmetic products in violation of New
York's General Business Law and common law.

According to the complaint, Burt's Bees' representations that its
products are "100% Natural" or "100% Natural Origin" mislead
consumers into believing that the products are not made with
synthetic, toxic chemicals like per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS), when in fact the products are made with such chemicals.

Reasonable consumers, such as Plaintiff, would not expect a
"natural" product to contain man-made chemicals, notes the
complaint. Because Burt's Bees' labeling and advertising of the
products tend to mislead and are materially deceptive about the
true nature and quality of the products, Plaintiff brings this
deceptive advertising case on behalf of a class of consumers who
purchased the products in New York, and seeks relief including
actual damages, interest, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees.

Burt's Bees is an American multinational, personal care product
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com

               - and -

          Kim E. Richman, Esq.
          RICHMAN LAW & POLICY
          1 Bridge Street, Suite 83
          Irvington, NY 10533
          Telephone: (718) 878-4707
          Facsimile: (212) 687-8292
          E-mail: krichman@richmanlawpolicy.com

BYTEDANCE TECHNOLOGY: T.K.'s Class Settlement Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, T.K., THROUGH HER MOTHER SHERRI LESHORE, and A.S.,
THROUGH HER MOTHER, LAURA LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BYTEDANCE TECHNOLOGY CO.,
LTD., MUSICAL.LY INC. MUSICAL.LY THE CAYMAN ISLANDS CORPORATION,
Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-7915 (N.D. Ill.), Judge John Robert
Blakey of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion & Order:

   a. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of a
      proposed class action settlement, subject to modifications;

   b. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs,
      and service awards;

   c. denying Mark S.'s motion for attorneys' fees and service
      award; and

   d. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions.

I. Background

On May 12, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their initial motion for
final approval of the Proposed Settlement, a settlement the Court
had preliminarily approved in December 2019. In March 2020, after
finding that the Proposed Settlement Class had not received
adequate notice of the settlement within the meaning of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion
for final approval, along with the Plaintiffs' related motion for
attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards, without prejudice. The
Court required that the Plaintiffs provide additional notice to the
class before filing any renewed motion for final approval or
renewed motion for fees, costs, and service awards. In the same
opinion and order, it denied Mark S.'s motion to intervene.

The following month, the parties reached an agreement regarding
potentially overlapping claims in the action and in In re TikTok,
Inc., Consumer Privacy Litigation, No. 20-CV-4699, MDL No. 2948
(N.D. Ill.) (the "TikTok MDL"), whereby the Defendants confirmed
that they would not seek to enforce their rights under the Proposed
Settlement Agreement's release clause against members of the
Proposed Settlement Class in the event class members also sought
recovery in the TikTok MDL. Given that agreement, the Court denied
Mark S.'s motion to enforce the Court's preliminary injunction and
for reassignment of the related TikTok MDL.

In accordance with the Court's March 2020 order, the Plaintiffs
launched their Supplemental Notice Program ("SNP") on May 5, 2021.
During the SNP, Angeion Group LLC, the settlement administrator,
received an additional 89,316 claim forms, bringing the total
number of claim forms received to 193,928. The launch of the SNP
also triggered additional windows for members of the Proposed
Settlement Class to submit objections to the Proposed Settlement or
opt-out of the class entirely. During the SNP no additional class
members submitted objections or requested exclusion. The costs of
the SNP amounted to $30,035.

The Plaintiffs now move for final approval of the Proposed
Settlement. The Plaintiffs and Mark S., a member of the Proposed
Settlement Class, both move for attorneys' fees and service awards,
with the Plaintiffs also seeking costs. In connection with Mark
S.'s motion for attorneys' fees and service award, the Plaintiffs'
have filed a motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11.

II. Discussion

A. Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval

1. Certification of the Settlement Class

Before approving the Proposed Settlement, the Court must certify
the Proposed Settlement Class. This means that the Proposed
Settlement Class has to satisfy Rule 23(a)'s requirements of
numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. The class at
issue must also meet Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirements that "questions
of law or fact common to class members predominate over any
questions affecting individual members" and that "a class action is
superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy."

Judge Blakey finds that (i) the class definition meets the
requirements of definiteness and ascertainability; (ii) the sliver
of the user base would constitute a class large enough to satisfy
the numerosity requirement; (iii) all members of the Proposed
Settlement Class share statutory claims based upon the Defendants'
alleged violations of federal and California privacy law; (iv) the
class members' claims all arise from the same course of conduct,
and the class members base their claims upon the same legal
theories; (v) the named Plaintiffs here share the same injuries as
other members of the Proposed Settlement Class; and (vi) the record
does not support a finding of inadequacy as to the Class Counsel.

Judge Blakey also finds that (i) the need for individualized proof
wont weigh against certification; (ii) individualized damages
questions wont bar certification; (ii) the need for individualized
damages presents even less of a problem because case management
concerns have minimal import; (iii) differences between the federal
and state law claims present in the case do not prevent
certification; and (iv) because certification of the Proposed
Settlement Class and approval of the Proposed Settlement will
resolve these claims in one fell swoop, a class action constitutes
the most efficient means of adjudicating this controversy.

2. Notice

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 requires notice to a class when
it is certified under Rule 23(b)(3), when the parties reach a
settlement, and when class counsel files a fee petition.
Separately, the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") requires that
certain government agencies receive notice of a proposed class
action settlement in a federal case.

Judge Blakey finds that the parties provided adequate notice to the
Proposed Settlement Class. He says, the parties provided adequate
notice to the Proposed Settlement Class. Angeion Group, LLC, a
class action and settlement administration firm, developed and
implemented the initial notice program. The notice is found to be
the best notice practicable under the circumstances.

Judge Blakey has also reviewed the internet banner advertisements
displayed as part of the notice program, archived versions of the
settlement website linked to those advertisements and dating back
to the notice period, and the long form notice and claim form both
posted on said website. The content of these materials meets Rule
23's requirements as to certification and settlement notice.

Because both the form and the content of the notice meet Rule 23's
requirements, Judge Blakey finds that the Plaintiffs have provided
adequate notice to the Proposed Settlement Class. The Defendants
served proper notice under CAFA.

3. Proposed Settlement Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate

Under Rule 23(e), a court may approve a settlement "only on finding
that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate."

Judge Blakey finds that (i) the Class Counsel and the named
Plaintiffs have adequately represented the Proposed Settlement
Class; (ii) no evidence of improper side deals or other misconduct,
and there is nothing in the record that might suggest something
less than an arm's length negotiation; (iii) the proposed method of
distribution is straightforward and unlikely to have discouraged
anyone from submitting a claim; (iv) the proposed attorneys' fee
award also weighs in favor of finding the relief adequate; (v) the
Proposed Settlement treats class members equitably; (vi) the
overwhelming support by class members weighs strongly in favor of
the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Proposed
Settlement; (vii) the Class Counsel has extensive experience with
class action litigation, experience that includes data privacy
litigation.

Mark S., a member of the Proposed Settlement Class, filed
objections to the Proposed Settlement with the Court on May 11,
2020, and supplemented these objections on June 19, 2021. Mark S.
argued his objections at the first fairness hearing in the matter
held on August 4 and Aug. 7, 2020 and at the supplemental fairness
hearing held on Aug. 31, 2021. Separately, 10 members of the
Proposed Settlement Class sent objections to the Class Counsel via
U.S. mail. Because these 10 objections, largely identical in form
and substance, share the same procedural and substantive defects,
Judge Blakey examines these objections together.

Among other things, he finds that Mark S.'s audacious claim that
the Class Counsel acted without integrity has no support in the
record. The evidence cited by Mark S. gives the Court no reason to
revisit its earlier findings that the Class Counsel provided
adequate representation. Mark S.'s assertions about the adequacy of
the Class Counsel's representation also lack merit. Having
certified the Proposed Settlement Class and having found notice
adequate and the Proposed Settlement fair, reasonable, and
accurate, Judge Blakey now grants the Plaintiffs' supplemental
motion for final approval.

B. Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service
Awards

The Plaintiffs seek $200,000 in attorneys' fees, $16,133.53 in
costs, and $5,000 in service awards ($2,500 to each of the two
named Plaintiffs).

Although Judge Blakey finds that a fee of 33.3% constitutes the
appropriate market rate, the Plaintiffs request fees totaling
$200,000, a figure that represents 27.2% of the common fund, net
administrative fees and service awards. Such an award satisfies the
presumption that "attorneys' fees awarded to the class counsel
should not exceed a third or at most a half of the total amount of
money going to class members and their counsel." And because the
Plaintiffs' request falls short of the market rate (a rate that
would generate $244,294.96 in fees), it more than makes up for the
$30,035 in administrative costs associated with the SNP. As the SNP
resulted from an error on the part of the Class Counsel or the
Settlement Administrator, any fee award should ensure that the
Proposed Settlement Class does not bear the costs of the SNP. The
Plaintiffs' proposal does just that.

Judge Blakey also finds that the Class Counsel has provided records
with sufficient detail for the Court to fulfill its oversight role.
And these expenses comprise less than 1.5% of the common fund (or
roughly 2.2% of the common fund net administrative costs and
service awards), a portion smaller than the "average" of "4% of the
relief for the class." In light of the facts of the case, Judge
Blakey finds the claimed expenses reasonable.

Lastly, the named Plaintiffs do not appear to have missed school or
work as a result of their participation in the litigation, nor did
they sit for depositions, produce discovery, or submit affidavits,
all factors that often justify awards of this size. And the case
does not involve particularly "sensitive and personal" allegations
that might otherwise justify such a large award in the absence of
any participation in discovery. Accordingly, Judge Blakey declines
to award the requested amounts and instead awards each named
Plaintiff $1,000, with the extra $3,000 remaining in the Settlement
Fund.

C. Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions

Pursuant to Rule 11, the Plaintiffs move for sanctions against
Scott Drury, Mark S.'s attorney, and Drury's law firm, Loevy &
Loevy. They allege that Drury's petition for fees and a service
award, filed on behalf of Mark S.: (1) "violates Rule 11(b)(2)"
because "the claims and legal contentions" in the petition "are not
warranted by existing law, and the arguments are patently
frivolous"; (2) "violates Rule 11(b)(3)" because "there is no
evidence to support Drury's contention that his actions in the case
created any additional value for the Settlement Class,"; and (3)
"violates Rule 11(b)(1)" because "it is filed for an improper
purpose," specifically "seeking attorneys' fees for work that
plainly did not increase the settlement in this case" and
"needlessly increases the cost of litigation."

Judge Blakey finds that (i) Drury's filing did not violate Rule
11(b)(2); (ii) he "cannot say" that Drury's "claims were 'so devoid
of factual support that sanctions were appropriate'"; and (iii) the
fact that Drury made unsuccessful arguments does not, in and of
itself, merit Rule 11 sanctions; and (iv) the record does not
otherwise contain evidence that Drury filed this fee petition
simply to increase the costs of litigation or delay proceedings as
the Plaintiffs allege with factual support. Based upon the record,
Judge Blakey denies the Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons he explained, Judge Blakey granted the Plaintiffs'
supplemental motion for final approval of the Proposed Settlement
Agreement. He also granted the Plaintiffs' supplemental motion for
attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards, awarding the Plaintiffs
$200,000 for attorneys' fees, $16,133.53 for costs, and service
awards in the amount of $1,000 for each of the two named
Plaintiffs. Judge Blakey denied Mark S.'s motion for attorneys'
fees and service award and denied the Plaintiff's Rule 11 motion. A
separate order and judgment consistent with the Opinion will be
issued.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 25, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr426y66 from
Leagle.com.


CANDICE BROCE: S.C.G. Files Suit in N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Candice Broce. The
case is styled as S.C.G., a minor child; through as next friend
Jamanic Reaves; Jamanic Reaves, as next friend to S.C.G.; K.L.P.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Candice Broce, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the
Georgia Department of Human Services, Case No. 1:22-cv-01324-LMM
(N.D. Ga., April 4, 2022).

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

Candice L. Broce --
https://dfcs.georgia.gov/about-us/candice-l-broce -- was appointed
on September 16, 2021, by Gov. Brian P. Kemp to serve as the
director of the Georgia Division of Family & Children
Services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Deborah Ann Ausburn, Esq.
          TAYLOR ENGLISH DUMA LLP
          1600 Parkwood Circle, Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Phone: (770) 434-6868
          Fax: (678) 229-0341
          Email: dausburn@taylorenglish.com

               - and -

          Joshua H. Norris, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA H. NORRIS
          One West Court Square, Suite 750
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Phone: (404) 867-6188
          Fax: (404) 393-9680
          Email: josh.norris@childrenshealthlaw.org

               - and -

          Thomas C. Rawlings, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE CHILD ADVOCATE STATE OF GEORGIA
          7 Martin Luther King, Jr. Ave., Suite 347
          Atlanta, GA 30334
          Phone: (404) 656-4200
          Email: trawlings@tomrawlings.com



CANO HEALTH: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of May 17 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on April 3 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Cano Health, Inc. ("Cano" or the "Company")
f/k/a Jaws Acquisition Corp. ("Jaws") (NYSE: CANO; CANO/WS; JWS;
JWS.U; JWS WS) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, and docketed under 22-cv- 20827, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired Cano securities between May 18,
2020 and February 25, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Cano
securities during the Class Period, you have until May 17, 2022 to
ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.

Cano provides primary care medical services to its members in the
United States and Puerto Rico. The Company owns and operates
medical centers, as well as operates pharmacies.

Cano used to be a special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC") and
operated under the name "Jaws Acquisition Corp." A SPAC, also
called a blank-check company, is a development stage company that
has no specific business plan or purpose or has indicated its
business plan is to engage in a merger or acquisition with an
unidentified company or companies, other entity, or person. On June
3, 2021, Jaws consummated a merger with Primary Care (ITC)
Intermediate Holdings, LLC, whereby, among other things, Jaws
changed its name to "Cano Health, Inc." and began to provide
primary care medical services (the "Business Combination").

As a publicly traded company, Cano must adhere to strict financial
reporting requirements by, among other things, timely filing
periodic financial reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission and complying with Financial Accounting Standards Board
guidelines, including Accounting Standards Update No. 2014-09,
Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) ("ASC 606").
Particularly, under ASC 606, Cano must analyze its revenue
recognition with respect to, inter alia, certain Medicare risk
adjustments.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Cano overstated its due
diligence efforts and expertise with respect to acquiring target
businesses; (ii) accordingly, Cano performed inadequate due
diligence into whether the Company, post-Business Combination,
could properly account for the timing of revenue recognition as
prescribed by ASC 606, particularly with respect to Medicare risk
adjustments; (iii) as a result, the Company misstated its capitated
revenue, direct patient expense, accounts receivable, net of unpaid
service provider costs, and accounts payable and accrued expenses;
(iv) accordingly, the Company was at an increased risk of failing
to timely file one or more of its periodic financial reports; and
(v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On February 28, 2022, Cano issued a press release "announc[ing] it
will delay its fourth quarter and full year 2021 earnings release,
conference call and 2022 guidance updates, previously scheduled for
Monday, February 28, 2022." In explaining the delay, Cano advised
that "in the course of finalizing its audit of the financial
statements for the year ended December 31, 2021, the Company and
its independent auditor . . . identified certain potential non-cash
adjustments to account for revenue recognition under accounting
standard ASC 606." Specifically, Cano advised that "[t]he
adjustments relate to how and when the Company accrues revenue
related to Medicare Risk Adjustments" and that "[t]he adjustments
are expected to impact the timing of revenue recognition, by
delaying recognition of certain amounts related to the Medicare
Risk Adjustment to subsequent periods[.]"

On this news, Cano's Class A common stock price fell $0.32 per
share, or 6.17%, to close at $4.87 per share on February 28, 2022.

On March 14, 2022, Cano filed its annual report for the quarter and
year ended December 31, 2021 (the "2021 10-K"). That filing stated,
inter alia, that "[t]he correction in the timing of revenue
recognition under ASC 606 resulted in adjustments to capitated
revenue, direct patient expense, accounts receivable, net of unpaid
service provider costs, and accounts payable and accrued
expenses[,]" and that the Company therefore "restated its financial
statements for each of the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2021,
June 30, 2021 and September 30, 2021 in the [2021 10-K.]" For
example, the 2021 10-K reported that, as restated, capitated
revenue decreased 2.13% for the three months ended March 31, 2021;
13.11% for the three months ended June 30, 2021; and 5.58% for the
three months ended September 30, 2021.

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

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

CAR WASH PARTNERS: Franco Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Car Wash Partners,
Inc. The case is styled as Clayton Franco, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Car Wash Partners, Inc.
doing business as: Mister Car Wash, Case No. 1:22-cv-00340-JLT-BAM
(E.D. Cal., March 22, 2022).

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

Car Wash Partners, Inc. doing business as Mister Car Wash --
http://mistercarwash.com/-- provides automotive services. The
Company offers car wash, detailing, lubricant services,
transmission, cooling system, fuel injection, and differential
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          4455 E Camelback Rd., Ste. C250
          Phoenix, AZ 85018
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Fax: (800) 520-5523
          Email: ryan@kazlg.com


CARGILL INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Inflated Beef Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Charlebois at saltwire.com reports that we recently learned
that a Quebec group is leading a class action aimed at major
federally licensed beef packers. Cargill, JBS Food Co., Tyson Foods
and National Beef Packing Co. are accused of colluding and
inflating beef prices since 2015.

So, if you're a consumer in Quebec who's been buying beef since
then, you can be part of the claim. The authorization application
was filed in the Superior Court of Quebec.

This claim does not appear to surprise anyone. Food prices,
especially beef, have been skyrocketing for a while. According to
Statistics Canada, while ground beef is up only four per cent since
January 2015, most beef cuts have gone up by anywhere between 30
and 51 per cent. Only baby food and potatoes have seen sharper
increases since 2015.

Farmers have long complained about how little they get versus
retail prices at the grocery store. The correlation between the
price farmers receive and retail has always been weak for most
products. But now consumers are noticing, and some groups are
acting on concerns that something may not be quite right.

What is perplexing about the claim is how it only aims at a handful
of packers. If collusion did occur at the meat counter, many other
companies would have arguably benefited from artificially inflated
prices, including smaller abattoirs and, of course, retailers.
Margins are significant in meat in food retailing, so grocers would
have also increased profits.

The claim is likely inspired by what has happened in the United
States in recent months. In December, the White House released a
scathing report about how profits in the meat-packing sector have
spectacularly increased, over 300 per cent since the start of the
pandemic. JBS USA, one of the groups targeted by the Canadian
lawsuit, approved a US$52.5-million settlement in a lawsuit in
which the company was accused of conspiring to boost beef prices.
It never admitted guilt in the deal, though.

Cargill Inc., National Beef Packing Co. and Tyson Foods Inc. were
also named in the case, the same companies mentioned in the Quebec
claim. Of the four, only Tyson is publicly traded.

When it comes to price fixing, the United States doesn't fool
around. When Congress and the White House have concerns, they act
on them. In Canada, not so much.

The bread price-fixing scandal that came to light in 2017, when
Loblaw admitted having participated in an alleged industry-wide
operation, opened the door to public criticism. In 2017, Loblaw's
Ghalen Weston strategically threw everyone in the industry under
the bus when admitting Loblaw's involvement in a 14-year bread
scheme. By admitting guilt and supporting the investigation, Loblaw
received immunity from the Competition Bureau.

The investigation did not provide evidence to prosecute anyone
else, even though bread prices had gone up dramatically while the
scheme was ongoing. A group in Ontario has just been authorized to
go ahead with a class action against the bread industry. The beef
claim is the second we have seen in Canada in a few months.

Some will say these lawsuits are often launched by
ambulance-chasing law firms looking for easy money or cheap
publicity. Perhaps, but with higher food prices and Canada's
inability to forcefully monitor food retail prices, these
allegations are likely going to make a valuable point.

Canada is really data poor compared to the United States.
Statistics Canada doesn't really report small details about what is
going on with all food categories, at least not as much as the U.S.
Many believe food inflation is underestimated here since Statistics
Canada relies on a few grocers.

With strong data, American institutions can and will use the stick.
In Canada, we pursue companies in hopes they will blink. What
doesn't help is how under-resourced the Competition Bureau is. This
needs to change.

What is at the heart of it all is how we measure greed, or at least
how we should measure it. How much is too much, really, given the
relatively small margins in the agri-food industry?

When a consumer walks away from a store with a $40 steak and
willfully paid for it while many other options are offered, one can
argue the grocer gave choices. But with higher food prices, our
inability to measure or detect greed in the system will become more
obvious.

Consumer trust is what is at stake. We need to act before
skepticism in Canada grows even further.

Sylvain Charlebois is professor in food distribution and policy,
and senior director of the AgriFood Analytics Lab at Dalhousie
University. [GN]

CASTLEROCK FARMING: Moreno's 1st Amended Complaint Partly Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARIA G. MORENO, ESTHER L. LOPZ, et al., Plaintiffs v.
CASTLEROCK FARMING AND TRANSPORT INC., J.L. PADILLA & SONS LABOR
SERVICES INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:12-CV-0556 AWI JLT
(E.D. Cal.), Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' motions to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint.

I. Background

The case exists in the shadow of a number of previous cases
involving the same or similar subject matter (especially Soto v.
Castlerock, Civ. Case No. 09-0701, which was ultimately dismissed).
The Plaintiffs are various farm laborers who worked for farm labor
contractors ("FLCs") on certain table grape vineyards in Tulare and
Kern Counties.

They seek to represent a class of workers, alleging that their
employers violated a number of California labor laws, California
unfair competition law, and the federal Migrant and Seasonal
Agricultural Workers Protection Act ("MSAWPA") by: (a) forcing
employees to work pre-shift and post-shift `off the clock' time
without compensation; (b) forcing employees to work a second shift
without compensation and without split shift pay, or in the
alternative, failing to pay for travel time and incurred expenses
for work performed off premises; (c) forcing employees to purchase
tools from the employer or otherwise supply their own tools and
equipment without reimbursement; (d) enforcing unlawful piece-rate
policies that result in unpaid time and unpaid rest breaks; (e)
failing to pay minimum wages; (f) failing to pay double minimum
wage to employees who provide or are required to purchase their own
tools; (g) failing to authorize and permit proper rest periods of
at least 10 minutes per four hours worked or major fraction thereof
and failing to pay such employees one hour of pay at the employee's
regular rate of compensation for each workday that the rest period
is not provided, as required by California state wage and hour
laws; (h) requiring non-exempt employees to work at least five
hours without a meal period and failing to pay such employees one
hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of compensation for each
workday that the meal period is not provided; (i) requiring
employees to report to work and if an employee did report for work,
but was not put to work or was furnished with less than half said
employee's usual or scheduled day's work, paying the employees less
than half the usual or scheduled day's work at the employee's
regular rate of pay and/or less than the legal minimum; (j) failing
to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements; and
(k) failing to maintain accurate time-keeping records.

The classes the Plaintiffs hope to certify consist of:

     a. All persons employed directly or jointly by Castlerock in
California as non-exempt hourly and/or piece-rate employees at any
time during the period of Sept. 12, 2001 to the present.

     b. All persons employed by J.L. Padilla and Castlerock as
non-exempt hourly and/or piece-rate employees at Castlerock
vineyards in California at any time during the period of April 10,
2008 to the present.

     c. All persons employed by Melba Nunez and Castlerock as
non-exempt hourly and/or piece-rate employees at Castlerock
vineyards in California at any time during the period of April 10,
2008 to the present.

Defendants J.L. Padilla and Sons Labor Service, Inc. ("Padilla
FLC") and Melba Nunez Contracting ("Nunez FLC") are FLCs which
employed Plaintiffs. Defendant Castlerock Farming and Transport,
Inc. is a corporation owned by Defendant Albert Good.1 Mr. Good
also owned the vineyards the Plaintiffs worked at. Castlerock
provided business services to Mr. Good in relation to those
vineyards. Which parties qualify as Plaintiffs' employers are
disputed in the case.

The operative complaint is the First Amended Complaint. In the
motion to dismiss, Castlerock and Mr. Good seek six determinations:
(a) that all putative class claims pled against Castlerock prior to
April 10, 2008, be dismissed without leave to amend as time barred;
that all putative class and personal claims pled against Castlerock
after April 10, 2008, be dismissed without leave to amend because
Mr. Good, not Castlerock, engaged the FLCs that employed plaintiffs
and the putative class members; (b) that putative class claims
based on allegations that workers were not paid for washing grape
trays or were required to purchase or provide their own tools be
dismissed without leave to amend because those putative classes
were denied certification in Soto; (c) that the putative class
claim for unpaid piece rate work prior to July 14, 2010, be
dismissed without leave to amend as time barred; That the PAGA
claims of Plaintiffs Maria G. Moreno, Esther L. Lopez, Francisco
Orozco, Abraham Ortiz, Javier Garcia, and Israel Lopez be dismissed
without leave to amend because their administrative notice letters
were untimely; and (d) that the PAGA claim of Plaintiff Florencia
Gutierrez be dismissed without leave to amend because (i) she
cannot establish that she was jointly employed by Castlerock and
(ii) she did not provide the required pre-lawsuit notice to Mr.
Good.

Nunez FLC and Padilla FLC have joined in the motion to dismiss.
Additionally, Padilla FLC has made a separate motion that the PAGA
claims should be dismissed because due to a failure to exhaust PAGA
administrative procedures. The Plaintiffs oppose both motions.

II. Discussion

A. Effect of Prior Motion to Dismiss

The Defendants collectively made an earlier motion to dismiss, or
in the alternative for a stay, arguing that the case was
duplicative of Soto. The stay was granted. Subsequent to the
lifting of the stay, the operative first amended complaint was
filed.

The Plaintiffs make a procedural argument that the Defendants
waived all new arguments in the present motion to dismiss that were
not included in the prior motion to dismiss; they cite as support
"Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(g) ("a party that makes a motion under this
rule must not make another motion under this rule raising a defense
or objection that was available to the party but omitted from its
earlier motion"); see also United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932,
934 (9th Cir. 2007) ("If not asserted in a responsive pleading, a
nonjurisdictional affirmative defense is deemed either forfeited or
waived.")

First, Judge Ishii notes that United States v. Sadler deals with
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4, and the quoted language
attributed to the Ninth Circuit does not appear in that opinion (or
any other federal opinion as far as can be determined). Second, the
interpretation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in this
circumstance is not altogether clear cut.

Rule 12 suggests that challenges to subject matter jurisdiction can
be made at any time but that certain defenses based on failure to
state a claim should not be brought in a successive motion to
dismiss if not raised in the first motion but are not substantively
waived. Some federal courts apply this limitation on successive
motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim strictly. Thus,
Judge Ishii will follow the practice of other district courts in
California and consider newly raised defenses in the successive
motion to dismiss on the merits.

B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

One of the new arguments being made is that "Castlerock ceased
hiring FLCs in July 2004, long before the limitations period for
the suit, and never did business with either of the FLC
defendants." Castlerock argues that the Plaintiffs lack subject
matter jurisdiction over it as a defendant, stating "The Lutz
Declaration and exhibits thereto establish that Castlerock could
not have been an employer -- joint or otherwise -- of any worker
employed by an FLC subsequent to July 2004. After July 2004, Mr.
Good retained the FLCs directly, including Nunez and Padilla.
Accordingly, Castlerock could not have been a joint employer of the
Plaintiffs or the putative class and all personal and class claims
against Castlerock should be dismissed without leave to amend
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), other than personal claims of Mr.
Garcia."

Judge Miller holds that where pertinent facts bearing on the
question of jurisdiction are in dispute, discovery should be
allowed, citing Dichter-Mad Family Partners, LLP v. United States,
709 F.3d 749, 753 (9th Cir. 2013), quoting America West Airlines,
Inc. v. GPA Group, Ltd., 877 F.2d 793, 801 (9th Cir. 1989). Other
courts dealing with subject matter jurisdiction and the tricky
question of joint employer status have allowed for discovery to
clarify the relationship between the parties. That appears to be
the best solution. The Plaintiffs have plead that Castlerock is a
joint employer but have not shown it to be so at this stage; they
should be given the opportunity to prove it with the aid of
discovery. The claims against Castlerock will not be dismissed for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction at this time.

C. Effect of Prior Litigation in Soto

The present case is intimately intertwined with Soto. The complaint
in Soto made similar allegations against Castlerock, including but
not limited to (a) forcing employees to work pre-shift and
post-shift `off the clock' time without compensation; (b) forcing
employees to work a second shift of home-work without compensation
and without split shift pay, or in the alternative, failing to pay
for travel time and incurred expenses; and (c) forcing employees to
purchase tools from the employer or otherwise supply their own
tools.

Initially, the Soto plaintiffs sought a class comprising of "All
persons who are employed or have been employed or jointly employed
by CASTLEROCK in the State of California who, within four years of
the filing of the Complaint in this case, have worked as non-exempt
hourly and/or piece-rate employees."

The Soto plaintiffs later filed a motion seeking certification of
only two classes:

     1. The Trays Class: All employees of Golden Grain Farm Labor
Contractor who worked at Castlerock Vineyards from 11/9/2001 to
August 2004 and were required to wash grape trays at home without
compensation.

     2. The Tools Class: All employees of Golden Grain Farm Labor
Contractor who worked at Castlerock Vineyards from 11/9/2001 to
August 2004 and were forced to purchase, without reimbursement,
tools and necessary equipment to perform their jobs.

Class certification was denied as to both classes. Given this
history, the Defendants raise two related issues: Whether certain
potential classes are barred because class certification was denied
in Soto and whether class claims can relate back to Soto for
purposes of statute of limitations.

First, with respect to the unsuccessful class certification in
Soto, Judge Miller interprets the Plaintiffs as giving up their
attempt to certify any class action based on trays or tools against
all the Defendants. As the operative complaint does include factual
allegations about washing trays without compensation and enforced
purchase of tools without reimbursement, the Defendants' motion to
dismiss those claims are granted.

Second, as to tolling, the Defendants seek to have the statute of
limitations calculated based on the filing dates of the case. The
Plaintiffs seek relation back to the filing of Soto and the earlier
cases, asserting that "The Class Period in the case is from
September 12, 2001 to the present."

Judge Miller holds that the Plaintiffs have misconstrued the effect
of the prior order. It was not ruling on the statute of limitation
applicable to the case but rather finding that the two cases were
similar enough to justify staying the present case pending the
outcome of Soto. The earlier order did not resolve the question of
tolling. There was no direct denial of class certification in the
prior case to trace back to for the claims at issue; the Plaintiffs
let Soto end without seeking class certification of the potential
classes relevant to the instant case. Relation back does not apply
given the history of litigation in Soto and the case.

D. Statute of Limitations of Piece Rate Rest Period Claims

The case was filed on April 10, 2012. Given the four-year
limitations period, the applicable class period began on April 10,
2008. The First Amended Complaint was filed on July 14, 2014. In
it, the Plaintiffs added an allegation that "80. Further, piece
rate employees were not paid a separate hourly rate for rest
periods. With respect to piece rate workers, therefore, the
Defendants failed to authorize and permit paid rest periods."

The Defendants argue that the applicable class period for this
claim begins on July 14, 2010 rather than April 10, 2008.
Castlerock asserts the "Plaintiffs' new claim does not relate back
to their initial complaint because it is based on new facts
complaint alleged initially that the Defendants failed to provide
piece-rate workers with rest breaks; the Plaintiffs now allege that
the Defendants provided rest breaks, but failed to pay an hourly
rate during those breaks."

The Plaintiffs disagree that the allegation states new facts and
that the claim was part of the original complaint.

Judge Miller finds that the original complaint gave the Defendants
adequate notice of the facts that underlie the claim. The new
allegations provide a rewording of the claim that clarified the
issue the Plaintiffs are complaining of. At a minimum, the original
language provided fair notice of the transaction called into
question. The piece rate rest period claim relates back to the
original; the applicable class period began on April 10, 2008.

E. PAGA Claims

The Plaintiffs seek penalties under Cal. Lab. Code Section 2699(a)
and (f) for multiple alleged violations of the California Labor
Code under PAGA, which allows them to proceed under a quasi class
action representative basis. The parties dispute whether any
objections to the cause of action have been waived, the statute of
limitations, and the adequacy of notice to employers of Labor Code
violations.

Judge Miller holds that (i) the September 2012 stipulation made by
the Defendants was for non-opposition to a renewed motion to amend
with respect to the 60 day Cal. Lab. Code Section 2699.3(c) (2012)
limit and not broader questions of PAGA timeliness; (ii) despite
the three year statute of limitations that applies to some of the
Labor Code violations listed in Section 2699.5, a PAGA claim is, by
definition, a claim for civil penalties" and subject to a one year
statute of limitations; and (iii) since Section 2699 requires
"written notice by certified mail to the Labor and Workforce
Development Agency and the employer," Ms. Gutierrez did not exhaust
the administrative procedure requirements in time. As this
exhaustion is a condition precedent to a PAGA claim, the
Plaintiffs' PAGA causes of action must be dismissed.

III. Order

Judge Miller granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motions to dismiss.

The following three determinations are established: All putative
class claims pled against Defendants prior to April 10, 2008, are
dismissed without leave to amend as time barred; the putative class
claims based on allegations that workers were not paid for washing
grape trays or were required to purchase or provide their own tools
are dismissed without leave to amend because those putative classes
were denied certification in Soto; and the PAGA claims of all named
Plaintiffs (Maria G. Moreno, Esther L. Lopez, Francisco Orozco,
Abraham Ortiz, Javier Garcia, Israel Lopez, and Florencia
Gutierrez) are dismissed without leave to amend because their
administrative notice letters were untimely.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 25, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p9ewpyk from Leagle.com.


CBL & ASSOCIATES: Chatman Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
CBL and Associates Properties, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K
Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2022, that a case
naming Stephen D. Lebovitz, the company's Director and Chief
Executive Officer, in a shareholder suit filed in January 10, 2020,
captioned "Chatman v. Lebovitz, et al.," Case No. 2020-0011-JTL, in
the Delaware Chancery Court was voluntarily dismissed due to the
releases of further liability for such claims as provided by the
bankruptcy plan approved by the Bankruptcy Court on August 12,
2021.

CBL and Associates Properties is a self-managed, self-administered,
fully integrated real estate investment trust. It owns, develops,
acquires, leases, manages, and operates regional shopping malls,
outlet centers, lifestyle centers, open-air centers and other
properties.


CBL & ASSOCIATES: Faces Lore Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------
CBL and Associates Properties, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K
Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2022, that Stephen
D. Lebovitz, the company's Director and Chief Executive Officer,
was named as a defendant in a shareholder suit filed in September
5, 2019 captioned "Travis Lore v. Stephen D. Lebovitz et al.,
1:19-cv-01665-LPS," in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware.

On October 14, 2019, the parties filed a joint stipulation and
proposed order confirming that each of those cases is subject to
the consolidation order previously entered by the court in a
consolidated derivative action and that further proceedings in
those cases are stayed pending resolution of an eventual motion to
dismiss in a pending securities class action litigation.

CBL and Associates Properties is a self-managed, self-administered,
fully integrated real estate investment trust. It owns, develops,
acquires, leases, manages, and operates regional shopping malls,
outlet centers, lifestyle centers, open-air centers and other
properties.


CBL & ASSOCIATES: Kemmer Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBL and Associates Properties, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K
Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2022, that a case
naming Stephen D. Lebovitz, the company's Director and Chief
Executive Officer, in a shareholder suit filed in February 26,
2020, captioned "Kemmer v. Lebovitz, et al.," Case No.
1:20-cv-00052, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee was voluntarily dismissed due to the releases
of further liability for such claims as provided by the bankruptcy
plan approved by the Bankruptcy Court on August 12, 2021.

The Bankruptcy Court approved the company's Third Amended Chapter
11 Plan on August 12, 2021 and said case was voluntarily dismissed
due to the releases of further liability for such claims as
provided by the bankruptcy plan.

CBL and Associates Properties is a self-managed, self-administered,
fully integrated real estate investment trust. It owns, develops,
acquires, leases, manages, and operates regional shopping malls,
outlet centers, lifestyle centers, open-air centers and other
properties.


CBL & ASSOCIATES: Securities Suit in Delaware Stayed
----------------------------------------------------
CBL and Associates Properties, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K
Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2022, that Stephen
D. Lebovitz, the company's Director and Chief Executive Officer,
was named as a defendant in a shareholder suit filed in September
25, 2019 captioned "City of Gainesville Cons. Police Officers' and
Firefighters Retirement Plan v. Stephen D. Lebovitz et al.,
1:19-cv-01800," in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware.

On October 14, 2019, the parties filed a joint stipulation and
proposed order confirming that each of those cases is subject to
the consolidation order previously entered by the court in a
consolidated derivative action and that further proceedings in
those cases are stayed pending resolution of an eventual motion to
dismiss in a pending securities class action litigation.

CBL and Associates Properties is a self-managed, self-administered,
fully integrated real estate investment trust. It owns, develops,
acquires, leases, manages, and operates regional shopping malls,
outlet centers, lifestyle centers, open-air centers and other
properties.


CELSION CORPORATION: Faces Spar Securities Suit in NJ Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Celsion Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 31, 2022, that it is facing a putative
securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey in October 29, 2020, captioned "Spar v. Celsion
Corporation, et al.," Case No. 1:20-cv-15228.

The plaintiff alleges that the company made false and misleading
statements regarding one of its product candidates, "ThermoDox," a
DNA-based immunotherapy for the localized treatment of ovarian
cancer, and brings claims for damages under Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act of 1934.

Celsion Corporation is a fully integrated, clinical stage
biotechnology company focused on advancing a portfolio of
innovative treatments including DNA-based immunotherapies, next
generation vaccines and directed chemotherapies through clinical
trials and eventual commercialization.


CIOX HEALTH: Taft Stettinius Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Morgan, Esq., of Taft Stettinius & Hollister, in an article
for Mondaq, reports that The Seventh Circuit recently provided
important clarity for class-action litigants. Parties seeking or
opposing a remand to state court based on the "local controversy"
exception, explained in more detail below, should focus their
arguments on the factual allegations. Legal theories don't count.

The Class Action Fairness Act -- often called CAFA -- allows
defendants to remove certain class-action lawsuits from state court
to federal court. But CAFA contains a "local controversy" exception
that prohibits removal when a suit meets the following four
requirements:

At least two-thirds of the proposed class members must be citizens
of the forum state.

At least one defendant whose actions form a significant basis for
the claims must be a citizen of the forum state.

The principal injuries must have occurred in the forum state.
During the three-year period preceding the filing date, no other
class action has been filed asserting "the same or similar factual
allegations against any of the defendants on behalf of the same or
other persons." 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)(A)(ii).

In Schutte v. Ciox Health, LLC, the Seventh Circuit construed that
fourth requirement for the first time. Donna Schutte represented a
putative class claiming that Ciox violated Wisconsin law thousands
of times by charging for copies of electronic health records. After
Ciox removed the case to federal court under CAFA, Schutte sought a
remand to state court. She argued, among other things, that her
lawsuit fits the "local controversy" exception even though a class
action including "identical" factual allegations had recently been
filed against Ciox in Montana.

Schutte argued that the lawsuit remained a local controversy
because it alleges violations of Wisconsin law -- while the Montana
case pursued theories of recovery under Montana law. Schutte also
argued that there must be some connection between the plaintiffs in
the two lawsuits to defeat the "local controversy" exception.
Otherwise, the "on behalf of the same or other persons" language
would be surplusage because every class action is filed on behalf
of some person.

The Seventh Circuit rejected both arguments. Drawing from Tenth
Circuit precedent and a handful of district courts that have faced
the question, the Seventh Circuit held that factual allegations --
not legal theories -- matter for purposes of the "local
controversy" exception. That rule is most faithful to Section
1332(d)(4)(A)(ii)'s text, which speaks of the "same or similar
factual allegations." And it prevents putative classes pursuing
identical claims from avoiding federal jurisdiction by filing their
lawsuits in different states.

The surplusage argument fared no better. After describing the
anti-surplusage canon's various limitations, the court ultimately
concluded that Section 1332(d)(4)(A)(ii)'s "on behalf of the same
or other persons" language can be enforced as written without
creating any surplusage. As the court explained, had Congress
omitted that language, the exception would apply if "during the
3-year period preceding the ?ling of that class action, no other
class action has been ?led asserting the same or similar factual
allegations against any of the defendants." Standing alone, that
language would leave courts and litigants to guess whether the
class members in the earlier lawsuit must have some connection to
the class members in the present lawsuit. By including the "on or
behalf of language," Congress confirmed that they need not.

Taken together, those rules doomed Schutte's claim that her lawsuit
was a local controversy. Although the Montana case pursued
different legal theories based on Montana law, the thrust of its
factual allegations were identical to Schutte's allegations. Both
lawsuits alleged that Ciox charged fees for electronic medical
records that were not authorized under relevant law. Because
Schutte did not present a local controversy -and otherwise
satisfied CAFA's jurisdictional requirements - it belonged in
federal court.

Although that decision provides important clarity, it also leaves
unanswered questions. Because the factual allegations in Schutte
and the Montana lawsuit were virtually identical, the court had no
occasion to answer how similar an earlier suit's factual
allegations must be to defeat the "local controversy" exception. It
cautioned that "incidental" similarity -- like lawsuits merely
arising from the same event or involving the same defendant --
won't be enough. But as the court itself acknowledged, hard cases
testing the limits of the similarity requirement are likely to
come. [GN]

CLARIVATE PLC: Robbins Geller to Lead Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien at Legal Newsline reports that the class action law
firm Robbins Geller is making its move to lead shareholder
litigation against information services and analytics company
Clarivate and possibly other companies with even deeper pockets.

The firm on March 25 filed a motion to consolidate the three cases
already filed against Clarivate and for its client to be picked as
lead plaintiff. Two of the cases name only Clarivate and its CEO
and CFO as defendants, but a third case filed by Bleichmar Fonti &
Auld adds defendants like Citigroup Global Markets, Barclays
Capital, J.P. Morgan Securities and PriceWaterHouseCoopers.

Robbins Geller's client, a firefighters pension fund in Boynton
Beach, Fla., bought 375,918 shares and suffered more than $4
million in recoverable losses as a result of alleged wrongdoing,
the suit says.

"To the best of its counsel's knowledge, there are no other
plaintiffs with a larger financial interest," the motion says.

The motion goes on to tout Robbins Geller's ability to serve as
lead counsel, arguing it recovered more than $1.4 billion for
investors as sole lead counsel in securities class actions in
2020.

"Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained the largest securities
fraud class action recovery in the Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth
and Eleventh circuits…" the motion says.

Clarivate went public in May 2019 and faces allegations its
financial statements misled investors because of mistakes in its
accounting.

In June, it raised $1.4 billion with a preferred shares offering
based on figures released in its quarterly reports.

"These statements were materially false and misleading," the suit
says. "In truth, Clarivate's financial statement . . . violated
generally accepted accounting principles, the company maintained
defective disclosure controls and procedures as a result of
material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting,
and the foregoing material weakness was not limited to how the
company accounted for warrants."

On Dec. 27, Clarivate admitted to an error. It incorrectly recorded
as part of accounting for the acquisition of CPA Global about $185
million in equity awards, the suit says.

"To correctly amount for the equity awards, (generally accepted
accounting practices) recognized Clarivate to recognize the equity
awards expenses as stock-based compensations charges over the
vesting period from Oct. 1, 2020, to Oct. 1, 2021, with only a
portion of the liability recorded as part of the acquisition
accounting." [GN]

CNO FINANCIAL: Court Grants Burnett's Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM JEFFREY BURNETT, JOE H CAMP, Plaintiffs, v.
CNO FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., CNO SERVICES LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00200-JPH-DML (S.D. Ind.), Judge James Patrick Hanlon of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
Indianapolis Division, issued an Order:

   a. granting the Plaintiffs' motion to modify the proposed
      class definition;

   b. granting as modified the Plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification;

   c. denying the CNO Defendants' motions for oral argument;

   d. denying the CNO Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Browne's
      opinions at the class-certification stage;

   e. denying the Plaintiff's motion to exclude Mr. Klein's
      opinions; and

   f. denying as moot the CNO Defendants' motion to exclude
      Dr. Liebenberg's opinions.

I. Introduction

Plaintiffs William Jeffrey Burnett and Joe H. Camp are former
holders of certain "LifeTrend" life insurance policies. They allege
that the Defendants breached their Policies by announcing and
implementing changes in the calculation of Policy premiums and
expense charges that caused thousands of policyholders to surrender
their Policies. The Court has approved a class-action settlement
and entered final judgment as to Defendant Conseco Life Insurance
Co.

The Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification for
their claims against the remaining Defendants -- CNO Financial
Group and CNO Services ("CNO Defendants"). They later filed a
motion to modify their proposed class definition to shorten the
time during which Policy surrenders would qualify for the class.

II. Background

The Plaintiffs allege that the Policies allowed policyholders to
stop paying premiums after five years if the policy had a high
enough cash value. By 2008, few policyholders were still required
to pay premiums. In October 2008, Conseco Life sent a letter
demanding premium payments and cost-of-insurance charges in an
effort to force policyholders to surrender their policies. The
Plaintiffs allege that this "shock lapse" strategy led thousands of
policyholders to surrender their policies.

Current and former LifeTrend policyholders first sued Conseco Life
in 2008, Brady, et al. v. Conseco Life Ins. Co., No. 3:08-cv-5746,
(N.D. Cal. Dec. 24, 2008). The Brady Action was filed on behalf of
a putative class of all current and former LifeTrend policyholders,
and in February 2010 was consolidated into a LifeTrend
multidistrict litigation case, In re Conseco Life Ins. Co.
LifeTrend Ins. Sales & Mktg. Litig., No. 3:10-MD-02124 (N.D. Cal.).
The LifeTrend MDL Court initially certified a class of current and
former LifeTrend policyholders, but in December 2011 limited the
class to current policyholders.

On Oct. 5, 2012, the Plaintiffs brought the case in the Central
District of California on behalf of former policyholders removed
from the LifeTrend MDL class. The case was transferred to the
LifeTrend MDL, where the Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint
-- the operative complaint. The Plaintiffs allege in the operative
complaint that the Defendants breached the Policies by announcing
and later implementing rate increases and other administrative
changes. They also seek declarations that "Conseco Life is the
alter ego of CNO Services and/or CNO Financial, that CNO Services
and Conseco Life are alter egos of CNO Financial, and therefore
that all three Conseco Defendants are liable for the conduct of
Conseco Life."

In January 2018, after the MDL court removed former policyholders
from the pending class action, the case was transferred to the
district. DThe CNO Defendants and Conseco Life separately moved to
dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. Conseco
Life later withdrew its motion to dismiss after reaching a proposed
class-action settlement. On Jan. 13, 2021, the Court granted final
approval to the class and the class settlement agreement and
entered partial final judgment as to the class' claims against
Conseco Life.

The Court denied the CNO Defendants' motion to dismiss in August
2020. It rejected the CNO Defendants' arguments that (1) the
operative compliant failed to state a claim for alter ego liability
and (2) the complaint showed that Mr. Burnett's claims were barred
by a release from liability included in a Regulatory Settlement
Agreement that Conseco Life had negotiated with state regulators.

The Plaintiffs have moved for class certification of the claims
against the CNO Defendants.

They initially proposed as a class: "All Persons who owned a Class
Policy, where Class Policy means each Conseco LifeTrend 3,
LifeTrend 4 (87 Series), or LifeTrend 4 (93 Series) policy for
which (1) the policy owner invoked that policy's Optional Premium
Payment prior to October 2008; (2) the policy owner received in or
after October 2008 either of the following: (a) notice that an
annual premium or shortfall payment was due on that policy, or (b)
notice of increased cost-of-insurance deductions on that policy;
and (3) the policy owner surrendered that policy between Oct. 7,
2008 and June 30, 2013. However, notwithstanding the above, a
policy is not a Class Policy if the Estimated Initial Distribution
for that policy in the Table of Initial Distribution Allocations
attached as Exhibit 3 to the Plaintiff's Settlement Agreement with
Conseco Life Insurance Co. is $500."

They also proposed as a subclass: "All persons who (1) meet the
criteria for the Class; (2) accepted optional benefits made
available by Conseco Life under the Regulatory Settlement
Agreement; and (3) signed the standard release form accompanying
the Regulatory Settlement Agreement."

In December 2021, the Plaintiffs moved to modify the proposed class
by shortening the class period to include only policies for which
"the policy owner surrendered that policy between Oct. 7, 2008 and
Sept. 1, 2011."

The CNO Defendants oppose class certification and the modification
to the class definition.

III. Discussion

A. Modified Class Definition

The Plaintiffs have filed a motion to modify the proposed class
definition, seeking to change only the class period's end date from
June 30, 2013 to Sept. 1, 2011 -- shortening the eligible class
period by about 22 months. They argue that this will "streamline
the evidence to be presented at trial" and "facilitate class
administration while having a minimal effect on the size of the
class." The change would reduce the class from 2,124 policyholders
to 1,993.

The CNO Defendants oppose the modification, contending that the
Plaintiffs' motion underscores the reasons why class certification
is inappropriate. They also fault the Plaintiffs for attempting to
change the class definition after "eleven months of intense
briefing" on the motion for class certification.

Judge Hanlon finds that the discovery has not yet closed. And the
Plaintiffs have explained that their motion to modify the class
definition is based on a "comprehensive analysis" of "recently
produced data and expert declarations." It's unsurprising that
pieces of the class definition may change as discovery continues
even after a class is certified. In fact, the CNO Defendants do not
argue that the narrowed class would meaningfully affect whether
certification is appropriate. Instead, they repeat their broader
arguments on the merits of certification, including that causation
necessarily involves individualized questions. Those arguments
overlook the broad discretion to modify class definitions, and are
addressed below in the analysis of whether certification is
appropriate under Rule 23.

For these reasons, Judge Hanlon granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
modify the proposed class definition.

B. Rule 23's Class-Certification Standard

1. Rule 23(a) Requirements

Judge Hanlon explains that the party seeking certification bears
the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence"
that each of Rule 23's requirements is satisfied. Rule 23(a)
enumerates four -- and only four -- requirements for class
certification: numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of
representation." In addition to those "prerequisites," the class
must fit one of Rule 23(b)'s "particular types of classes, which
have different criteria."

The Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule 23(b)(3), so for
certification to be appropriate "common questions of law or fact
must predominate over individual inquiries, and class treatment
must be the superior method of resolving the controversy." While
the Court must find that all of the requirements in Rule 23(a) and
(b)(3) are met before certifying a class, the CNO Defendants
challenge only Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirements that class issues
predominate and that class treatment is superior to individual
resolutions.

Judge Hanlon finds that (i) the proposed Class is so numerous that
joinder of all members would be impracticable; (ii) the Plaintiffs'
claims involve common questions of law and fact; (iii) the
Plaintiffs allege the same class-wide breach and the class
definition requires that all class members surrendered their
Policies; (iv) the Plaintiffs' claims are typical of those brought
by other Class members, and their interests appear entirely
consistent with those of the other Class members; and (v) the
Plaintiffs' counsel will adequately represent the class.

class action may only be maintained under Rule 23(b)(3) if `the
court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class
members predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members, and that a class action is superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy."

2. Rule 23(b)(3) Predominance of Common Issues & Superiority of a
Class Action

A class action may only be maintained under Rule 23(b)(3) if the
court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class
members predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members, and that a class action is superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy."

The Plaintiffs argue that Rule 23(b)(3) is satisfied because (1)
common evidentiary issues predominate in the Policies at issue, the
breaches of the Policies, and whether the CNO Defendants were alter
egos of Conseco Life; (2) every element of their claims can be
adjudicated for the class; and (3) a class action is manageable and
the only realistic way for class members to have their claims
adjudicated.

The CNO Defendants respond that class certification is
inappropriate because: (1) different policyholders surrendered for
different reasons, raising individualized causation issues; (2)
damages are individualized; and (3) different states' laws would
apply to several legal issues at trial.

a. Causation of Policy Surrender

The Plaintiffs argue that their claims allow "a class-wide
inference of causation," so the case will not require "individual
trials on whether the putative Class members surrendered their
Policies in response to Conseco's breaches of contract." But they
also contend that even if "causation in the case is necessarily an
individualized inquiry, common questions would still predominate
over that individualized one" and class certification would still
be appropriate. The CNO Defendants respond that "proving causation
would require highly individualized factual inquiries." They rely
on a survey by market researcher and statistician Robert Klein,
which they argue shows "myriad and varied reasons why putative
class members surrendered."

The parties have filed three motions to exclude expert testimony on
causation issues, which the Court addresses before determining
whether causation is an individualized inquiry.

First, Judge Hanlon denied the Plaintiff's motion to exclude the
Klein survey conducted by Robert Klein, a researcher who conducted
a policyholder survey on the reasons for Policy cancellations. He
considers both the survey and its limitations.

Second, Judge Hanlon denied the CNO Defendants' motion to exclude
Dr. Browne's causation opinions at the class-certification stage.
Dr. Mark Browne is an economist who evaluated Policy surrenders
before and after the alleged breaches. He finds that Dr. Browne's
causation opinion did not fail to account for the Great Recession
because the base rate was from "the early months of the economic
downturn." He also finds that because Dr. Browne's opinions address
that overlap, his testimony should not be excluded for the sole
reason that causation is uncertain.

For similar reasons, Dr. Browne's causation opinion is not
inadmissible for failing to account for Mr. Klein's survey.
Moreover, Dr. Browne has explained the reasons why he believes that
Mr. Klein's survey is unreliable. Finally, even if Dr. Browne's
opinion understates the surrender rate before the 2008 notice, that
does not make his causation opinions inadmissible.

Third, Judge Hanlon denied as moot the CNO Defendants' motion to
exclude Dr. Browne's opinions that Policy surrenders were low
before and did not rise during the financial crisis. The relatively
small portion of Dr. Browne's opinion that Dr. Liebenberg's opinion
is relevant to -- economic effects on surrender rates -- need not
be resolved for causation to be analyzed. Far from being "critical
to class certification," Dr. Liebenberg's opinion is therefore
irrelevant at this stage.

Fourth, while causation may be proven class-wide in some cases,
like public-company securities fraud (Allstate Litigation) and
antitrust violations (Messner, Kleen Products), that's not the case
here, Judge Hanlon finds. Because the class members surrendered
their policies at different times and in different situations,
individualized factual inquiries will be necessary to determine the
specific reason or reasons for each class member's surrender. Class
treatment of causation is therefore inappropriate.

Fifth, causation and damages are closely related in contract cases.
Since causation presents individualized issues, damages does too --
otherwise, damages could be assessed from class members who have
not proven the essential element of causation.

Lastly, Judge Hanlon holds that the CNO Defendants' argument goes
to the merits of causation and therefore must be left for a later
stage such as summary judgment or trial. So it is "at best an
argument that some class members' claims will fail on the merits,"
which is "generally irrelevant to the district court's decision on
class certification."

b. Governing Law

The Plaintiffs argue that "there are no relevant differences in
state law" that could preclude class certification. And the CNO
Defendants concede that "the elements of breach of contract in each
state are similar." Indeed, in cases arising under common law, the
legal "principles are the same, or materially the same, in many or
even all U.S. states." The CNO Defendants nevertheless argue that
differing rules on extrinsic evidence, anticipatory breach,
insurance-rate increases, and the Filed Rate doctrine make class
certification inappropriate.

Judge Hanlon holds that (i) the probability that an unambiguous
interpretation will "generate common answers apt to drive the
resolution of the litigation" therefore supports certification;
(ii) anticipatory breach issues do not make class certification
inappropriate; (iii) the Seventh Circuit and this district
recognize that cost-of-insurance rate issues are resolved under the
policy's language by applying common-law principles that "are the
same, or materially the same, in many or even all U.S. states"; and
(iv) he cannot yet address the merits of the filed-rate doctrine in
order to determine whether it may apply here and which states' laws
may govern.

In short, the Plaintiffs' class claims do not, at least at this
stage, appear to involve substantive legal principles that would
vary in a material way from claimant to claimant, depending on the
applicable law. Because choice-of-law issues do not make class
certification inappropriate, Judge Hanlon does not further address
at this time which law applies and whether subclasses will be
necessary.

c. Predominance of Common Questions

The Plaintiffs argue that even if causation is individualized,
common questions predominate because the core contested issues are
common ones. The CNO Defendants respond that all of the elements of
the Plaintiffs' claims are individualized, preventing common
questions from predominating.

Again, a Rule 23(b)(3) class may be certified even if some elements
of the claim are not "susceptible to classwide proof." Judge
Hanlon, therefore, considers whether the common issues in the case
predominate over the individualized elements of causation and
damages.

Judge Hanlon finds that (i) the interpretation of the Policies is
an issue of law that will be decided under common issues of fact,
supporting a predominance finding; (ii) on the elements of contract
formation and breach, "common questions clearly predominate"; (iii)
on the alter ego claim, class certification is likely to "generate
common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation; (iv)
the class-certification issues presented are like those presented
in fraud cases because the claims arise from common actions by the
defendant, leading to common legal issues on liability; and (v)
because common issues predominate, and because without class
certification, "the amount of damages to which each Plaintiff would
be entitled is so small that no one would bring the suit without
the option of a class."

d. Manageability

The Plaintiffs argue that a class action is manageable here even if
there are individual issues because follow-on individual
proceedings are far more manageable than thousands of individual
cases. The CNO Defendants respond that resolving causation "would
require individual trials that would obliterate the efficiencies
that the class action device is intended to achieve."

Judge Hanlon holds that the case will be manageable as a class
action with some individual proceedings occurring, if necessary,
after the resolution of common issue. Moreover, it may be that not
every class member would need to have an individual hearing or
trial on causation. Finally, even if this case and its individual
issues proceed to trial, and many individual hearings are required,
that's "often the sensible way to proceed." If that comes to pass,
the Court will explore with the parties a more detailed trial plan
and options for minimizing and managing the hearings and trials
that will be required.

C. Appointment of Class Representatives & Class Counsel

For the reasons he explained and based on his finding of the
adequacy of the class representatives and the class counsel, Judge
Hanlon appointed William Burnett and Joe Camp as the class
representatives and Stephen Weisbrod, Shelli Calland, Tamra
Ferguson, Saul Cohen, and Kathleen DeLaney as the Class counsel.

IV. Conclusion

Judge Hanlon granted the Plaintiffs' motion to modify the class
definition, and granted as modified their motion for class
certification.

Judge Hanlon denied the CNO Defendants' motions for oral argument
because they have not shown that oral argument may assist the Court
in deciding these issues. The parties have submitted "hundreds of
pages of legal briefing, as well as hundreds of pages of documents,
deposition transcripts, and expert reports"; in light of those
submissions, the CNO Defendants have not shown why brief argument
would aid a ruling on the motion for class certification.

The Court also denied (i) the CNO Defendants' motion to exclude Dr.
Browne's opinions at the class-certification stage and (ii) the
Plaintiff's motion to exclude Mr. Klein's opinions. The Court
denied as moot the CNO Defendants' motion to exclude Dr.
Liebenberg's opinions.

Judge Hanlon designated Plaintiffs William Jeffrey Burnett and Joe
H. Camp as rthe class representatives and appointed the following
attorneys as the Class Counsel: Stephen Weisbrod Shelli Calland
Tamra Ferguson Saul Cohen WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC Kathleen
A. DeLaney DELANEY & DELANEY LLC.

The Plaintiffs will have through April 25, 2022, to propose the
form, content, and means of distribution of a class notice and to
file a motion for its approval.

Magistrate Judge Lynch is asked to hold a status conference to
discuss potential settlement and to ensure firm deadlines for the
remainder of the litigation.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 25, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2e4pepuf from Leagle.com.


COLONIAL FIRST: Settles Super Fund Class Action for $56.3 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Herald Sun reports that a class action lawsuit filed by Maurice
Blackburn Lawyers claimed some super fund members at Colonial First
State Investments Limited were delayed in being transferred between
MySuper products.

As a result, the lawsuit claimed members were left paying higher
fees and receiving lower returns on their investments.

The trial was set to start on April 4 but Colonial First State
agreed to settle for $56.3 million. The firm has not admitted to
any wrongdoing, 7News reports.

The settlement is awaiting court approval.

Members of the class action should receive compensation as a
superannuation payment later this year.

Affected members held FirstChoice Employee super accounts in 2016
and 2017.

Colonial First State Investments Limited (CFSIL) said: "In agreeing
to resolve the litigation, CFSIL continues to deny the allegations
and makes no admissions of liability or wrongdoing.

"Following a confidential, court-ordered, mediation on 24 March
2022, CFSIL and the Applicant have agreed to settle the class
action. The settlement is subject to court approval.

"If the court approves the settlement, eligible group members will
each recover a share of the agreed settlement sum of $56.3 million,
less an amount for the costs incurred by the Applicant and the
Applicant's lawyers.

"CFSIL expects that a notification of the in-principle settlement
will be sent to eligible group members in April 2022.

"As the matter remains before the court, CFSIL is not in a position
to provide further comment at this time." [GN]

CONDUENT BUSINESS: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Almon Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOE ALMON, JON CARNLEY, CYNTHIA CLARK, JACKIE
DENSMORE, JENNIFER KREEGAR, HAROLD MCPHAIL, JB SIMMS, KENNETH
TILLMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, COMERICA, INC.,
COMERICA BANK, Defendants, Case No. SA-19-CV-01075-XR (W.D. Tex.),
Judge Xavier Rodriguez of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas, San Antonio Division, issued an order:

   (1) granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's
       motion for summary judgment; and

   (2) denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class
       certification.

I. Background

The action arises out of the Defendants' administration of the
Direct Express program, which provides prepaid debit cards to
federal benefit recipients who receive their benefits
electronically. The Plaintiffs are current and former customers of
Defendants Conduent and Comerica who assert that unauthorized users
withdrew funds from their Direct Express accounts and that the
Defendants failed to properly respond to the fraudulent
transactions, thereby violating the Electronic Fund Transfer Act
("EFTA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1963, et seq., its implementing
regulations ("Regulation E"), 12 C.F.R. Section 1005.1, et seq.,
and the Terms of Use that constitute the contract between the
parties.

The Direct Express program allows millions of recipients of
Americans to receive social security, disability, veterans', and
other federal benefits electronically, through a prepaid debit
card, rather than by paper check or direct deposit into a bank
account. Comerica and Comerica Bank (collectively, "Comerica") were
awarded the contract for this program by the Bureau of the Fiscal
Service-U.S. Department of Treasury in 2015 and again in 2020, and
have been paid in excess of $415 million for heading the program.
Comerica, in turn entered into an agreement with Conduent to
administer the Direct Express Program. Each month, Direct Express
enrollees automatically receive their benefits via direct deposit
to their debit cards.

The case is a continuation of an action originally filed on Feb.
12, 2019, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia. The Plaintiffs first filed their claims in that court,
asserting the same factual allegations and seeking the same relief
on behalf of the same putative class, citing Almon v. Conduent
Business Services, LLC, No. 1:19-cv-00746-LMM (N.D. Ga. Feb. 12,
2019). In that case, Judge May granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the non-Georgia Plaintiffs' individual claims due to lack
of personal jurisdiction and, on the merits, dismissed the
Plaintiffs' data breach claims.

The non-Georgia Plaintiffs promptly renewed their claims against
Defendants by filing the instant action on Sept. 5, 2019. At a
hearing on the Defendants' motion to dismiss on Jan. 9, 2020, the
Court denied dismissal as to all counts, but advised the Plaintiffs
to consider narrowing and refining their claims in order to
streamline the proceedings.

On Jan. 20, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed their Amended Class Action
Complaint, the operative pleading. In addition to removing several
statutory claims and one named Plaintiff, the Amended Complaint
consolidated what remained of the Georgia case into the action.
Rather than pursue similar claims in two actions in two courts, the
parties agreed it would be more efficient to pursue all claims in
one case.  Because they both maintain their principal places of
business in Texas, jurisdiction over the Defendants is undisputed
in Texas, regardless of the Plaintiffs' state of citizenship.
Accordingly, the Amended Complaint joined the Georgia Plaintiffs in
the instant action. In return, the Defendants have agreed that the
statute of limitations for all claims of the Georgia Plaintiffs and
all class claims by all the Plaintiffs will be based on the initial
filing date of the Georgia case.

The Amended Complaint alleges a claim for breach of contract and
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and a claim for
violations of the EFTA and Regulation E (Counts 1 and 2). The
Amended Complaint also asserts claims for negligence, negligence
per se, and violations of the California Consumer Protection laws
and identifies a class based on the alleged data breach affecting
the Direct Express Program (Counts 3, 4, and 5).

On July 20, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification as
to their claims for breach of contract and for violations of the
EFTA. They seek certification of the following proposed nationwide
classes:

         a. All Direct Express customers who, within the applicable
statute of limitations period preceding the filing of the action
and through the date of class certification, were denied a refund
in violation of the Defendants' Terms of Use (the Breach of
Contract Class); and

        b. All Direct Express customers who, within the applicable
statute of limitations period preceding the filing of the action
through the date of class certification, were not refunded in
accordance with 15 U.S.C. Section 1693f and its implementing
regulations (the Regulation E Class).

For the Regulation E Class, the Plaintiffs propose a Class Period
from Feb. 12, 2018, one year before the suit was originally filed
in the Northern District of Georgia, through the date of class
certification. They also move to be appointed Class representatives
and for the appointment of their counsel as the Class Counsel.

While briefing on the motion for class certification was ongoing,
the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The Defendants
assert that the Plaintiffs claims for breach of contract and
violations of the EFTA fail as a matter of law because, in the few
instances where the challenged transactions were not fully
refunded, the Defendants' investigation and resolution of the
claims complied with the requirements of the EFTA and the Terms of
Use.

The Defendants emphasize that "the statute, and the Terms of Use
that constitute the contract between the Plaintiffs and the
Defendants, requires certain procedural protections, not the
substantive result of a refund, and certainly not simply because
the Plaintiffs request that refund."

II. Discussion

Because the resolution of a dispositive motion may cause the motion
for class certification to become moot, Judge Rodriguez addresses
the motion for summary judgment before proceeding to the class
certification analysis.

A. Motion for Summary Judgment

1. Breach of Contract Claims

The Terms of Use dictate that Michigan law applies to the
Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims. To prevail on a claim for
breach of contract in Michigan, a plaintiff must establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that "(1) there was a contract, (2)
the other party breached the contract, and (3) the breach resulted
in damages to the party claiming breach."

In their motion for summary judgment, the Defendants contend that
the Plaintiffs' claims for breach of Section 8 of the Agreement
fail as a matter of law because the Plaintiffs received refunds for
most of the challenged transactions. The Plaintiffs respond that
four of the named Plaintiffs -- Almon, Carnley, McPhail, and Simms
-- were not fully refunded. In reply, the Defendants argue that
Section 8's limitation on liability is inapplicable because (1) the
Plaintiffs failed to allege that the unauthorized transactions were
the result of a "lost or stolen card or PIN" and (2) Section 8 only
limits losses with respect to meritorious challenges to
"unauthorized transactions."

Judge Rodriguez holds that whether and how Section 8 applies to the
surviving claims by Almon, Carnley, and McPhail will depend on the
Court's interpretation of the provision and the summary judgment
evidence concerning the reporting and investigation of the
allegedly fraudulent transactions. He also finds that the
Plaintiffs' allegations of "unauthorized transactions" are
sufficient to invoke Section 8 of the Terms of Use. And although
the Defendants have generally described the basis for denying the
claims reported by Almon, Carnley, and McPhail, they have not moved
for summary judgment on the basis that there are no fact issues as
to whether the challenged transactions were authorized. Any such
motion would be likely to fail because it would require the Court
to "make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence."

Accordingly, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the
Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract is denied with respect to
Plaintiffs Carnley, Almon, and McPhail, and granted as to all other
named Plaintiffs, including Simms.

2. Claims for Violations of EFTA/Regulation E

The EFTA's primary civil liability provision, 15 U.S.C. Section
1693m(a), states that "any person who fails to comply with any
provision of the EFTA with respect to any consumer is liable to
such consumer." The Plaintiffs characterize their claims under EFTA
(and its enforcement mechanism, Regulation E) as falling into two
different categories. The first category is claims relating to 12
C.F.R. Section 1005.11(c), which deals with the Defendants'
obligation to immediately investigate and make determinations
within 10, 45, or 90 days depending on the circumstances. Where
investigations cannot be completed within 10 days, a provisional
credit must be given to the cardholder. The second category is
claims relating to 15 U.S.C. Section 1693f(d), which requires the
Defendants to provide cardholders with a copy of their
investigation materials once a determination is made regarding an
alleged unauthorized transaction.

As to the first category, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs
who ultimately received a full refund have not suffered cognizable
injury under recent Supreme Court precedent, and thus do not have
standing to bring claims under the EFTA and Regulation E. They
further attack the factual bases for the Plaintiffs' claims
relating to the timing of credits to their accounts based on the
summary judgment record. With respect to the second category, the
Defendants maintain that "there is no basis to allow those claims
to proceed to a jury" because the Plaintiffs have been provided
with all of the investigative materials during the discovery
process.

Judge Rodriguez is satisfied that the information injury caused by
the Defendants' failure to produce the investigative documents as
required under 15 U.S.C. Section 1693f(d) is sufficiently concrete
to establish standing to sue under the EFTA. Even if the Plaintiffs
were required to show an injury beyond these violations of the EFTA
and Regulation E, he says they have adequately alleged the
emotional distress that other courts have found to be sufficient in
the context of statutory violations.

Judge Rodriguez further finds that (i) without evidence that
Defendants actually approved a claim for "obvious fraud" on the
same day it was reported, he cannot conclude that their failure to
issue a refund by the next day offends Regulation E.

3. Plaintiffs' Data Breach Claims

The Amended Complaint asserts claims for negligence, negligence per
se, and violations of the California Consumer Protection laws and
identifies a class based on the alleged data breach affecting the
Direct Express Program. The Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, however, does not seek to certify such a class. This
is likely because, as the Plaintiffs concede in their response to
the Defendants' motion for summary judgment, discovery has not
provided any evidence tying unauthorized activity on their accounts
to a data breach involving the Defendants.

Because the Plaintiffs cannot establish a causal connection between
their injuries and the alleged data breach, Judge Rodriguez holds
that they lack standing to assert claims arising out of the alleged
data breach.

4. Summary

In sum, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted as
to (1) Plaintiff Simms' claim for breach of contract; (2)
Plaintiffs Densmore and Kreegar's claims for violation of
violations of 12 C.F.R. Section 1005.11; (3) Plaintiff Almon's
claim for violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1693f(d); and (4)
Plaintiffs claims for negligence, negligence per se, and violations
of the California Consumer Protection laws. The motion is denied in
all other respects.

Judge Rodriguez must now determine whether the Plaintiffs'
surviving claims for breach of contract and for violations of the
EFTA and Regulation E are appropriate for class certification.

B. Motion for Class Certification

To obtain class certification, a party must first satisfy Rule
23(a)'s four threshold requirements of numerosity, commonality,
typicality, and adequacy of representation. The party must
additionally satisfy the requirements of either Rule 23(b)(1), (2),
or (3). The party seeking certification bears the burden of
establishing that the requirements of Rule 23 have been met.

Judge Rodriguez recognizes that both of the proposed classes are
fail-safe classes. "A fail-safe class is a class whose membership
can only be ascertained by a determination of the merits of the
case because the class is defined in terms of the ultimate question
of liability." The class definition precludes the possibility of an
adverse judgment against class members; the class members either
win or are not in the class. In the case, the Breach of Contract
Class includes Direct Express customers who "were denied a refund
in violation of the Defendants' Terms of Use." Likewise, the
Regulation E Class includes Direct Express customers who "were not
refunded in accordance with 15 U.S.C. Section 1693f and its
implementing regulations."

Judge Rodriguez holds that (i) he is satisfied that the proposed
classes are ascertainable from the records maintained in the
Defendants' ordinary course of business; (ii) the numerosity
element satisfied with respect to both proposed classes; and (iii)
the Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden to "affirmatively
demonstrate" commonality as to the Regulations E Class as it is
currently defined. Their failure to satisfy their burden as to
commonality also establishes their failure to prove typicality or
predominance.

For these reasons, Judge Rodriguez concludes that while fail-safe
classes are not prohibited in the Fifth Circuit, the class members
must be "similarly linked by a common complaint," "alleging injury
from a particular action." Because of the breadth of the proposed
classes, he cannot discern from either definition the nature of the
Plaintiffs' "common complaint" or the "particular action" that
allegedly caused their common injuries. The common questions
identified in the Plaintiffs' briefing amount to mere restatements
of the fail-safe class definitions and do not satisfy the
requirements of Rule 23. Thus, Judge Rodriguez cannot certify
either of the proposed classes at this time.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Rodriguez granted in part and
denied in part the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. He
granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to (1)
Plaintiff Simms' claim for breach of contract; (2) Plaintiffs
Densmore and Kreegar's claims for violation of violations of 12
C.F.R. Section 1005.11; (3) Plaintiff Almon's claim for violation
of 15 U.S.C. Section 1693f(d); and (4) all the Plaintiffs' claims
for negligence, negligence per se, and violations of the California
Consumer Protection laws. The motion is denied as to all remaining
claims.

Judge Rodriguez further denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification as to both the proposed Breach of
Contract Class and the proposed Regulation E Class. He granted the
Plaintiffs leave to file a renewed motion for class certification
amending the proposed class definitions to cure the deficiencies
identified in the Order no later than April 15, 2022. The
Defendants will file a response in opposition, if any, within 14
days after the filing of the renewed motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 25, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yfcxjyka from Leagle.com.


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Wilkerson Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Indiana
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. The case is styled as Sherriea Wilkerson, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated formerly doing
business as Sherriea King v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-00676-JRS-MG (S.D. Ind., April 4, 2022).

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

Convergent -- https://www.convergentusa.com/outsourcing/ -- is one
of America's leading collections agencies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas E. Irons, Esq.
          Richard John Shea, Jr., Esq.
          SAWIN & SHEA, LLC
          6100 N. Keystone Avenue, Suite 620
          Indianapolis, IN 46220
          Phone: (317) 255-2600
          Fax: (317) 255-2905
          Email: tirons@sawinlaw.com
                 rshea@sawinlaw.com


CORELOGIC CREDCO: Court Refuses to Strike Fernandez's Class Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARCO A. FERNANDEZ, individually and as a
representative of the class, Plaintiff v. CORELOGIC CREDCO, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-1262-JM-(AGS) (S.D. Cal.), Judge
Jeffrey T. Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
First Amended Complaint and Motion to Strike Class Allegations from
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.

I. Procedural Background

On June 2, 2020, Plaintiff Fernandez filed a putative class action
complaint against Defendant CoreLogic Credco, LLC ("Credco") in San
Diego Superior Court alleging violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. section 1681, et seq.; willful
violations of the California Credit Reporting Agencies Act
("CCRAA"), CAL. CIV. CODE section 1785.1, et seq., and violations
of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), CAL. BUS. & PROF.
CODE section 17200, et seq. On July 6, 2020, the Defendant removed
the action to federal court on the basis of federal question
jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. section 1331 and pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. section 1453.

On Sept. 28, 2020, the Plaintiff filed the first amended putative
class action complaint. Initially, the Defendant filed a Motion to
Dismiss the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), and then subsequently
filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending the Supreme Court's
Decision in Transunion LLC v. Ramirez.

On April 8, 2021, the Court granted the Defendant's motion and
ordered all proceedings in the action stayed pending the Supreme
Court's decision in Ramirez. In light of the stay, and to assist in
managing its own calendar, the Court also denied without prejudice
the Defendant's pending motion to dismiss first amended complaint
as moot. In doing so, it provided that once the stay was lifted,
any relevant motions attacking the complaint brought under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12 or 23 could be refiled.

On June 25, 2021, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in
Ramirez. Subsequently, on July 6, 2021, the parties provided the
Court with a joint status report, and the Court issued a scheduling
order.

In accordance with the scheduling order, on Aug. 20, 2021, the
Defendant refiled its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) along with a
separate Motion to Strike Class Allegations from Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff duly filed his responses in
opposition, and the Defendant replied.

II. Factual Background

The Plaintiff is a resident of Hanover, Maryland. He contends that
in October 2019, he applied for a mortgage as part of the
home-buying process. He alleges that in connection with his
application, Pulte Mortgage, LLC requested a credit report from
Defendant, and that the report the Defendant supplied was
inaccurate. Specifically, the report furnished by the Defendant
inaccurately stated that the Plaintiff was a person on the United
States Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets
Control's list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked
Persons ("OFAC/SDN").

Further, the report supplied by the Defendant included a record
belonging to "Mario Alberto Fernandez Santana," a resident of
Mexico, born in May 1977. The Plaintiff complains that a
"rudimentary review of the record" would reveal that his name, date
of birth and address differ vastly from the Mario Alberto Fernandez
Santana reported on the credit report furnished by the Defendant.
Additionally, it is alleged that the OFAC/SDN Search Results
section of the report generated by the Defendant, falsely reported
that the Plaintiff "was a match to a suspected narcotics trafficker
included on the OFAC-SDN & Blocked Persons List."

The Plaintiff maintains that when he took steps to dispute the
inaccurate report, including sending a letter via Certified U.S.
Mail, Defendant did not respond. When he later received his
consumer file from the Defendant, the "response did not include any
information it reported to Pulte about the Plaintiff being on the
OFAC/SDN. Nor did the response indicate that any report had been
provided to Pulte."

The Plaintiff claims that by issuing the inaccurate report, the
Defendant violated section 1681e(b) of the FCRA and section
1785.14(b) of the CCRAA because it failed to employ reasonable
procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of its reports.
He also alleges that by failing to respond to his dispute, the
Defendant also violated the relevant provisions of the Acts. As a
result of this inaccurate reporting and failure to fix the report
or disclose that it had reported such inaccurate information, the
Plaintiff alleges he suffered "distress and embarrassment, damage
to his reputation, and is concerned that the inaccurate reporting
could recur."

Based on these facts, the Plaintiff seeks to represent seven
classes consisting of:

     a. Inaccurate Reporting Class: All individuals who were the
subjects of consumer reports furnished by Defendant which contained
public record information in the OFAC/SDN section of the reports
where the name or date of birth or address of the subject of the
report does not match the name or date of birth or address in the
government database in the seven years predating the filing of the
initial Complaint in this matter and continuing through the date
the class list is prepared.

     b. Inaccurate Reporting FCRA Class: All individuals who were
the subjects of consumer reports furnished by Defendant which
contained public record information in the OFAC/SDN section of the
reports where the name or date of birth or address of the subject
of the report does not match the name or date of birth or address
in the government database in the five years predating the filing
of the initial Complaint in this matter and continuing through the
date the class list is prepared.

     c. Inaccurate Reporting UCL Subclass: All individuals who were
the subjects of consumer reports furnished by Defendant which
contained public record information in the OFAC/SDN section of the
reports where the name or date of birth or address of the subject
of the report does not match the name or date of birth or address
in the government database in the four years predating the filing
of the initial Complaint in this matter and continuing through the
date the class list is prepared.

     d. Failure to Disclose Class: All individuals (1) who were the
subjects of consumer reports furnished by Defendant which contained
public record information in the OFAC/SDN section of the reports
where the name or date of birth or address of the subject of the
report does not match the name or date of birth or address in the
government database (2) who made a request to Defendant for their
consumer file or report and (3) for whom Defendant did not disclose
the OFAC/SDN information. The class period is all persons who made
requests to Defendant in the five years predating the filing of the
initial Complaint in this matter and continuing through the date
the class list is prepared.

     e. Failure to Identify Class: All individuals (1) who were the
subjects of consumer reports furnished by Defendant (2) who made a
request to Defendant for their consumer file or report and (3) for
whom Defendant did not identify the user that procured the consumer
report within the one-year period on which the request was made.
The class period is all persons who made requests to Defendant in
the five years predating the filing of the initial Complaint in
this matter and continuing through the date the class list is
prepared.

     f. Failure to Disclose UCL Subclass: All individuals (1) who
were the subject of consumer reports furnished by Defendant which
contained public record information in the OFAC/SDN section of the
reports where the name or date of birth or address of the subject
of the report does not match the name or date of birth or address
in the government database (2) who made a request to Defendant for
their consumer file or report and (3) for whom Defendant did not
disclose the OFAC/SDN information. The class period is all persons
who made requests to Defendant in the four years predating the
filing of the initial Complaint in this matter and continuing
through the date the class list is prepared.

     g. Failure to Identify UCL Subclass: All individuals (1) who
were the subject of consumer reports furnished by Defendant (2) who
made a request to Defendant for their consumer file or report and
(3) for whom Defendant did not identify the user that procured the
consumer report within the one-year period on which the request was
made. The class period is all persons who made requests to
Defendant in the five years predating the filing of the initial
Complaint in this matter and continuing through the date the class
list is prepared.

III. Analysis

A. Judicial Notice

As a preliminary matter, Judge Miller notes that the Defendant has
requested the Court takes judicial notice of the Class Action
Complaint Plaintiff filed in United States District Court for the
District of Maryland, Fernandez v. RentGrow, Inc., Case No.
1:19-cv-01190-JKB (Doc. No. 35-3, Doc. No. 36-3) and the
Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Stay
Pending Supreme Court Decision, also filed in Case No.
1:19-cv-01190-JKB.

It appears that the Defendant is asking the Court to take judicial
notice under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, claiming the
authenticity of the documents are not subject to dispute. The
Plaintiff has not opposed the use of these documents or challenged
their authenticity, and their accuracy cannot reasonably be
questioned. However, since the Court has only referenced Exhibit A,
Judge Miller only takes judicial notice of Exhibit A, filed in
support of the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

B. Motion to Dismiss

The Defendant moves to dismiss the FAC pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

1. Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(1)

The Defendant moves for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1), asserting
the Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to bring his claims under
the FCRA, the CCRAA, and the UCL (Claims I, II, III, and VII.) It
argues that the Plaintiff's inaccurate reporting claims lack a
cognizable injury-in-fact "because he invited the publication of
information which he knew, or had reason to know, was likely to be
unfavorable to him" because a previous lawsuit filed against a
Maryland credit reporting agency put him on notice that his name
would trigger a possible OFAC/SDN notification/match. Further, the
Defendant contends that the Plaintiff has only alleged a bare
procedural violation, and he was not deprived of a substantive
right as Article III requires.

First, Judge Miller holds that the Plaintiff has standing to bring
the inaccurate reporting claims. He finds that the Plaintiff has
alleged that he applied for a mortgage as part of the home-buying
process. As part of the Plaintiff's application, Pulte requested a
credit report from the Defendant, and the report Defendant supplied
was inaccurate and stated the Plaintiff was on the OFAC/SDN list.
The Defendant's report included information pertaining to "Mario
Alberto Fernandez Santana," a resident of Mexico, born in May 1977,
which differs vastly from his personal information and that the
OFAC/SDN search results section reported Plaintiff as "a match to a
suspected narcotics trafficker.

In other words, Judge Miller says, the Defendant published the
Plaintiff's credit report to a third party, in the case, Pulte,
that contained the OFAC/SDN alert that he was a "potential
terrorist." Thus, the report allegedly contained a misleading
statement about the Plaintiff that was akin to the harm caused from
a defamatory statement. These allegations sufficiently allege a
concrete injury in fact for Article III standing purposes.
Accordingly, Judge Miller denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss
Counts I, II, and VII under Rule 12(b)(1).

Second, Judge Miller holds that the Plaintiff has standing to bring
the failure to disclose and failure to identify claims under the
FCRA and UCL. He finds that the Plaintiff requested a copy of his
full credit report from Defendant, as was his right, in February
2020. At first, he did not receive a response. The consumer report
that was ultimately provided to the Plaintiff "did not include any
information it reported to Pulte about him being on the OFAC/SDN.
Nor did the response indicate that any report had been provided to
Pulte." The fact that the Plaintiff was furnished a copy of his
credit report by a third party does not excuse the Defendant from
performing its duties as set forth in the FCRA. Accordingly, Judge
Miller denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts III, VII
under Rule 12(b)(1).

2. Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6)

The Defendant moves for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), contending
that the Plaintiff has failed to plead the necessary elements for
each of his California state law claims under the CCRAA or UCL,
(Counts I, V, VIII). Specifically, it claims: (i) Maryland's credit
reporting and consumer protection laws apply; (ii) the Plaintiff
lacks statutory standing to sue under the CCRAA as he is not a
resident of California and does not have a mailing address as
required by the statute; (iii) the Plaintiff lacks statutory
standing to sue under the CCRAA or UCL because he has failed to
plead a sufficient nexus to California, with the only connection to
California being the Defendant has its principal place of business
here (iv) the Plaintiff has failed to plead actual damages under
the CCRAA; and (v) Plaintiff has failed to plead loss of money or
property as required by the UCL.

i. Do Maryland's Consumer Protection Laws Apply to this Case?

The Defendant's first rule 12(b)(6) argument, that California's
choice of law analysis precludes the Plaintiff from pursuing his
claims under California law, appears to "conflate two issues: the
extraterritorial application of California consumer protection law
(or the ability of a nonresident plaintiff to assert a claim under
California law), and choice of law analysis."

Judge Miller finds dismissal of the Plaintiff's claim would be
premature at this juncture. Rather, the Plaintiff should be given
the opportunity through discovery to demonstrate that his claim can
be litigated under the laws of California rather than Maryland.
Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss on these grounds is
denied without prejudice.

ii. Should Plaintiff's CCRAA Claims be Dismissed for Lack of
Statutory Standing?

In the Defendant's second Rule 12(b)(6) argument, it contends the
Plaintiff lacks statutory standing to sue under the CCRAA,
professing it only applies to California residents. California's
CCRAA prohibits the furnishing of incomplete or inaccurate
information to a Credit Reporting Agency ("CRA") stating "a person
will not furnish information on a specific transaction or
experience to any consumer credit reporting agency if the person
knows or should know the information is incomplete or inaccurate."
The Defendant claims that the CCRAA only applies to California
residents.

Judge Miller denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss on this
ground. He finds that none of the provisions limit the CCRAA to
consumers with California mailing addresses, choosing instead to
refer to "any consumer." Moreover, if the California legislature
had intended liability under the CCRAA to be available to only
those with mailing addresses within the state, it could easily have
said so. Finally, there's no case law in support of the Defendant's
novel proposition that the CCRAA only affords protection to
consumers with a California mailing address when the consumer is
attempting to access and correct the false information contained in
his/her file which is within the control of a credit reporting
agency. Absent such case law, Judge Miller is reluctant to hold a
California mailing address is a prerequisite for filing a CCRAA
claim against a credit reporting agency for alleged failure to (1)
assure maximum possible accuracy in a consumer report, or (2)
reinvestigate a disputed item.

iii. Should Plaintiff's CCRAA and UCL Claims be Dismissed for
Failure to Plead a Sufficient Nexus?

The Defendant's third Rule 12(b)(6) argument is that the CCRAA and
UCL claims fail because the Plaintiff has failed to plead a
sufficient nexus to California, with the only connection to
California being that Defendant has its principal place of
business.
Judge Miller holds that the allegations are enough at the pleadings
stage to create a plausible inference that the unlawful conduct
emanated from California. The Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged
why a non-California plaintiff could sue a California credit
reporting agency for a consumer report containing false information
that was generated in California. For purposes of this motion to
dismiss, Judge Miller, accepting the allegations in the FAC as
true, therefore, concludes extraterritorial application of the UCL
and CCRAA is appropriate at this time. Accordingly, he denied the
Defendant's motion to dismiss on this ground.

iv. Should Plaintiff's Claims Be Dismissed for Failure to Plead
Actual Damages Under the CCRAA?

The Defendant's fourth Rule 12(b)(6) argument is that Plaintiff's
CCRAA claims fail to adequately allege actual damages under the
CCRAA.

Notwithstanding the Defendant's assertion to the contrary, Judge
Miller finds that the Plaintiff has pled damages beyond the
inaccurate reporting and its inevitable consequences. The Plaintiff
alleges that as a result of the Defendant's inaccurate reporting,
he was alarmed, distressed, embarrassed, frustrated, and suffered
harm to his reputation. He also claims he "spent time and effort"
disputing the inaccurate report, requesting his file and
additionally incurred attorneys' fees and other expenses (id. at
22). Therefore, the Plaintiff has pled the actual damages as
required by the plain language of the CCRAA. Accordingly, the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the CCRAA claims on this ground is
denied.

v. Should Plaintiff's Claim Be Dismissed for Failure to Plead
Actual Damages Under the UCL?

The Defendant's final Rule 12(b)(6) argument is that the
Plaintiff's UCL claim fails to adequately allege actual damages
under the CCRAA.

In the case, it is alleged that the Defendant published the
Plaintiff's credit report to a third party, in the case, Pulte, and
it contained the OFAC/SDN alert that the Plaintiff was a "potential
terrorist." The publication of an inaccurate credit report to a
third party gave Plaintiff standing to sue. The Plaintiff's sole
requested remedy of injunctive relief serves as a sufficient basis
for his UCL claim to proceed. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion
to dismiss the UCL claim on the ground the Plaintiff has failed to
allege a loss of money or property (or seek restitution) is
denied.

3. Conclusion Regarding Motion to Dismiss

For the reasons he stated, Judge Miler denied the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss brought under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) and (b)(6).

C. Motion to Strike

In a separately filed motion, the Defendant moves to strike class
allegations filed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(f), 23(c)(1)(A) and 23(d)(1)(D). It makes three main arguments
in support of its motion to strike.

First, it contends that the Plaintiff's failure to disclose and
failure to identify class claims (counts III, VII) under the FCRA,
15 U.S.C. Section 1681g(a) and the UCL, CAL. BUS. CODE Sections
17200, et seq. are overbroad, lack typicality and cannot satisfy
Rule 23(b)'s requirements on their face and should, therefore be
stricken. Second it maintains that the Plaintiff's nationwide FCRA
class claims, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1681e(b) & 1681g(a) (Counts II,
III) should be stricken because, the Plaintiff "is an atypical and
inadequate representative for California consumers given the
CCRAA's statutory scheme which precludes Californians from bringing
claims where an FCRA action is already pending." Third, it moves to
strike the Plaintiff's Inaccurate Reporting Class," "Inaccurate
Reporting FCRA Subclass," "Failure to Disclose Class," and "Failure
to Identify Class" to the extent the definitions exceed the
applicable statutes of limitations and repose.

The Plaintiff opposes.

Judge Miller construes the FAC in the light most favorable to the
Plaintiff, as the Court must on a Rule 12(f) motion, and concludes
that the Plaintiff's class allegations are sufficient. Accordingly,
he ordered as follows: The Defendant's request to strike the
failure to disclose and failure to identify class claims is denied;
the Defendant's request to strike the nationwide FCRA class is
denied; and the Defendant's request to strike the class allegations
on statute of limitation grounds is denied without prejudice.

IV. Conclusion

In accordance with the foregoing, Judge Miller denied the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike. The Defendant
must file an answer to the FAC.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 25, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p9prde5 from Leagle.com.


CORELOGIC CREDCO: Nevels Files FCRA Suit in S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Corelogic Credco,
LLC. The case is styled as Vincent Nevels, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Corelogic Credco, LLC,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00427-AJB-WVG (S.D. Cal., March 31, 2022).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Corelogic Credco -- https://www.corelogic.com/ -- is a consumer
reporting agency that assembles and evaluates consumer information
and provides consumer reports to third parties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas M. Wajda, Esq.
          WAJDA LAW GROUP, APC
          3111 Camino Del Rio North, Ste. 400
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: (310) 997-0471
          Fax: (866) 286-8433
          Email: nick@wajdalawgroup.com


COVER FX SKIN CARE: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cover FX Skin Care
Limited. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cover FX Skin Care
Limited, Case No. 1:22-cv-02620 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2022).

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

Cover FX Skin Care Limited -- https://www.coverfx.com/ -- offers
vegan & cruelty-free makeup essentials made with clean, safe
ingredients for every skin type.[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


COVER GIRL: Cosmetic Products Contains PFAS, Brown Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. COVER GIRL COSMETICS; and COTY, INC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02696-AT (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2022) is
an action for failure to disclose to consumers that its popular
waterproof mascara products, sold under Defendant Cover Girl's
brand name, contain Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, or "PFAS".

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant
intentionally failed to disclose to consumers that its popular
waterproof mascara products, sold under the Defendant CoverGirl's
brand name, contain Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, or "PFAS,"
despite the fact that the Defendants knew or should have known that
this information is material to consumers.

Instead, the Defendants represented that the CoverGirl waterproof
mascaras were safe, effective, high quality, and appropriate for
use on consumers' eyelashes. However, what the Defendants did not
tell consumers is that PFAS, which can have adverse effects on
humans and can bioaccumulate in human's bodies, are present in
detectable amounts in its waterproof mascaras. Even very low levels
of PFAS can be toxic to humans, says the suit.

Had Plaintiff and the putative Class known that Defendants'
CoverGirl waterproof mascara products contained PFAS, they would
not have purchased the products and would have paid less for them.

COTY INC. manufactures and distributes beauty products. The Company
offers fragrances, color cosmetics, hygiene, sun care, and skin
treatment products. Coty supplies its products to department
stores, specialty retailers, mass-market retailers, and duty free
shops in airports worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Bilsborrow, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephhone: (212) 558-5500
          Facsimile: (212) 344-5461
          Email: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com

               - and -

          Devin Bolton,Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
          1880 Century Park East, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (212) 558-5552
          Facsimile: (212) 344-5461
          Email: dbolton@weitzlux.com

               - and -

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          Jeff Grand, Esq.
          Christopher Ayers, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          55 Challenger Road
          Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
          Telephone: (973) 639-9100
          Facsimile: (973) 679-8656
          Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
                 jgrand@seegerweiss.com
                 cayers@seegerweiss.com   

               -and -

          Sam Strauss, Esq.
          Raina Borrelli, Esq.
          Brittany Resch, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson St., Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703-3515
          Telephone: (608) 237-1775
          Facsimile: (608) 509 4423
          Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
                 raina@turkestrauss.com
                 brittanyr@turkestrauss.com

COVERGIRL COSMETICS: Pressed Powder Contains PFAS, Solis Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
YERALDINNE SOLIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COVERGIRL COSMETICS and COTY, INC.
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00400-BEN-NLS (S.D. Cal., March 25,
2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of
herself and similarly situated consumers who purchased for
personal, family or household use Defendants' TruBlend Pressed
Powder, which is unfit for its intended use because it allegedly
contains unsafe per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

According to the complaint, an independent research conducted by
Toxin Free USA determined that the product contains 6,242 parts per
million (ppm) of fluorine, and that "[s]ubsequent testing revealed
that all 6,242 ppm of the fluorine detected was organic fluorine;
organic fluorine results identify a quantity of organofluorine
compounds (e.g., PFAS) and excludes the possibility that fluorine
may be present from other or natural sources," despite Defendants'
representations to consumers that their products are "sustainable"
and "safe."

Accordingly, Plaintiff brings her claims against Defendants
individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law;
violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act; breach of Implied
Warranty under Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and California
Commercial Code; violation of California's False Advertising Law;
fraud; constructive fraud; fraudulent inducement; money had and
received; fraudulent omission or concealment; fraudulent
misrepresentation; negligent misrepresentation;
quasi-contract/unjust enrichment; breach of express warranty;
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; and negligent failure
to warn.

CoverGirl Cosmetics and Coty, Inc. are American cosmetic
companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Sean L. Litteral, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  slitteral@bursor.com

CURALEAF HOLDINGS: Heller Files Labor Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
MORGAN HELLER, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. CURALEAF HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-01617 (N.D. Ill., March 28, 2022) is a
collective action and class action for claims arising under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act for Defendant's alleged tip theft from Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees.

Mr. Heller was employed by Defendant at its Curaleaf Dispensary
located in Northbrook, Illinois from September 25, 2020, to October
28, 2021. During her employment, Plaintiff worked both in the front
of the store, on the sales floor assisting customers in the
selection and purchase of cannabis products, and in the back of the
store, stocking and packing product.

Curaleaf Holdings, Inc., is an American cannabis company engaged in
the production, distribution, and retail sale of cannabis products
across North America with its principal offices in Wakefield,
Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Max Barack, Esq.
          Matthew Fletcher, Esq.
          GARFINKEL GROUP, LLC
          6252 N. Lincoln Avenue, Suite 200
          Chicago, IL 60659
          E-mail: max@garfinkelgroup.com
                  matthew@garfinkelgroup.com

DANBURY FAIR DODGE: Jackson Files Suit in Conn. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Danbury Fair Dodge
LLC. The case is styled as Hope Jackson, Eriqua Jackson,
individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated
v. Danbury Fair Dodge LLC, Case No. DBD-CV22-6042660-S (Conn.
Super. Ct., Danbury Cty., April 4, 2022).

The case type is stated as "M90 - Misc - All other."

Danbury Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram FIAT --
https://www.danburydodge.com/ -- is a north Fairfield County and
nearby New York state source for new and used cars.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          CONSUMER LAW GROUP LLC (414047)
          35 Cold Spring Road, Suite 512
          Rocky Hill, CT 06067


DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Athletic Department Releases Gender Equity Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------
Macenna Hansen, writing for The Dartmouth, reports that on March
15, the athletic department released its Gender Equity Plan, an
outline to ensure that all aspects of varsity athletics at
Dartmouth comply with Title IX by the 2023-2024 academic year. The
plan was based on external reviews of athletics at the College,
which began as a result of a threatened class action lawsuit by
Dartmouth student-athletes in 2021.

Following the summer 2020 elimination of five Dartmouth athletic
teams -- men's lightweight rowing, men's and women's swimming and
diving and men's and women's golf -- members from the cut women's
teams pursued legal action in December. A total of 21 plaintiffs
from the women's swimming and diving team and the women's golf team
signed on to a letter to College President Phil Hanlon with a
lawyer, Arthur Bryant, alleging that Dartmouth was noncompliant
with Title IX as a result of the cuts. The case was settled and all
five teams were reinstated by the College on January 29, 2021.

The resulting settlement required Dartmouth to conduct a full Title
IX gender equity review, which was completed in early January. In
addition, the athletic department was required to publicly release
an action plan for Title IX improvements by March 15, which the
department sent directly to all student-athletes and coaches. The
plan outlines the categories that will change over the next few
years in order to be fully compliant with Title IX.

"[The plan targets] everything from compliance and human resources,
to strength and conditioning and sports medicine," interim
athletics director Peter Roby '79 said. "All those areas will get
additional attention to make it better for our students. And
hopefully make it easier for them to accomplish their goals as
athletes, and also make their experience better off overall."

The case was brought forward specifically regarding Title IX's
requirement that participation opportunities for male and female
athletes be roughly proportionate to the rate of undergraduate
enrollment. The plan addresses other areas as well, such as equal
provision of funding, supplies, facilities and attention from the
athletic department.

"The good news is it's not just about checking a box, but there are
things here that are really going to make things better," Roby
said. "We've committed ourselves to make sure we do those things."

Bella Lichen '22, a member of the women's swimming and diving team
and a plaintiff in the case of alleged Title IX violations, said
that she has appreciated the athletic department's efforts under
Roby. However, Lichen said she and her fellow plaintiffs felt
frustrated throughout the process and with the lack of transparency
from Dartmouth's Title IX office.

"Even though we at Dartmouth have a Title IX office and Dartmouth
Athletics has a Title IX office, it's really not well mandated
unless people come after [the College]," Lichen said. "That's a
little bit discouraging. But at the same time, this is activism in
action and really cool to be part of."

The Gender Equity Plan aims to achieve equity across all sports,
not just those which were eliminated in 2020. Amy Shohet '23, a
member of the women's lacrosse team, cited disparities in
facilities' locations and qualities as examples of where the
department needs to focus these coming improvements.

"When they said they were coming out with this [the Gender Equity
Plan], I knew it was totally reasonable and necessary," Shohet
said. "There's definitely a discrepancy between men's and women's
sports, even if it's not obvious to every women's team and every
men's team.

Roby also highlighted that many of the changes discussed in the
plan will be gradual, as it will take time to ensure facilities and
staff are equal with minimal disruptions to student-athletes and
coaches. He added that the athletic department will be reporting on
the status of the plan every year in March for the next three
years.

"At the end of the day, I hope students, particularly women, would
feel that their experience was a positive one and they got the
support they deserved and they feel a sense of pride in being an
athlete at Dartmouth," Roby said. "[I think this will] end up
putting the athletic department in a position for success in the
future." [GN]

DAVIS OIL: Faces Wells Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA WELLS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. DAVIS OIL CO., a Michigan corporation, and
C-STORES, INC., a Michigan corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-00281
(W.D. Mich., March 25, 2022) is a collective and class action
brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons employed by Defendants, arising from the
Defendants' willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
state contract laws, and common law claims of unjust enrichment.

The Defendants allegedly violated the FLSA by knowingly suffering
or permitting Plaintiff and other hourly employees to work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek without paying overtime
compensation at a rate of one and a half times the regular rate.

Ms. Wells is a resident of Battle Creek, Michigan in Calhoun
County, and worked for Defendants as an hourly, non-exempt
assistant manager in Battle Creek, Michigan from approximately
February 4, 2022 until approximately March 11, 2022.

The Defendants are marketers of petroleum, food and grocery
products and related goods and services, owning and operating 21
gas station and convenience store locations seeded across west
Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          Alana A. Karbal, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
                  akarbal@sommerspc.com

DEKALB MARKET HALL: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dekalb Market Hall,
LLC. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Dekalb Market Hall, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01843-WFK-RLM (E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2022).

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

DeKalb Market Hall -- https://www.dekalbmarkethall.com/ -- is
Brooklyn's largest food hall and is a bustling destination that
houses over 40 food vendors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DELAWARE DOE: S.E. Files Suit in D. Delaware
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Delaware Department
of Education. The case is styled as S.E., by his legal guardian
J.I., J.H., by his legal guardian C.D., on behalf of a class of
those similarly situated v. Delaware Department of Education, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00429-UNA (D. Del., March 31, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Civil Rights: Education for Civil
Rights of Handicapped Child.

The Delaware Department of Education -- https://www.doe.k12.de.us/
-- is the state education agency of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence Lee Wentz, Esq.
          1210 N. King Street, Suite 100
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 319-3387
          Fax: (877) 784-0566
          Email: lee.wentz@lwentzlaw.com


DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES: Sued Over Unlawful Termination
--------------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals v. DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES, INC., Case No.
4:22-cv-10594-SDK-EAS (E.D. Mich., March 21, 2022), is brought for
money damages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and
other relief against the Defendant precipitated by the termination
of Plaintiff's employment after suffering a serious health
condition in contravention of the Family Medical Leave Act and
Michigan's Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act of 1976.

The Plaintiff suffered a debilitating, life-threatening disability
after receiving the first dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine
pursuant to Defendant's vaccine mandate requiring all employees to
be fully vaccinated. The Plaintiff's current diagnosis is postural
orthostatic tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, and peripheral
neuropathy, which precludes her from taking a second dose of the
COVID-19 vaccine.

The Defendant nevertheless terminated the Plaintiff's employment
for not being fully vaccinated and denied her reasonable
accommodation to the Defendant's vaccine mandate. Further, the
Defendant implements policies and practices to prevent the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals employed as
Corporate Finance Associates from being compensated overtime hours
despite working in excess of 40 hours a week, including
retroactively manipulating employee timesheets in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant has also violated the
Bullard-Plawecki Employee Right to Know Act, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed as a Corporate Finance Associate at the
Defendant's office in Wayne, Michigan for over a year.

The Defendant is a foreign profit corporation providing food and
beverage concessions, dining, lodging, and retail at many large
venues and events.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noah S. Hurwitz, Esq.
          Grant M. Vlahopoulos, Esq.
          HURWITZ LAW PLLC
          617 Detroit St. STE 125
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Phone: (844) 487-9489
          Email: noah@hurwitzlaw.com
                 grant@hurwitzlaw.com


DEWITT, MI: Holland Appeals Dismissal of Mask Mandate-Related Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff ADAM A. HOLLAND filed an appellate case captioned ADAM A.
HOLLAND v. DEWITT PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, Case No. 360706, in the
Michigan Court of Appeals, filed on March 21, 2022.

This appeal stems from a lawsuit Mr. Holland filed in the Michigan
Circuit Court, Clinton County against the Defendant over rules
about masking students. It focuses on whether the district is
allowed to unilaterally require masks without a vote from the
school board or input from parents and the community.

Mr. Holland, the parent of two children at DeWitt High School and
Herbison Woods Elementary School, filed the complaint on October
29, 2021.

On January 24, 2022, the Court entered an Order dismissing the
case.

Mr. Holland is now seeking a review of this ruling.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant HOLLAND ADAM and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
appears pro se.

Defendant-Appellee DEWITT PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT is represented
by:

          Timothy J. Mullins, Esq.
          GIARMARCO, MULLINS & HORTON, P.C.
          101 West Big Beaver Road
          Troy, MI 48084 5280
          Telephone: (248) 457-7000
          Facsimile: (248) 457-7001

DIAGEO PLC: Settles Class Action Over Origins of Irish Beer
-----------------------------------------------------------
Julie Manganis, writing for The Salem News, reports that former
Swampscott resident Kieran O'Hara, who had worked as a bartender in
Boston and New York, knew his beers.

After purchasing a pack of Guinness beer in 2015, he realized
something didn't add up, according to his lawyer, Kevin
McCullough.

Fast forward seven years and McCullough's Salem firm,
Mazow/McCullough, had reached a settlement in a lawsuit against the
company that produces Guinness Extra Stout Beer.

The issue: Where the quintessentially Irish beer was actually being
brewed.

"This case was really about false advertising," McCullough said on
March 31.

The outer packaging of six- and 12-packs of Guinness Extra Stout
sold in stores between 2011 and 2015, McCullough's suit alleged,
led consumers to believe that the beer was brewed at the historic
St. James Gate brewery in Dublin, Ireland.

It was, in fact, being brewed in New Brunswick, Canada -- something
that was noted in small print on the side of each bottle.

And that's something a customer wouldn't notice until getting the
beer home, if they noticed at all.

McCullough and his associates contended that the labels were
intentionally misleading in order to get consumers to pay a "price
premium" for what they thought was an imported Irish beer.
"Consumers were paying more based on a belief that this beer is
coming from Ireland," McCullough said.

They filed suit against Diageo, the company that owns the Guinness
brand.

The firm pursued the case as a class action lawsuit. A federal
judge eventually ruled that they could pursue a class action within
Massachusetts based on an alleged violation of the state's consumer
protection law.

At that point, the two sides sat down with a mediator and worked
out the settlement, which was approved last fall by U.S. District
Court Judge Mark Wolf.

Diageo did not admit any liability or wrongdoing in the
settlement.

"We are pleased both sides could come together to resolve this
matter," a spokeswoman for Diageo said in an email when asked for
comment.

Under the agreement, just under $770,000 was set aside to reimburse
customers. Those who filed a claim before a deadline last year will
receive 50 cents for each six or 12-pack of Guinness Extra Stout
purchased between 2011 and 2015, up to a total of $10 without proof
of purchase, or up to $20, if a claimant can provide proof of
purchase. The lawsuit and settlement applies only to retail
packages of beer, not to wholesale bottles or kegs sold to bars and
restaurants.

McCullough said at least 23,000 people submitted claims before the
deadline last fall.

The rest of the settlement will go to the lawyers, $1.3 million in
legal fees and costs.

O'Hara will receive a $15,000 stipend for his role as lead
plaintiff.

McCullough said his firm has handled more than 50 class action
cases, mostly involving violations of consumer protection laws.

The Guinness case was their first one involving mislabeled food
items.

McCullough noted that since 2015, Guinness Extra Stout has been
back to being brewed in Dublin.[GN]

DOCUSIGN INC: Collins Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
DocuSign disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended January 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 25, 2022, that a class action alleging claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on allegedly
false and misleading statements about the company's business and
prospects during the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, against
DocuSign and certain of its current and former officers, captioned
"Collins v. DocuSign, Inc., et al.," Case No. 3:22-cv-00851, filed
in the Eastern District of New York and subsequently transferred to
the Northern District of California, was voluntarily dismissed on
February 14, 2022.

DocuSign provides electronic signature products based in San
Francisco, California.


DRIP HYDRATION INC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Drip Hydration Inc.
The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Drip Hydration Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02668 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2022).

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

Drip Hydration -- https://driphydration.com/ -- is a mobile IV
hydration company, providing in-home IV infusions administered by
certified nurses.[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


E. MERGE TECHNOLOGY: Faces Assad Securities Suit in S.D. N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
E. Merge Technology Acquisition Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K
Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 31, 2022, that on
August 20, 2021, a purported stockholder of the company filed a
putative class action and derivative complaint in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
company as a nominal defendant, captioned "Assad v. E. Merge
Technology Acquisition Corp., et al.," Case No. 1:21-cv-07072,
alleging breach of certain provisions of the Investment Company Act
and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

The complaint generally asserts that the company invested the
proceeds of its initial public offering in securities of the United
States government and shares of money market mutual funds. Stemming
from this assertion, the complaint alleges that the contracts
pursuant to which certain defendants purchased its securities and
the company's amended and restated certificate of incorporation
that creates the rights of the Class B common stock violate the
Investment Company Act, and that certain of the Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties under the Investment Company Act by paying
themselves disproportionate "compensation." The complaint also
asserts that its advisors breached certain provisions of the
Investment Advisers Act.

E. Merge Technology Acquisition Corp. is a "blank check company"
formed as a Delaware corporation for the purpose of effecting an
initial business combination.


EMBARK TECHNOLOGY: Kaskela Law Discloses Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC announces that a shareholder class action lawsuit
has been filed against Embark Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: EMBK) f/k/a
Northern Genesis Acquisition Corp. II (NYSE: NGAB) ("Embark" or the
"Company") on behalf of investors who purchased shares of the
Company's securities between January 12, 2021 and January 5, 2022,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

On January 6, 2022, research firm The Bear Cave released a critical
report entitled "Problems at Embark Technology (EMBK)." That report
stated that "Embark appears to lack true economic substance," and
that the "company holds no patents, has only a dozen or so test
trucks, and may be more bark than bite." Following the release of
this report, shares of Embark's common stock fell $1.37 per share,
or nearly 17% in value, to close at $6.81 per share on January 6,
2022.

Embark investors with financial losses in excess of $50,000 are
encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at
(484) 229 - 0750, or by email at abell@kaskelalaw.com, or online at
https://kaskelalaw.com/cases/embark-technology-inc/ , for
additional information about this investigation and their legal
rights and options.

Kaskela Law LLC represents investors in securities fraud, corporate
governance, and merger & acquisition litigation.  For additional
information about the firm please visit www.kaskelalaw.com. [GN]

EMBARK TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Reminds of May 31 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Embark Technology, Inc. f/k/a Northern Genesis
Acquisition Corp. II (NASDAQ: EMBK, EMBKW, NGAB, NGAB.U, NGAB.WS)
between January 12, 2021 and January 5, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than May 31, 2022.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Embark class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case—id=4934 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 31, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had performed
inadequate due diligence into Embark Trucks Inc. ("Legacy Embark");
(2) Legacy Embark and the Company, following the November 2021
merger of Legacy Embark and Northern Genesis Acquisition Corp. II
(the "Business Combination"), held no patents and an insignificant
amount of test trucks; (3) accordingly, the Company had overstated
its operational and technological capabilities; (4) as a result of
all the foregoing, the Company had overstated the business and
financial prospects of the Company post-Business Combination; and
(5) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

To join the Embark class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case—id=4934 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen—firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]

ENCON INDUSTRIES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Baker Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
CORDELL BAKER; XAVIER ANGULO; and OWEN AVILES, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ENCON
INDUSTRIES CORP.; and ANTHONY ENRICO CORE, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-01842 (E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2022) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages,
wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants performing trash and
refuse removal and collection work.

ENCON INDUSTRIES CORP. is a solid waste, yard waste, recyclable
material collection and hauling company. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, New York 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-97
          Facsimile: (212) 385-0800


EXICURE INC: Colwell Shareholder Suit Ongoing in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
Exicure, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 25, 2022, that on December 13, 2021, Mark
Colwell filed a putative securities class action lawsuit against
the company, David A. Giljohann and Brian C. Bock in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
captioned "Colwell v. Exicure, Inc. et al.," Case No.
1:21-cv-0663.

On February 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed an amended putative securities
class action complaint. The amended complaint alleges that
Giljohann and Bock made materially false and/or misleading
statements related to the company's clinical programs purportedly
causing losses to investors who acquired Company securities between
January 7, 2021 and December 10, 2021.

On February 11, 2022, four members of the putative class moved the
court for appointment as lead plaintiff in the action pursuant to
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Two of those
motions were withdrawn on February 25, 2022, and two remain
pending. On February 16, 2022, the court entered an order stating
that defendants need not answer, or otherwise respond, until the
court enters an order appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel,
and the parties then submit a schedule to the court for the filing
of a further amended complaint and the timing of defendants’
answer or response.

Exicure is an early-stage biotechnology company developing nucleic
acid therapies targeting ribonucleic acid against validated targets
to neurological disorders and hair loss.


EXICURE INC: Puri Shareholder Suit Ongoing in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
Exicure, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 25, 2022, that on March 1, 2022, a certain
Kapil Puri filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit on behalf of the
company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, against Giljohann and Bock, Jeffrey L.
Cleland, Elizabeth Garofalo, Bosun Hau, Bali Muralidhar, Andrew
Sassine, Matthias Schroff, James Sulat and Timothy Walbert,
captioned "Puri v. Giljohann, et al.," Case No. 1:22-cv-01083.

Said complaint alleges that the defendants caused the company to
issue false and/or misleading statements in its 2021 proxy
statement regarding risk oversight, code of conduct, clinical
program and compensation matters, among other things, in violation
of federal securities law, and committed breaches of fiduciary
duties owed under state law.

Exicure is an early-stage biotechnology company developing nucleic
acid therapies targeting ribonucleic acid against validated targets
to neurological disorders and hair loss.


FCA LLC: Estevez Sues Over Assemblers' Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
JOEL ESTEVEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FCA, LLC and TIMBER CREEK RESOURCE, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00380 (E.D. Wis., March 28, 2022) is a
collective and class action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws for
unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid straight time (regular) and/or
agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees,
declaratory, and/or injunctive relief.

The Defendants allegedly operated an unlawful compensation system
that deprived and failed to compensate Plaintiff and all other
current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours
worked and work performed each workweek, including overtime rate of
pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.  The
Defendants further shaved time from 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 Defendants, in violation of
the FLSA and WWPCL, the complaint adds.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee in the position of assembler in December 2020.

FCA, LLC, commonly known as "FCA Packaging," is an Illinois-based
company which manufactures and supplies industrial packaging
products.

Timber Creek Resource, LLC is a Wisconsin-based company which
designs, manufactures, and distributes custom wood packaging
products.[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

FIRSTSUN CAPITAL: Besser Sues Over Overdraft Fees
-------------------------------------------------
Firstsun Capital Bancorp disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 25, 2022, that on September 13, 2021,
Samantha Besser filed a putative class action amended complaint
against the Bank in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado.

The amended complaint alleges that the Bank improperly charged
multiple insufficient funds or overdraft fees when a merchant
resubmits a rejected payment request. The complaint asserts claims
for breach of contract, which incorporates the implied duty of good
faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff seeks to represent a proposed
class of all the bank's checking account customers who were charged
multiple insufficient funds or overdraft fees on resubmitted
payment requests. Plaintiff seeks unspecified restitution, actual
and statutory damages, costs, attorneys' fees, pre-judgment
interest, and other relief as the Court deems proper for herself
and the purported class. On September 27, 2021, the bank filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

FirstSun Capital Bancorp, a financial holding company headquartered
in Denver, Colorado, provides a full spectrum of deposit, lending,
treasury management, wealth management and online banking products
and services through its two wholly-owned subsidiaries, Sunflower
Bank, National Association and Guardian Mortgage and Logia
Portfolio Management, LLC.


FIRSTSUN CAPITAL: McCollam Sues Over Overdraft Fees
---------------------------------------------------
Firstsun Capital Bancorp disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 25, 2022, that on September 10, 2021,
Karen McCollam filed a putative class action amended complaint
against the bank in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado.

The amended complaint alleges that the bank improperly charged
overdraft fees where a transaction was initially authorized on
sufficient funds but later settled negative due to intervening
transactions. The complaint asserts a claim for breach of contract,
which incorporates the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing,
and a claim for violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection
Act.

McCollam seeks to represent a proposed class of all the Bank's
checking account customers who were allegedly charged overdraft
fees on transactions that did not overdraw their checking account.
She seeks unspecified restitution, actual and statutory damages,
costs, attorneys' fees, pre-judgment interest, and other relief as
the court deems proper for herself and the putative class.

FirstSun Capital Bancorp, a financial holding company headquartered
in Denver, Colorado, provides a full spectrum of deposit, lending,
treasury management, wealth management and online banking products
and services through its two wholly-owned subsidiaries, Sunflower
Bank, National Association and Guardian Mortgage and Logia
Portfolio Management, LLC.


FRESENIUS USA: Cota Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sergio Cota filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled Sergio Cota, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Fresenius USA,
Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, Fresenius USA Manufacturing,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01163-LAB-AGS, in the U.S.
District Court for Southern California, San Diego.

Plaintiff Sergio Cota worked for Defendant Fresenius USA
Manufacturing, Inc. as a truck driver from May 21, 2008 through
April 19, 2017. He alleges that the Defendants violated
California's labor laws relating to meal periods, rest breaks, and
overtime compensation. He also asserts derivative claims for
failure to pay wages due upon termination, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, and violation of the California Private Attorneys
General Act.

The lawsuit was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for Southern
District of California (San Diego) on June 4, 2018.

On April 8, 2021, the Defendants moved for summary judgment,
contending that Cota's meal and rest break causes of action were
barred by preemption, his overtime cause of action failed because
commercial motor vehicle drivers are exempted from California's
overtime requirements, and the remainder of Cota's claims are
derivative. Cota opposed only on the ground that Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration's preemption decision didn't apply to
conduct occurring before December 2018.

But because the plain language of 49 U.S.C. Section 31141 provides
that preempted state laws can't be enforced, because Cota was
exempt from the protection of California's overtime statute, and
because the remainder of Cota's claims can't stand without other
supporting violations, Defendants' motion for summary judgment was
granted on March 15, 2022 through an Order signed by Judge Larry
Alan Burns.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of Judge Burns' order.

The appellate case is captioned as Sergio Cota v. Fresenius USA,
Inc., et al., Case No. 22-55303, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 25, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Sergio Cota Mediation Questionnaire was due on
April 1, 2022;

   -- Appellant Sergio Cota opening brief is due on May 26, 2022;

   -- Appellees Does, Fresenius USA Manufacturing, Inc. and
Fresenius USA, Inc. answering brief is due on June 27, 2022;

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

Plaintiff-Appellant SERGIO COTA, individually; and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Thomas Stephen Campbell, Esq.
          Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
          RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC
          22760 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 200
          Torrance, CA 90505
          Telephone: (310) 961-9600
          E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com   

Defendants-Appellees FRESENIUS USA, INC., a Massachusetts
corporation; and FRESENIUS USA MANUFACTURING, INC., a Delaware
corporation, are represented by:

          Alex Edwin Spjute, Esq.
          David Hugh Stern, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
          Telephone: (310) 820-8800
          E-mail: alex.spjute@dechert.com
                  david.stern@dechert.com

FRONTIER AIRLINES: Bone Appeals Consolidated Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs JEFFREY BONE, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Melissa Young, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. FRONTIER AIRLINES,
INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01153, in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado-Denver.

The lawsuit is brought regarding the Defendant's failure to provide
full refunds to customers whose flights were cancelled as a result
of the coronavirus or COVID-19.

Given the outbreak of the coronavirus, the Defendant has cancelled
a vast percentage of their international and United States flights.
However, the Defendant has, to date, refused to issue refunds for
flights that the Defendant cancelled, the Plaintiff asserts.

The United States Department of Transportation ("DOT") has "issued
an Enforcement Notice clarifying, in the context of the 2019 Novel
Coronavirus (COVID-19) public health emergency, that U.S. and
foreign airlines remain obligated to provide a prompt refund to
passengers for flights to, within, or from the United States when
the carrier cancels the passenger's scheduled flight or makes a
significant schedule change and the passenger chooses not to accept
the alternative offered by the carrier.

The Plaintiff, like many other travelers, was scheduled to fly with
Frontier on a round trip between Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, and
New York, New York. The Plaintiff's flight was cancelled by
Frontier due to the coronavirus travel restrictions. After
receiving the cancellation e-mail, the Plaintiff immediately
requested a cash refund from Frontier. A Frontier customer service
representative informed Plaintiff that she would receive said
refund. However, the refund never came, the Plaintiff avers.

After waiting two weeks, the Plaintiff called Frontier to check on
the status of her refund. A Frontier customer service
representative told her that the Plaintiff was never promised a
cash refund and would only be receiving a travel voucher. Frontier
was required by the DOT Enforcement Notice to provide the Plaintiff
a prompt refund when Frontier cancelled her flight, says the
complaint.

Frontier highlights that this Plaintiffs' consolidated class action
complaint superseded an earlier complaint, which itself superseded
the individual complaints filed in six consolidated cases.
Moreover, the Plaintiffs chose to oppose Frontier's motion to
dismiss instead of seeking to amend their complaint. Frontier
argues that the Plaintiffs should not be given yet another attempt
to set forth plausible allegations because the allegations that
they seek to add were available to them when they filed their
consolidated class action complaint in January 2021.

On September 13, 2021, the District of Colorado granted Frontier
Airlines, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint. This was followed by a final judgment on September 14.

On March 1, 2022, Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the District of
Colorado denied the Plaintiffs' motion to reopen the case to alter
judgment and allow Plaintiffs' leave to file an amended
consolidated complaint.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of both orders.

The appellate case is captioned as Young, et al. v. Frontier
Airlines, Inc., Case No. 22-1094, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on April 1, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Docketing statement is due on April 15, 2022 for Jeffrey
Bone, Kelli Capra, David Dickstein, Shirley Johnson, Stephanie
Muters, Danielle Porreca, ChaCha Powel, and Nelcy Alexa Rivera-De
Leon;

   -- Transcript order form is due on April 15, 2022 for Jeffrey
Bone, Kelli Capra, David Dickstein, Shirley Johnson, Stephanie
Muters, Danielle Porreca, ChaCha Powel, and Nelcy Alexa Rivera-De
Leon; and

   -- Notice of appearance is due on April 15, 2022 for Jeffrey
Bone, Kelli Capra, David Dickstein, Frontier Airlines, Inc.,
Shirley Johnson, Stephanie Muters, Danielle Porreca, ChaCha Powel,
and Nelcy Alexa Rivera-De Leon.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JEFFREY BONE, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated; KELLI CAPRA, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated; STEPHANIE MUTERS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated; NELCY ALEXA RIVERA-DE
LEON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated;
SHIRLEY JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated; CHACHA POWEL, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated; DANIELLE PORRECA, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated; and DAVID DICKSTEIN, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Shanon Jude Carson, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (800) 424-6690
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net  

               - and -

          Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL
          205 North Monroe Street
          Media, PA 10963
          Telephone: (215) 864-2800
          E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Jamie Hubbard, Esq.
          STIMSON STANCIL LABRANCHE HUBBARD
          1652 North Downing Street
          Denver, CO 80218
          Telephone: (720) 689-8909
          E-mail: hubbard@sslhlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee FRONTIER AIRLINES, INC. is represented by:

          Kathryn Ann Grace, Esq.
          WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN
          8444 Westpark Drive Suite 510
          McLean, VA 22102
          Telephone: (703) 245-9300
          E-mail: kathryn.grace@wilsonelser.com

               - and -

          Patrick Joseph Kearns, Esq.
          WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER
          401 West A Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 321-6200
          E-mail: patrick.kearns@wilsonelser.com  

               - and -

          Jason D. Melichar, Esq.
          WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER
          1225 17th Street, Suite 1700
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 572-5300
          E-mail: jason.melichar@wilsonelser.com

               - and -

          David Mitchell Ross, Jr., Esq.
          WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP-DC
          1500 K Street, Northwest Suite 330
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 626-7687
          E-mail: david.ross@wilsonelser.com

GAMER ADVANTAGE: Faces Dawood Suit Over PFAS in Anti-Fog Spray
--------------------------------------------------------------
MAHMOOD DAWOOD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GAMER ADVANTAGE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-at-00325 (E.D. Cal., March 28, 2022) is a class action lawsuit
brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and similarly
situated consumers who purchased for personal, family or household
use Defendant's FogAway Anti-Fog Spray which is unfit for its
intended use because it contains unsafe per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS).

According to the complaint, a reasonable consumer would expect that
the products can be safely used as marketed and sold based on
Defendant's representations. However, the products are allegedly
not safe, posing a significant health risk to unsuspecting
consumers. Yet, neither before or at the time of purchase does
Defendant notify consumers like Plaintiff that their products are
unsafe, contain heightened levels of PFAS, or should otherwise be
used with caution.

The Plaintiff brings his claims against Defendant for (1) violation
of California's Unfair Competition Law; (2) violation of the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, (3) breach of implied warranty under
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; (4) violation of California's
False Advertising Law; (5) fraud; (6) constructive fraud; (7)
fraudulent inducement; (8) money had and received; (9) fraudulent
omission or concealment; (10) fraudulent misrepresentation; (11)
negligent misrepresentation; (12) quasi-contract/unjust enrichment;
(13) breach of express warranty; (14) violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; and (15) negligent failure to warn.

Gamer Advantage LLC is a maker of gaming gear and glasses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean L. Litteral, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: slitteral@bursor.com

               - and -

          Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
          Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150  
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com
                  aleslie@bursor.com

GATOS SILVER: Kessler Topaz Reminds of April 25 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com)
informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed against Gatos Silver, Inc. ("Gatos") (NYSE: GATO). The action
charges Gatos with violations of the federal securities laws,
including omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations relating to
the company's business, operations, and prospects. As a result of
Gatos' materially misleading statements to the public, Gatos'
investors have suffered significant losses.

Kessler Topaz is one of the world's foremost advocates in
protecting the public against corporate fraud and other wrongdoing.
Our securities fraud litigators are regularly recognized as leaders
in the field individually and our firm is both feared and respected
among the defense bar and the insurance bar. We are proud to have
recovered billions of dollars for our clients and the classes of
shareholders we represent.

YOU CAN ALSO CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK OR COPY AND PASTE IN YOUR
BROWSER:
https://www.ktmc.com/gato-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=gato


LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: APRIL 25, 2022

CLASS PERIOD: OCTOBER 28, 2020 THROUGH JANUARY 25, 2022

CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS:

James Maro, Esq. at (484) 270-1453 or via email at info@ktmc.com  

GATOS' ALLEGED MISCONDUCT

Gatos focuses on the production, development and exploration of
silver and zincrich mineral deposits. On October 29, 2020, Gatos
conducted its initial public offering ("IPO"), selling
approximately 24,644,500 shares of common stock at a price of $7.00
per share, and received net proceeds of approximately $156.1
million from the offering.

On January 25, 2022, after the market closed, Gatos revealed in a
press release that "there were errors in the technical report
entitled 'Los Gatos Project, Chihuahua, Mexico' with an effective
date of July 1, 2020 . . . , as well as indications that there is
an overestimation in the existing resource model." On a preliminary
basis, Gatos estimated a potential reduction of the metal content
of the mineral reserve ranging from 30% to 50% of the metal content
remaining after depletion.

Following this news, Gatos' stock price fell $7.02, or 69%, to
close at $3.17 per share on January 26, 2022. As of the date the
initial complaint was filed, Gatos shares were trading as low as
$3.20 per share, a nearly 54% decline from the $7.00 per share IPO
price.

WHAT CAN I DO?

Gatos investors may, no later than April 25, 2022 seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Gatos investors who have suffered
significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more
information.

WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?

A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff
is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the
largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of
the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel
to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys,
if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether
or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP  

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. At the end of the day, we have succeeded if the bad
guys pay up, and if you recover your assets. The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
(484) 270-1453
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(484) 270-1453
info@ktmc.com [GN]

GILA LLC: Settles Class Action Over Late-Fee Notices for $2.5MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Rocío Álvarez Bríñez, writing for Louisville Courier
Journal, reports that a subcontractor of RiverLink, the company in
charge of the tolls on three Ohio River bridges between Louisville
and Southern Indiana, has reached a multimillion-dollar settlement
to close a lawsuit filed over late-fee notices.

Gila LLC, sued by three Indiana residents who said they'd been
charged late fees over unpaid tolls before receiving their first
bill, will pay $2.5 million to settle claims from drivers who said
they were incorrectly billed, according to a settlement signed Feb.
18.

The class-action lawsuit was filed in 2019 and accused Gila LLC and
Kapsch TrafficCom USA Inc., the contractor that works with
RiverLink to collect tolls, of sending second notices of late
payments, with additional fees attached, to some drivers who had
crossed the bridges before they received a first written notice.

Kapsch TrafficCom USA Inc. has not reached a settlement in its own
separate lawsuit. And in the settlement, Gila argued it didn't do
anything wrong but would pay "to avoid further expense,
inconvenience and the distraction of burdensome and protracted
litigation."

A hearing to determine if the settlement is approved is set for 11
a.m. June 22 in U.S. District Court of Southern Indiana.

RiverLink created a webpage for the lawsuit which includes the
suits, the notice of the agreement and additional documents.

The court sent the notice of the agreement to everyone believed to
have been affected. The four-page document answers questions people
might have about who's eligible and benefits of the settlement.

Those eligible for potential payments include drivers who were
charged fees without being mailed a notice as well as drivers who
paid $5 late fees after not paying an initial toll invoice.

People eligible for payments may opt out of the agreement through a
form on the settlement's website. They can file lawsuits of their
own in that instance but will not receive any money as a result of
this lawsuit.

RiverLink toll system
Gila and Kapsch TrafficCom have worked with RiverLink since 2016,
according to RiverLink's website, sending invoices to drivers
without prepaid RiverLink accounts who cross the three tolled
bridges: the Abraham Lincoln Bridge and John F. Kennedy Memorial
Bridge in downtown Louisville and the Lewis and Clark Bridge in
Louisville's East End.

Drivers who have prepaid accounts with RiverLink are charged
automatically, at a lower rate than other drivers. Those without a
prepaid account are billed through the mail, with a second notice
sent with an additional $5 late fee if the bill has not been paid
within 30 days.

An additional $25 late fee is tacked on if the second notice is not
paid within 30 days, with another $30 fee charged if that bill
isn't paid in 30 days.

In recent months, several local officials, including Louisville
Mayor Greg Fischer and Jeffersonville Mayor Mike Moore, have pushed
for Kentucky and Indiana to drop tolls on the three bridges, citing
a recent decision to build a new bridge between Covington and
Cincinnati without tolls.

Louisville Metro Council members put forward an ordinance last
month urging for action to be taken as well. [GN]

GILA LLC: Toll Collector Agrees to $2.5 Million Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Green at wdrb.com reports that the company that handles
billing for the RiverLink toll network has agreed to a $2.5 million
class-action settlement in a lawsuit about invoicing practices.   

Gila LLC, the toll collector for the bridges between Louisville and
southern Indiana, reached the deal in February in a case involving
drivers who sued over late fees they claim were charged before an
initial bill arrived. It still must be approved by a federal judge
in U.S. District Court in Indiana.

The settlement only affects people who don't have a RiverLink
account but instead are billed by mail after crossing the I-65
Lincoln and Kennedy bridges and the Lewis and Clark Bridge.

Two types of drivers are eligible: those who paid fees on initial
invoices that weren't printed and mailed, and who haven't already
received a refund; and those who paid a $5 late fee after failing
to pay their initial toll invoice.

The timing of RiverLink invoices and whether they comply with the
states' policies have been an issue in the lawsuit. Representatives
of Kentucky and Indiana state governments, through a "joint board"
of top finance and transportation officials, created a set of rules
for how tolls are collected.

Those rules call for toll notices to be due 35 days after they are
generated and mailed within five days after they are created,
giving drivers 30 days to pay.

Attorneys in the lawsuit argue the rules haven't been followed.
They claim in court documents that RiverLink operators set due
dates 29 days after invoices are generated, but before they are
printed and mailed, "making it impossible to provide 30 days to
make payment after mailing."

As part of the tentative settlement, Gila agreed to change the due
date on mailed bills to 38 days and ask for the joint board to
update that payment window in the toll system's business rules.

Kapsch TrafficCom, the main contractor that runs RiverLink for the
two states, has not agreed to a settlement in the lawsuit and is
not affected by the Gila settlement.

Gila doesn't admit any wrongdoing but says in court documents it
chose to settle to avoid the expense and inconvenience of more
litigation.

Drivers have begun receiving mail altering them that they may be
part of the settlement class.

A hearing to approve the settlement is scheduled for June. [GN]

GLOBAL PERSONALS: Aussieker's Class Claims Dismissed W/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiff's
class claims in the lawsuit captioned Mark Aussieker, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Global
Personals, LLC d/b/a Banglocals, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-01386-WBS-DB (E.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to the stipulation of Plaintiff Aussieker and the
Defendant, and for good cause shown, the Plaintiff's individual
claims in the action are dismissed with prejudice and his putative
class claims in the action are dismissed without prejudice, with
each party to bear their own attorney's fees and costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated March 21, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/49k42ach from Leagle.com.


GOFUND ADVANCE: Court Grants Haymount's Bid for Prelim. Injunction
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled HAYMOUNT URGENT CARE PC; ROBERT A. CLINTON,
JR.; INDIGO INSTALLATIONS, INC.; and CHRISTOPHER A. TURRENTINE, et
al., Plaintiffs v. GOFUND ADVANCE, LLC; FUNDING 123, LLC; MERCHANT
CAPITAL LLC; ALPHA RECOVERY PARTNERS, LLC; YITZCHOK ("ISAAC") WOLF;
JOSEF BREZEL; JOSEPH KROEN; AND YISROEL C. GETTER, Defendants, Case
No. 22-cv-1245 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y.), the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York grants Haymount's motion for a
preliminary injunction against GoFund.

The lawsuit is a putative class action concerning allegedly
fraudulent and usurious loans and abusive collection tactics
employed by defendants, which are companies and individuals engaged
in the "merchant cash advance" ("MCA") industry. MCA agreements are
financial products, often marketed to small businesses through
allegedly high-pressure sales operations resembling "boiler rooms,"
that purport to purchase at a discount a portion of a business's
future receivables. The Plaintiffs are two small businesses (a
North Carolina urgent care facility and a Texas construction
contractor) and their principals that entered into MCA agreements
with the Defendants.

Now before the Court is the motion of Plaintiff Haymount Urgent
Care PC and its principal, Dr. Robert A. Clinton, Jr., for a
preliminary injunction against Defendant GoFund Advance, LLC.
Haymount seeks to convert a temporary restraining order previously
entered in its favor into a narrower preliminary injunction.

I. Discussion

District Judge Jed S. Rakoff notes that a party seeking a
preliminary injunction must ordinarily establish (1) irreparable
harm; (2) either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits, or (b)
sufficiently serious questions going to the merits of its claims to
make them fair ground for litigation, plus a balance of the
hardships tipping decidedly in favor of the moving party; and (3)
that a preliminary injunction is in the public interest, citing New
York ex rel. Schneiderman v. Actavis PLC, 787 F.3d 638, 650 (2d
Cir. 2015). To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party need only
demonstrate likelihood of success on one claim against each
defendant. See 725 Eatery Corp. v. City of New York, 408 F.Supp.3d
424, 459 (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

A. Likelihood of Success

Haymount moves for a preliminary injunction in connection with two
of its breach of contract and claims under the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act. The Court concludes that Haymount
has established a sufficient likelihood of success on its breach of
contract claim, and this is sufficient to grant the motion.
Haymount has failed to establish a likelihood of success on its
RICO claim, because counsel took the erroneous position at oral
argument that he need not now establish that the Plaintiffs would
likely prove the enterprise element of their RICO claim, Judge
Rakoff holds.

1. Breach of Contract

Haymount's primary argument at this stage is that, assuming the MCA
agreements' validity as MCA transactions rather than as loans,
GoFund breached the contract associated with Haymount's sixth MCA
transaction by failing to timely pay Haymount the purportedly
agreed-upon purchase price. Instead, Haymount alleges that GoFund
withdrew excessive fees and withheld $400,000 of the $1 million
purchase price until Haymount had nearly paid GoFund as much as the
total amount ultimately advanced on the contract.

The relevant facts are as follows: On Jan. 20, 2022, Haymount and
GoFund entered into a sixth MCA agreement, which provided that
GoFund would advance $1 million as a "purchase price" in exchange
for the purported purchase of all of Haymount's receipts until
Haymount had repaid $1.499 million through daily ACH withdrawals of
$60,000. On its face, therefore, the repayment should have been
completed in approximately 25 days. However, GoFund initially
provided Haymount with only $400,000, after supposedly subtracting
$100,000 in fees.

On Feb. 7, 2022, after Haymount had made approximately $785,000 in
payments to GoFund over a little more than two weeks, GoFund
deposited an additional $400,000, supposedly reflecting a deduction
of another $100,000 in fees. Under the contract, Haymount was
required to notify GoFund 24 hours in advance if one of the ACH
withdrawals of the $60,000 daily remittance would result in an
insufficient funds warning; failure to provide notice was
identified in the contract as an event of default. Several of
Haymount's remittance payments, beginning on Jan. 28, 2022,
resulted in ACH payments being returned for insufficient funds, but
Haymount did not notify GoFund as required.

There are four elements for pleading breach of contract: the
existence of the contract, the plaintiff's adequate performance,
the defendant's breach, and damages (Dee v. Rakower, 112 A.D.3d
204, 208-209 (2d Dep't 2013)). Judge Rakoff notes that for purposes
of this claim, the existence of the MCA contract is undisputed.

Haymount contends that GoFund breached by initially depositing only
$400,000 of the $1 million purchase price, withdrawing excessive
fees and withholding a second $400,000 tranche until later. GoFund
responds that the fees structure was disclosed in the contract and
that the second payment was made pursuant to an agreement between
GoFund and Haymount. But the only evidence GoFund provides of an
agreement to pay the purchase price in two tranches is the bare
assertion in a declaration that such an agreement existed, Judge
Rakoff finds.

Judge Rakoff notes that defense counsel was unable during oral
argument to locate any provision of the applicable contract that
permitted GoFund to pay the purchase price in tranches, rather than
one cash advance. That Clinton later asked for the rest of the
money to be sent does not establish that GoFund was entitled not to
send the full purchase price at the outset. Therefore, Haymount is
likely to prove that GoFund breached the contract on Jan. 20, 2022,
by failing to send the full purchase price, minus applicable and
appropriately disclosed fees.

GoFund argues that Haymount cannot establish its own performance,
because Haymount failed to provide notice before certain ACH
withdrawals were returned for insufficient funds. But according to
GoFund's records, the first insufficient funds alert occurred on
Jan. 28, 2022. But this is after GoFund's likely breach, which
occurred at the outset of the transaction on Jan. 20, 2022. Indeed,
the payment may not have failed had the account been fully funded
from the outset. Therefore, Haymount will likely prove that it
adequately performed, at least up to the point of GoFund's breach.

Haymount alleged a litany of harms that supposedly resulted from
its supposed default on the MCA contract. And this default was
clearly hastened because GoFund failed to timely deposit the cash
advance in Haymount's account. Therefore, Haymount is likely to
succeed in proving contract damages and, by extension, in
prevailing on its breach of contract claim, Judge Rakoff holds.

2. RICO

With respect to Haymount's RICO claim, Haymount has failed to
establish a likelihood of success. At oral argument, the
Plaintiffs' counsel conceded that he was not trying to establish
and had not established a likelihood of success in proving a RICO
enterprise. Haymount has alleged a RICO enterprise consisting of
all defendants and engaged in the systematic collection of debts
that are criminally usurious under New York law.

Of course, Judge Rakoff says, the existence of an enterprise is an
element of a RICO claim. And a movant requesting a preliminary
injunction must establish a likelihood of success on each essential
element of the relevant claims. But the Plaintiffs' counsel
conceded that Haymount had not submitted documents and declarations
to establish a RICO enterprise, and he puzzlingly insisted that he
only now has to prove that loans were usurious. This is wrong as a
matter of law and precludes issuance of a preliminary injunction on
the RICO claim, Judge Rakoff holds.

B. Irreparable Harm and the Public Interest

Judge Rakoff finds that Haymount has amply demonstrated that it
would suffer irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction. The
papers establish that the Defendants' issuance of UCC lien letters
has frozen its bank and health insurance accounts, effectively
locking up the urgent care center's finances. If the urgent care
center is unable to collect insurance reimbursements, and, thus,
cannot make payroll or purchase medical supplies, there is a
material risk of the business's collapse. That would constitute an
irreparable harm for which later payment of money damages would be
inadequate.

The urgent care center's inability to continue as a going concern
would also disserve the public interest, because it would eliminate
a source of medical care to the people of Fayetteville, N.C., Judge
Rakoff holds. To withdraw medical resources from any community
would seriously harm the public interest at any time, but the
implications are particularly serious in light of the continuing
COVID-19 pandemic, since Haymount avers that it provides extensive
testing and treatment capacity for its community, Judge Rakoff
points out.

II. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth, the Court grants Haymount's motion for a
preliminary injunction. During the pendency of this case, GoFund is
enjoined from continuing to debit unauthorized monetary amounts
from bank accounts belonging to Haymount or Dr. Clinton and from
freezing bank accounts, health insurance accounts, assets and
receivables belonging to Haymount or Dr. Clinton. GoFund is further
enjoined to withdraw and retract any UCC Lien Letters sent to third
parties and to direct any other person or entity acting on its
behalf to do the same.

The Clerk is directed to apply the $5,000 bond previously posted in
connection with the temporary restraining order to the preliminary
injunction as a bond thereon.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Order dated March 21,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/f4wxv7ph from
Leagle.com.


GRAND CANYON: Faces Ogdon Suit Over Unaccredited Degree Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Ogdon, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Grand Canyon University, Inc., an
Arizona corporation, and Grand Canyon Education, Inc. d/b/a Grand
Canyon University, a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-00477-MTM (E.D. Cal., March 20, 2022) is a class action
brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of
California's False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law,
Consumer Legal Remedies Act and for unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff brings this action to hold Defendants accountable for
allegedly violating the state laws by unlawfully, unfairly, and
fraudulently enrolling students in professional degree programs
that are not accredited in such a way so as to qualify the students
for licensure and/or practice in California. The deceptive practice
results in students taking classes and paying - or becoming
indebted for - thousands of dollars in tuition for academic
programs that will not be accepted for professional licensure, says
the suit.

According to the complaint, the Defendants perpetrate this scheme
by aggressively marketing their unaccredited programs to potential
students through financially-motivated salespeople, the Defendants
term as "advisors." These "advisors" are trained and incentivized
by Defendants to push prospective students to take courses even
when the courses will not qualify the students for licensure.

The Plaintiff signed up for Grand Canyon University's Master of
Science in Psychology with an Emphasis in Health Psychology
program.

Grand Canyon University, Inc. was a small non-profit Christian
college in Arizona until 2004 when it was sold to a for-profit
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Annick Persinger, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: apersinger@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Kristen G. Simplicio, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, Northwest, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  ksimplicio@tzlegal.com

GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Court Issues Final Judgment in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
issued an Order and Final Judgment resolving the lawsuit titled In
re GTT Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation, This Document
Relates To: All Actions, Master File No. 2:21-cv-00270-DOC-AS (C.D.
Cal.).

On March 21, 2022, a hearing was held before the Court to
determine: (1) whether the terms and conditions of the Stipulation
of Settlement dated Oct. 29, 2021 ("Stipulation") are fair,
reasonable and adequate for the settlement of all claims asserted
by the Settlement Class against the Defendants (as defined in the
Stipulation), including the release of the Released Claims against
the Released Parties, and should be approved; (2) whether judgment
should be entered dismissing this Action with prejudice; (3)
whether to approve the proposed Plan of Allocation as a fair and
reasonable method to allocate the Net Settlement Fund among
Settlement Class Members; (4) whether and in what amount to award
Lead Counsel as fees and reimbursement of expenses; and (5) whether
and in what amount to approve an award to the Lead Plaintiff.

The Court notes that it appears in the record that the Notice
substantially in the form approved by the Court in the Court's
Order Granting Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement, dated Dec. 6, 2021 ("Preliminary Approval
Order") was disseminated to all reasonably identifiable Settlement
Class Members and posted to the website of the Claims
Administrator, both in accordance with the Preliminary Approval
Order and the specifications of the Court.

District Judge David O. Carter, therefore, ordered, adjudged and
decreed that for purposes of the Settlement, the Court has
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action, the Lead
Plaintiff, all Settlement Class Members, and the Defendants.

The Court finds that the prerequisites for a class action under
Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have
been satisfied in that: (a) the number of Settlement Class Members
is so numerous that joinder of all members thereof is
impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact common to
the Settlement Class; (c) Lead Plaintiff's claims are typical of
the claims of the Settlement Class it seeks to represent; (d) Lead
Plaintiff fairly and adequately represents the interests of the
Settlement Class; (e) questions of law and fact common to the
members of the Settlement Class predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members of the Settlement Class; and (f)
a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair
and efficient adjudication of this Action. The Settlement Class is
being certified for settlement purposes only.

The Court finally certifies the Action as a class action for
purposes of the Settlement, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all Persons
(including, without limitation, their beneficiaries) who acquired
publicly traded GTT Communications, Inc. securities during the
period from May 5, 2016, through July 30, 2021, inclusive
("Settlement Class Period"), except that excluded from the
Settlement Class are: (a) persons who suffered no compensable
losses; and (b) Defendants; the present and former officers and
directors of the Company at all relevant times; members of their
immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs,
successors, or assigns, and any entity in which any of the
Defendants, or any person excluded under this subsection (b), has
or had a majority ownership interest at any time. Also excluded
from the Settlement Class are Persons who filed valid and timely
requests for exclusion from the Settlement Class in accordance with
this Preliminary Approval Order, as listed on Exhibit A to this
Final Judgment.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Lead Plaintiff is certified as the class representative on behalf
of the Settlement Class ("Class Representative") and Lead Counsel
previously selected by the Lead Plaintiff and appointed by the
Court are hereby appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement
Class ("Class Counsel").

The Settlement is approved as fair, reasonable and adequate, and in
the best interests of the Settlement Class. The Court further finds
that the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation is the result of
good faith, arm's-length negotiations between experienced counsel
representing the interests of Class Representative, Settlement
Class Members, and the Defendants. The Parties are directed to
consummate the Settlement in accordance with the terms and
provisions of the Stipulation.

Judge Carter rules that the Action and all claims contained
therein, as well as all of the Released Claims, are dismissed with
prejudice as against each and all of the Defendants. The Parties
are to bear their own costs, except as otherwise provided in the
Settlement Stipulation.

With respect to any and all Released Claims, Class Representative
and the Released Parties will waive and each of the Settlement
Class Members will be deemed to have waived, and by operation of
this Final Judgment will have waived, the provisions, rights, and
benefits of California Civil Code Section 1542.

Upon the Effective Date, the Released Parties will be deemed to
have, and by operation of the Final Judgment will have, fully,
finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged all
claims they may have against the Releasing Parties related to the
Releasing Parties' prosecution of the Action or any other known or
unknown counter-claim related thereto.

The Court finds that all Parties and their counsel have complied
with all requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the Private Securities Litigation Record Act of 1995
as to all proceedings.

Except as otherwise provided here or in the Stipulation, all funds
held by the Escrow Agent will be deemed to be in custodia legis and
will remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Court until such
time as the funds are distributed or returned pursuant to the
Stipulation and/or further order of the Court.

Exclusive jurisdiction is retained over the Parties and the
Settlement Class Members for all matters relating to the Action,
including the administration, interpretation, effectuation or
enforcement of the Stipulation and this Final Judgment, and
including any application for fees and expenses incurred in
connection with administering and distributing the Settlement Fund
to the Settlement Class Members.

Without further order of the Court, the Defendants and Class
Representative may agree to reasonable extensions of time to carry
out any of the provisions of the Stipulation. The finality of this
Final Judgment will not be affected, in any manner, by rulings that
the Court makes herein on the proposed Plan of Allocation or Class
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses
or an award to Class Representative.

The Court finds that the proposed Plan of Allocation is a fair and
reasonable method to allocate the Net Settlement Fund among
Settlement Class Members, and Class Counsel and the Claims
Administrator are directed to administer the Plan of Allocation in
accordance with its terms and the terms of the Stipulation.

The Class Counsel are awarded 30% of the Settlement Amount in fees,
which the Court finds to be fair and reasonable, and $40,238.30 in
reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses. The Class Representative
is awarded $7,500, which the Court finds to be fair and reasonable.
The Defendants and the Released Parties will have no responsibility
for, and no liability whatsoever with respect to, any payments to
Class Counsel, Class Representative, the Settlement Class and/or
any other Person, who receives payment from the Settlement Fund.

In the event the Settlement is not consummated in accordance with
the terms of the Stipulation, then the Stipulation and this Final
Judgment (including any amendment(s) thereof, and except as
expressly provided in the Stipulation or by order of the Court)
will have no further force and effect with respect to the Parties
and will not be used in the Action or in any other proceeding for
any purpose, and any judgment or order entered by the Court in
accordance with the terms of this Stipulation will be treated as
vacated, nunc pro tunc, and each Party will be restored to his, her
or its respective litigation positions as they existed prior to
Aug. 9, 2021, pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Final Judgment dated
March 21, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3j6ev7fw from
Leagle.com.


HALSTED FINANCIAL: Pistone Appeals FDCPA Class Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Renee Pistone filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled RENEE PISTONE, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HALSTED FINANCIAL SERVICES,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3-21-cv-04167, in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The lawsuit is a putative class action for alleged violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section
1692, et seq.

Prior to March 4, 2020, Pistone incurred a debt with Synchrony
Bank. That debt became past due with a balance of $744.05. Sometime
later, Synchrony Bank assigned the debt to LVNV Funding LLC, which
subsequently assigned it to Halsted. On March 4, 2020, Halsted sent
Pistone a letter which sought to collect the amount of the debt.
Various aspects of that Collection Letter are the subject of the
Complaint.

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

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

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 3, 2022, Judge
Michael A. Shipp of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey granted Halsted's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint.

Judge Shipp ruled, among other things, that Pistone has not alleged
that Halsted is attempting to collect money beyond what was
authorized by the original debt. In fact, Halsted is attempting to
collect less than what was authorized and has not included any
extra fees in the Collection Letter, added Judge Shipp.

The Plaintiff is now seeking a review of this ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as Renee Pistone v. Halsted
Financial Services LLC, Case No. 22-1537, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on March 25,
2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant RENEE PISTONE, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          17 Sylvan Street
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 507-6300

Defendant-Appellee HALSTED FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC is represented
by:

          Stephanie M. Imbornone, Esq.
          Peter G. Siachos, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
          18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 220
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 549-2500

HARTFORD CASUALTY: Dr. Jeffrey Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Dr. Jeffrey Milton, DDS, Inc. filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled DR. JEFFREY MILTON,
DDS, INC. v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
20-cv-640, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

The Plaintiff brought the action on May 8, 2020, asserting losses
caused by COVID-19 and the related orders issued by local, state,
and federal authorities that triggered the Business Income, Extra
Expense, and Civil Authority provisions of the Hartford Casualty
policy. The Plaintiff submitted a claim for loss to Hartford
Casualty under its policy due to the presence of COVID-19 and the
Closure Orders, but the Defendant denied that claim. Hartford also
denied the Plaintiff's claim for Business Income Coverage, Civil
Authority Coverage, and Extra Expense Coverage.

On Oct. 30, 2020, the Defendant answered the complaint. The
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on April 19, 2021. Hartford
sought a pre-filing conference with Judge Janet Bond Arterton, then
the presiding judge, asserting that it had grounds to dismiss the
claims against it. After a conference with the parties, Judge
Arterton entered an order permitting the Plaintiff to file a Second
Amended Complaint, and setting a briefing schedule for Hartford's
motion to dismiss. No Second Amended Complaint was filed. Hartford
filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) seeking to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its
entirety on June 25, 2021. The matter was transferred to Judge
Sarah L. Merriam on Nov. 1, 2021.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 11, 2022, Judge
Merriam granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiff is now seeking a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Dr. Jeffrey Milton, DDS, Inc. v.
Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 22-667, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 29,
2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Dr. Jeffrey Milton, DDS, Inc., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          10 North Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com

Defendant-Appellee Hartford Casualty Insurance Company is
represented by:

          Anthony Anscombe, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          227 West Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 577-1265

HOMOLOGY MEDICINES: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of May 24 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that a securities class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
acquired the securities of Homology Medicines, Inc. between June
10, 2019 and February 18, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California and alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Homology, a genetic medicines company, focuses on transforming the
lives of patients suffering from rare genetic diseases. The
Company's lead product candidate is HMI-102, which is in Phase I/II
pheNIX clinical trial, a gene therapy for the treatment of
phenylketonuria (PKU) in adults (the "HMI-102 Trial").

On June 10, 2019, Homology issued a press release announcing that
it had commenced enrollment of the HMI-102 Trial.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations,
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
Company had overstated HMI-102's efficacy and risk mitigation; (ii)
accordingly, it was unlikely that the Company would be able to
commercialize HMI-102 in its present form; and (iii) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On July 21, 2020, Mariner Research ("Mariner") published a report
questioning statements by Homology and its officers about the
efficacy of HMI-102, the Company's lead product candidate for
treatment of phenylketonuria. Mariner focused on Homology's HMI-102
dose escalation pheNIX trial, concluding that the Company concealed
data showing HMI-102's lack of efficacy and indicating that the
program was unlikely to proceed to commercialization. Among other
evidence, Mariner cited an email from Homology's Chief
Communications Officer appearing to indicate the Company's
awareness that a HMI-102 high dose patient had adverted to the
adverse efficacy issue in a social media post during April 2020.

On this news, Homology's stock price fell $1.71 per share, or
10.38%, over the following three trading days, closing at $14.77
per share on July 24, 2020.

Then, on February 18, 2022, Homology issued a press release
disclosing that "the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has
notified the company that its pheNIX gene therapy trial of HMI-102
in adults with phenylketonuria (PKU) has been placed on clinical
hold due to the need to modify risk mitigation measures in the
study in response to observations of elevated liver function tests"
and that "[t]he Company expects to receive an official clinical
hold letter within 30 days."

On this news, Homology's stock price fell $1.26 per share, or
32.64%, to close at $2.60 per share on February 22, 2022.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 24, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased FIXX securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit Homology Medicines, Inc.
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212)
951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years. [GN]

HOMOLOGY MEDICINES: Faces Pizzuto Suit Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL C. PIZZUTO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOMOLOGY MEDICINES, INC., ARTHUR
O. TZIANABOS, W. BRADFORD SMITH, and ALBERT SEYMOUR, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01968 (C.D. Cal., March 25, 2022) is a federal
securities class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants
that purchased or otherwise acquired Homology securities between
June 10, 2019 and February 18, 2022, both dates inclusive, seeking
to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

Homology, a genetic medicines company, focuses on transforming the
lives of patients suffering from rare genetic diseases. The
Company's lead product candidate is HMI-102, which is in Phase I/II
pheNIX clinical trial, a gene therapy for the treatment of
phenylketonuria (PKU) in adults. On June 10, 2019, Homology issued
a press release announcing that it had commenced enrollment of the
HMI-102 trial.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company had overstated HMI-102's efficacy
and risk mitigation; (ii) accordingly, it was unlikely that the
Company would be able to commercialize HMI-102 in its present form;
and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On this news, Homology's stock price fell $1.26 per share, or
32.64%, to close at $2.60 per share on February 22, 2022, says the
suit.

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

Homology Medicines, Inc. operates as a genetic medicines company.
The Company offers a platform to utilize human hematopoietic stem
cell derived adeno-associated virus vectors to treat a range of
disease-causing mutations through gene correction, insertion, and
knockout. Homology Medicines serves patients in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 405-7190
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

HOMOLOGY MEDICINES: Robbins Geller Reminds of May 24 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on April3
disclosed that purchasers or acquirers of Homology Medicines, Inc.
(NASDAQ: FIXX) securities between June 10, 2019 and February 18,
2022, inclusive (the "Class Period") have until May 24, 2022 to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff in Pizzuto v. Homology
Medicines, Inc., No. 22-cv-01968 (C.D. Cal.). Commenced on March
25, 2022, the Homology Medicines class action lawsuit charges
Homology Medicines as well as certain of its top executive officers
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you suffered significant losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Homology Medicines class action lawsuit, please
provide your information by clicking here. You can also contact
attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or
via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the
Homology Medicines class action lawsuit must be filed with the
court no later than May 24, 2022.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Homology Medicines is a genetic medicines company
and its lead product candidate is HMI-102, a gene therapy for the
treatment of phenylketonuria ("PKU") in adults that is in Phase
I/II pheNIX clinical trial (the "HMI-102 Trial"). On June 10, 2019,
Homology Medicines issued a press release announcing that it had
commenced enrollment of the HMI-102 Trial.

The Homology Medicines class action lawsuit alleges that,
throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Homology Medicines had
overstated HMI-102's efficacy and risk mitigation; (ii)
accordingly, it was unlikely that Homology Medicines would be able
to commercialize HMI-102 in its present form; and (iii) as a
result, Homology Medicines' public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 21, 2020, Mariner Research published a report questioning
statements by Homology Medicines and its officers about the
efficacy of HMI-102. Mariner focused on Homology Medicines' HMI-102
dose escalation pheNIX trial, concluding that Homology Medicines
concealed data showing HMI-102's lack of efficacy and indicating
that the program was unlikely to proceed to commercialization.
Among other evidence, Mariner cited an email from Homology
Medicines' Chief Communications Officer appearing to indicate
Homology Medicines' awareness that a HMI-102 high dose patient had
adverted to the adverse efficacy issue in a social media post
during April 2020. On this news, Homology Medicines' stock price
fell by more than 10%.

Then, on February 18, 2022, Homology Medicines disclosed that "the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has notified the company
that its pheNIX gene therapy trial of HMI-102 in adults with
phenylketonuria (PKU) has been placed on clinical hold due to the
need to modify risk mitigation measures in the study in response to
observations of elevated liver function tests" and that Homology
Medicines "expects to receive an official clinical hold letter
within 30 days." On this news, Homology Medicines' stock price fell
by more than 32%, further damaging investors.

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

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading complex class action firms
representing plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. The Firm is
ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50
Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for investors last year
alone - more than triple the amount recovered by any other
plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller's
attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history, including the largest securities class
action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp. Sec.
Litig. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.

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

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

HOMOLOGY MEDICINES: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of May 24 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Homology Medicines, Inc. (NASDAQ:
FIXX) between June 10, 2019 and February 18, 2022, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important May 24, 2022 lead plaintiff
deadline.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Homology class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=4851 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 24, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Homology had overstated the
efficacy and risk mitigation regarding HMI-102, which is in Phase
I/II pheNIX clinical trial and a gene therapy for the treatment of
phenylketonuria (PKU) in adults; (2) accordingly, it was unlikely
that Homology would be able to commercialize HMI-102 in its present
form; and (3) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

To join the Homology class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=4851 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

Contacts

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

J&J CONSULTING: Faces First Federal Lawsuit Over Ponzi Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gibbs Law Group and Silver Law Group have filed a class action
lawsuit in federal court in Nevada on behalf of investors defrauded
by the alleged $300 million Ponzi scheme run by Matthew Beasley,
Jeffrey Judd and related entities. According to the investor
lawsuit, hundreds of investors in Nevada, Utah and California were
lured into personal-injury settlement contracts on the promise of
"risk-free," high rates of return. Meanwhile, defendants used
investor money for luxury cars, extravagant homes and lavish
lifestyles for themselves. This lawsuit seeks to recoup hundreds of
millions of dollars in allegedly misappropriated investor funds and
demands an accurate accounting of all defendants' accounts. The law
firms' investigation continues into additional parties who
participated in or otherwise aided the fraud. Investors interested
in joining the Matthew Beasley and J&J Ponzi scheme class action
lawsuit are encouraged to contact us at 866-941-2677.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the FBI is investigating the
president of J&J Consulting and J&J Purchasing, Jeffrey Judd,
together with Las Vegas attorney Matthew Beasley for defrauding
investors through the alleged Ponzi scheme. Although neither have
yet been charged with financial crimes, Matthew Beasley has been
taken into custody after assaulting an FBI agent in a shootout at
his home on March 3, 2022. Soon after, the FBI posted a notice
seeking victims of an alleged Ponzi scheme with details that
matched investment documents from J&J Consulting.

"We've talked to investors across the country who entrusted their
retirement funds, college funds and other savings to this brazen
scheme, and we're committed to making them whole," said David Stein
of Gibbs Law Group.

"For years, Matt Beasley and Jeffrey Judd funded their luxury
lifestyles by preying on the trust new investors had in their
friends, fellow church members, and even family members. Our
lawsuit is fighting to hold them and others accountable," said
Scott Silver of Silver Law Group.

Our law firms frequently represent victims of Ponzi schemes and
work together to pursue the responsible parties, including any
third parties who aid or assist fraudulent schemes. Investors who
would like to speak privately with our financial fraud attorneys to
learn more about the class action lawsuit and how to protect their
rights should contact us at 866-941-2677 or visit our website.

                    About Gibbs Law Group

Gibbs Law Group is a California-based law firm committed to
protecting the rights of investors and consumers nationwide who
have been harmed by corporate misconduct. Our award-winning lawyers
have achieved landmark recoveries and over a billion dollars for
our clients in high-stakes class action and individual cases. Our
attorneys have received numerous honors for their work, including
"Top Boutique Law Firm in California," "California Lawyer Attorney
of the Year," "Top Plaintiff Lawyers in California," "Titans of the
Plaintiffs' Bar," "Consumer Protection MVP," "Best Lawyers in
America," and "Top Cybersecurity/ Privacy Attorneys Under 40."

                    About Silver Law Group

Silver Law Group is a team of securities lawyers, forensic
accountants, and support staff who are dedicated to helping
investors recover losses through securities arbitration and
litigation. Their attorneys have recovered millions of dollars for
investors. Learn more about Silver Law Group at
www.securitiesfraudattorneys.com.

The firm is led by Scott Silver, a former Wall Street defense
attorney who has been representing customers in securities and
investment fraud cases since 2002. Scott is a passionate investor
advocate and currently serves as Chair of the Securities and
Financial Fraud litigation group of the American Association for
Justice. Silver Law Group's attorneys have earned numerous
accolades for their work representing investors nationwide,
including "Legal Leaders Top Rated Lawyers," "Super Lawyers," and
"Florida Legal Elite" awards.

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

JAGUAR LAND: Block Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Amy Block, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled AMY BLOCK and VICTORYA MANAKIN, on
behalf of themselves and the Putative Class v. JAGUAR LAND ROVER
NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 2-15-cv-05957, in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all the individuals and
entities who own or have owned Land Rover LR2 vehicles manufactured
and sold by the Defendant, containing defective electrical systems
which cause the battery to drain and cause the vehicle to have
starting problems.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 7, 2022 the Hon.
Judge Stanley R. Chesle entered an order:

   1. granting Jaguar's motion for summary judgment;

   2. judging in Jaguar's favor, against all Plaintiffs, on the
      Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Counts of the Third Amended
      Complaint; and

   3. denying as moot Plaintiffs' motion to certify class.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Amy Block, et al. v. Jaguar Land
Rover North America LLC, Case No. 22-1544, United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on March 30, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants AMY BLOCK, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated; VICTORYA MANAKIN; and CRYSTAL HUNTER,
are represented by:

          Greg M. Kohn, Esq.
          Bruce H. Nagel, Esq.
          NAGEL RICE
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 618-0400
          E-mail: gkohn@nagelrice.com
                  bnagel@nagelrice.com

Defendant-Appellee JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA LLC is
represented by:

          Mallik N. Yamusah, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD
          75 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 200
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-7525

JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Pessin Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH PESSIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. JPMORGAN CHASE US BENEFITS EXECUTIVE, as
Plan Administrator of the JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan, BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF JPMORGAN CHASE BANK and J.P. MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY,
JPMORGAN CHASE RETIREMENT PLAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02436
(S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2022) is a class action brought by the
Plaintiff, on his own behalf and on behalf of all similarly
situated JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan participants and their
beneficiaries and estates, pursuant to the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 for alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant JPMorgan Chase & Company and its
predecessors for more than 31 years. For the last 15 years of his
employment, he earned no benefit under the JPMC Plan, his benefit
having been effectively frozen as of December 31, 2003. This was so
because the benefit he had accrued through December 31, 2003,
exceeded the benefit that he accrued over the subsequent years, a
phenomenon known as "wear-away" because the benefit under a prior
benefit formula must be worn away before the participant earns a
benefit under a new formula.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and similarly situated JPMC
Plan participants did not know that their pensions were subject to
wear-away, because the JPMC Plan Administrator provided them with
pension statements every year that falsely told them that their
pension benefits were increasing when they were not. In so doing,
the JPMC Plan Administrator breached its fiduciary duties to JPMC
Plan participants and violated the ERISA provision requiring that a
plan administrator provide participants with statements of their
accrued benefit - not statements of the benefit they would be
accruing were their benefits not frozen, the suit contends.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. is an American multinational investment bank
and financial services holding company headquartered in New York
City and incorporated in Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Preminger, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1140 Sixth Avenue, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (646) 380-6690
          Facsimile: 646) 380-6692
          E-mail: dpreminger@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Lewis, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1380
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 463-3900
          Facsimile: (510) 463-3901
          E-mail: jlewis@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Teresa S. Renaker, Esq.
          RENAKER HASSELMAN SCOTT LLP
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 1125
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 653-1733
          Facsimile: (415) 727-5079
          E-mail: teresa@renakerhasselman.com

LAKE COUNTY, MT: Class Action Suit Filed Over Jail Conditions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scot Heisel at leaderadvertiser.com reports that a class-action
lawsuit alleging inhumane and discriminatory conditions at the Lake
County jail was filed in Missoula County District Court on behalf
of 38 current or former prisoners.

The suit lists Aloyisius D. Black Crow as a primary plaintiff. No
other plaintiffs are identified in the suit.

Plaintiffs allege that the jail is "dangerous, unhygienic, and
overcrowded …" and that jail policies discriminate against Native
American inmates.

The lawsuit lists several dozen allegations, including:

-- Inmates are deprived of basic personal hygiene products for
unreasonable periods of time.
-- Inmates often sleep on broken bunks or on the floor due to
overcrowding.
-- A jail infrastructure that is "deteriorating to the point of
failure, with beds detaching from walls; ventilations systems
unable to properly provide air exchange; paint peeling from walls
and ceilings; metal surfaces rusting; mold growing on ceilings,
walls, floors and mattresses; and non-functional sanitation
systems."
-- A lack of attention to an insect infestation.
-- A lack of fire safety protocols.
-- Little or no opportunity for inmates to exercise.
-- No reasonable opportunity for visitation or private consultation
with legal counsel.
-- No access for Native American inmates to religious ceremonies,
leaders and ceremonial materials.

Plaintiffs allege that the deterioration of the facility "presents
hazards to inmates' mental and physical health," and "defendants
fail to operate and maintain the Lake County jail in a manner
consistent with the requirements of federal and state law."

The lawsuit seeks to define the plaintiff class as "all persons who
are, have been or will be incarcerated at the Lake County jail,"
with a subclass defined as "all enrolled members of the
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes who are, have been or will
be incarcerated" at the jail.

The county faced a similar class-action suit in 1995. A settlement
was reached in that case, with the county agreeing to upgrade
conditions at the facility. The suit was eventually dismissed after
the county completed a round of improvements at the facility.

Lake County voters soundly rejected a 2020 levy request from county
commissioners to fund operations and an expansion of the county
jail. The measure failed with 65% of voters in opposition.

The request was for $2.5 million annually for a period of 20 years.
A portion of that total, $1.5 million per year, was intended to
fund construction of a new detention facility, which was estimated
to cost up to $15 million. The other part of the request was for an
additional $1 million per year for operating expenses for the
expanded facility.

In addition to an expanded jail facility, the commissioners hoped
to establish other jail diversion and mental-health programs, and
increase monitoring devices for those who are released.

If the levy had passed, property owners would have seen a tax
increase of approximately $50.40 per $100,000 of property value per
year for 20 years.

The plaintiffs in the pending case are represented by Tim Bechtold
of Bechtold Law Firm in Missoula and Constance Van Kley and Rylee
Sommers-Flanagan of Upper Seven Law in Helena.

"The conditions in the Lake County jail evidence not only
disrespect for inmates' constitutional rights, but disregard for
their humanity," Van Kley, litigation director at Upper Seven Law,
said in a press release issued March 31. "These discriminatory,
dangerous conditions are unlawful, and they need to change."

Listed defendants are Lake County Commissioners Bill Barron, Gale
Decker and Steve Stanley; Kate Stinger, executive administrative
assistant for the Commissioners' Office; Sheriff Don Bell;
Undersheriff Ben Woods; and 10 other unidentified individuals.

County officials named in the suit declined to comment, citing a
policy to refrain from commenting on pending litigation. The
Montana Association of Counties will provide legal representation
for Lake County.

The lawsuit alleges violations of inmates' rights under the First,
Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution,
along with eight sections of Article II of the Montana
Constitution. It also alleges violations of the Hellgate Treaty of
1855, regarding "adequate, cost-free" medical care for Native
American inmates.

Plaintiffs are asking the court to declare that the county has
violated their rights and to put an end to the practices giving
rise to the lawsuit. It also seeks attorney fees for all
plaintiffs, as well as an unspecified amount of damages for the
subclass of Native American inmates. [GN]

LAWPRACTICECLE LLC: Court Denies Goren's Bid for Summary Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William F. Jung of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Tampa Division, denies the Plaintiff's motion
for summary judgment in the lawsuit titled WILLIAM D. GOREN, for
himself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v.
LAWPRACTICECLE, L.L.C., a Florida limited liability company,
Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-1503-WFJ-AAS (M.D. Fla.).

Background

The Defendant is a company that provides continuing legal education
("CLE") courses for attorneys in an exclusively online format. The
Plaintiff, a licensed attorney, received free lifetime access to
the Defendant's courses in exchange for having twice provided the
Defendant with course content.

As an individual with severe-to-profound hearing loss in both ears,
the Plaintiff is considered a person with a disability under the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 12101,
et seq. The Plaintiff contends that when he asked the Defendant's
Director of Operations in 2020 whether captioning or a dial-in
phone number would be available for a live online course he wished
to take, she told him via email that those auxiliary aids were not
offered.

On June 21, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint in
which he alleged the Defendant failed to comply with the
accessibility requirements of Title III of the ADA. Specifically,
the Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Defendant violated
Section 12189, which covers private entities offering certain
examinations and courses, by failing to equip its online courses
with captions or dial-in phone numbers for the Plaintiff and other
individuals with hearing disabilities. The Plaintiff also seeks a
nationwide injunction requiring the Defendant to provide captioning
for all courses and dial-in numbers for all live courses.

With uncertainty among courts regarding whether websites are places
of public accommodation under Section 12181(7) of Title III, the
Plaintiff's complaint presents an issue of first impression:
whether a private entity providing exclusively online courses may
be liable under Section 12189 regardless of its public
accommodation status under Section 12181(7). Asserting that there
is no factual dispute that the Defendant violated Section 12189,
the Plaintiff now moves for summary judgment.

Analysis

In moving for summary judgment, the Plaintiff asserts that the only
question remaining before the Court is whether he is entitled to
declaratory and injunctive relief. However, even assuming the
Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment, the declaratory and
injunctive relief he seeks is class action relief, and he has not
yet moved for class certification, Judge Jung holds.

Without an early certification determination, putative class
members might choose not to intervene and bind themselves to a
suit's outcome until they know whether their participation would be
favorable to their interests, Judge Jung notes. This potential for
such "one-way intervention" allows putative class members to
benefit from a favorable judgment without subjecting themselves to
the binding effect of an unfavorable one.

Though one-way intervention is arguably not as great of a concern
in class action suits seeking only declaratory or injunctive relief
under Rule 23(b)(2), which does not require that putative class
members be given notice and an opportunity to opt out, deciding a
plaintiff's pre-certification summary judgment motion in such cases
remains unfair to a defendant, Judge Jung opines.

Judge Jung explains, if the Court were to rule in favor of the
Plaintiff on his motion, he would surely seek class certification.
But if the Court were to rule against the Plaintiff, he may choose
not to seek class certification, which would not preclude other
members of the putative class from initiating their own lawsuits
against the Defendant.

As explained in Koehler v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., Case No. 19-715,
2019 WL 4447623, at *6-7 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 17, 2019), this is the
unfairness that the rule against one-way intervention aims to
avoid, Judge Jung opines. The Court also notes that this case of
first impression may look different than the run-of-the-mill fraud
class action in which the Court might rule on the merits before
certification. Given this novel class action presents an important
issue that affects a large number of people, the Court declines to
make a pre-certification ruling on the merits of the Plaintiff's
motion.

Even if the Court were to overlook the fact that the Plaintiff's
class action has not yet been certified, it is not clear from the
record whether the class action relief the Plaintiff seeks is
warranted. Aside from one email of the Defendant's Director of
Operations regarding a live online course that the Plaintiff wished
to take in 2020, the record contains no evidence regarding whether
the Defendant failed to offer auxiliary aids for its other
courses.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court declines to make a pre-certification ruling
on the merits of the Plaintiff's motion. The Plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment is denied with leave to re-file after a class
certification determination.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated March 21, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mvzv3xzy from Leagle.com.


LIFETRADE FUND: Court Issues Final Judgment on Settlement With TMF
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the consolidated lawsuit captioned IN RE LIFETRADE LITIGATION.
This Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS, Case No. 1:17-cv-02987
(S.D.N.Y.), Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York issued an Order and Final Judgment as
to Defendant TMF Curacao NV.

The matter came before the Court for hearing on March 21, 2022, to
consider approval of the proposed settlement set forth in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement by and among the
Plaintiffs, the Lifetrade Funds, and TMF Curacao NV ("Equity
Trust") dated Aug. 4, 2021, and the exhibits thereto. The Court has
reviewed and considered all documents, evidence, lack of
objections, and arguments presented regarding the Settlement.

The Court rules that it has jurisdiction to enter this Order and
Final Judgment. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter
of this application and all matters relating thereto, and personal
jurisdiction solely with respect to the Settlement over the
Settling Parties, Derivative Plaintiffs (individually and
derivatively on behalf of the Lifetrade Funds), Settlement Class
Members, and all Members of the Class who have not timely and
validly requested exclusion.

The Court approves the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation and
finds that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable,
and adequate to each of the Settling Parties, The Lifetrade Funds,
and current Lifetrade Fund shareholders, and finally approves the
Settlement in all respects and directs the Settling Parties to
perform the terms of the Settlement as set forth in the
Stipulation.

The Court affirms its findings Order Preliminarily Approving
Settlements and Providing for Notice dated Dec. 10, 2021, that for
purposes of the Settlements only, the prerequisites for a class
action under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure have been satisfied in that: (a) the number of Settlement
Class Members is so numerous that joinder thereof is impracticable;
(b) there are questions of law and fact common to the Settlement
Class; (c) the claims of the Settlement Class Representatives are
typical of the claims of the Settlement Class; (d) the Settlement
Class Representatives and Class Counsel have and will fairly and
adequately represent the interests of the Settlement Class; (e) the
questions of law and fact common to the members of the Settlement
Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members of the Settlement Class; and (f) a class action is superior
to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication
of the controversy.

The Court further affirms its determinations in the Preliminary
Approval Order and finally certifies, for purposes of the
Settlements only, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Action to proceed as a class
action on behalf of: All investors, whether individual, corporate
or in any form, (i) who invested in one or more of the Lifetrade
Funds (including The Lifetrade Fund B.V., LTrade Plus Ltd. and
LTrade Fixed Capital (BVI) Ltd.), and/or (ii) their predecessors
and successors in interest.

The Court finds that the Notice of Pendency of Class Action,
Shareholder Derivative Action, and Proposed Settlement, Preliminary
Approval Order, Settlement Fairness Hearing and Motion for an Award
of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses
("Notice") was given in accordance with the Preliminary Approval
and Scheduling Order entered on Dec. 10, 2021. The Notice and its
form and method of notifying the Settlement Class of the pendency
of the action as a class action and a shareholder derivative
action, and of the terms and conditions of the proposed Settlement
was reasonable, constituted the most practicable notice under the
circumstances to current Lifetrade Fund shareholders, complied with
the requirements of federal law and due process, and constituted
due and sufficient notice of the matters set forth therein to all
persons entitled thereto.

Pursuant to and in compliance with Rules 23 and 23.1 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds that due and adequate
notice of these proceedings was directed to the Plaintiffs,
individually and derivatively on behalf of the Lifetrade Funds, and
Persons who are Settlement Class Members. Thus, it is determined
that all Settlement Class Members, who did not timely and validly
elect to exclude themselves by written communication received by
the Claims Administrator no later than the date set forth in the
Notice and the Preliminary Approval Order are bound by this Order
and Final Judgment.

Pursuant to and in compliance with Rules 23 and 23.1, the Court
approves the Settlement as set forth in the Stipulation, and finds
that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class
Members. The Court further finds that the Settlement set forth in
the Stipulation is the result of arm's-length negotiations between
experienced counsel representing the interests of the Settling
Parties. Accordingly, the Settlement embodied in the Stipulation is
approved in all respects and will be consummated in accordance with
the terms and provisions of the Stipulation.

The Court finds that the Settling Parties each represents that they
have complied fully with the strictures of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 in
connection with the commencement, maintenance, prosecution, defense
and settlement of the Action.

The Court dismisses the Actions with prejudice and without costs to
the Settling Parties, except as otherwise provided in the
Stipulation.

Upon the Effective Date, the Plaintiffs (individually and
derivatively on behalf of the Lifetrade Funds), Class
Representatives, Derivative Plaintiffs, Settlement Class Members,
any other current Lifetrade Fund shareholders on behalf of
Lifetrade, and Plaintiffs' Counsel will be deemed to have fully,
finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged all
Released Claims (including Unknown Claims) against the Released
Parties.

Upon the Effective Date, the Plaintiffs will indemnify, defend and
hold harmless the Released Parties and the Related Parties.

The Court approves the Fee and Expense Award of $1,500,000 in fees
and $500,000 in return of disbursements and finds that such fee is
fair and reasonable, and directs payment of the Fee and Expense
Award in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation.

The Court approves the Service Awards of $10,000 for each Class
Representative and Derivative Plaintiff to be paid from the
Plaintiffs' Counsel's Fee and Expense Award in recognition of the
Plaintiffs' participation and efforts in the prosecution of the
Actions.

Without affecting the finality of this Judgment in any way, this
Court retains continuing jurisdiction over: (a) implementation of
this Settlement; (b) the allowance, disallowance or adjustment of
any Settlement Class Member's claim on equitable grounds and any
award or distribution of the Settlement Funds; (c) disposition of
the Settlement Funds; (d) hearing and determining Class Counsel's
application for attorneys' fees, costs, interest and expenses,
including fees and costs of experts and/or consultants; (e) Class
Representatives' request for a compensatory award; (f) enforcing
and administering this Order and Final Judgment; (g) enforcing and
administering the Stipulation including any releases executed in
connection therewith; and (h) other matters related or ancillary to
the foregoing.

Without further Order of the Court, the parties may agree to
reasonable extensions of time to carry out any provisions of the
Stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Final Judgment dated
March 21, 2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycknzx2y from
Leagle.com.


LITTLE ADAM AND EVE: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Little Adam and Eve,
LTD. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Little Adam and Eve, LTD., Case No
1:22-cv-02672 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2022).

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

Little Adam and Eve -- https://www.littleadamandeve.com/ -- is a
maternity robe and matching baby set company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LUCY GOODS INC: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lucy Goods, Inc. The
case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Lucy Goods, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02581-VEC (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2022).

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

Lucy Goods -- https://lucy.co/ -- operates as a nicotine
alternative company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


LYCAMOBILE USA INC: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lycamobile USA Inc.
The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Lycamobile USA Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02656 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2022).

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

Lycamobile -- https://www.lycamobile.us/en/ -- is a British mobile
virtual network operator (MVNO) operating in 60 countries.[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


MARCELLOS PAINTING: Garcia Sues Over Painters' Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS GARCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MARCELLOS PAINTING LLC, and MARCELLO CHAVEZ,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01733 (D.N.J., March 28,
2022) is a civil action for damages and equitable relief for
Defendants' violations of Plaintiff's rights under the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage
and Hour Law.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a painter from 2015 through
October 2021. The Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiff the
wages lawfully owed to him under the FLSA and the WHL, as
Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff at the statutorily
required overtime rate of pay for any of the hours that Plaintiff
worked beyond 40 in a workweek.

Marcellos Painting LLC is engaged in the home improvement/painting
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.R. Stevenson, Esq.
          STEVENSON MARINO LLP
          124 Maxess Road, Suite 124
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (212) 939-7229

MARIO TRICOCI HAIR: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mario Tricoci Hair
Salons & Day Spas, LLC. The case is styled as Luigi Abreu,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Mario Tricoci Hair Salons & Day Spas, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02573
(S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2022).

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

Tricoci's -- https://www.tricoci.com/ -- differentiated services
include: haircut and styling, contemporary color, results oriented
skin care, and wellness spa 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


META PLATFORMS: Court Allows Advertisers' Class Action to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that a US judge ruled on Tuesday (March 29) that a
lawsuit accusing Meta Platforms Inc's Facebook of deceiving
advertisers about its "potential reach" tool can proceed as a class
action.

The decision by U.S. District Judge James Donato in San Francisco
allows potentially millions of individuals and businesses that paid
for ads on Facebook and its photo-sharing app Instagram since Aug.
15, 2014 to sue as a group. [GN]


META PLATFORMS: Small Advertisers Win Class Status in Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Hicks at morningbrew.com reports that a federal judge ruled
earlier that a lawsuit against the tech giant accusing it of
deceiving advertisers over its "potential reach" tool can proceed
as a class action. The decision allows millions of individuals and
businesses who have purchased ads on Facebook or Instagram since
August 15, 2014, to get in on the action (pun intended) and sue
together.

Beefing up the numbers: The lawsuit began in 2018 when advertisers
accused Facebook of inflating the number of potential viewers an ad
would get by as much as 400% -- and pricing accordingly, per CNN.

Court filings from last year allege that Facebook executives,
including COO Sheryl Sandberg, knew that numbers were boosted by
duplicate and fake accounts and supposedly tried to keep it under
wraps. One employee is quoted in the filing as saying that "the
status quo in ad-reach estimation and reporting is deeply wrong."

Facebook also came under fire years ago for inflating video reach
in the now infamous pivot to video saga. In 2019, the company
settled a $40 million lawsuit with advertisers who claimed the
company overstated video ad-viewing times and failed to disclose
that miscalculation after discovering it.

What's next? Facebook argued in court filings that the company has
made "updates" to improve user estimates. They've filed a bid to
dismiss the lawsuit, which will be reviewed by the same judge later
this year.

Given that he dismissed what he called a "blunderbuss of
objections" from the company, it might be a tough sell. [GN]

MICHIGAN: Counties Appeal Ruling in Fox Civil Rights Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Saginaw County, MI, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled styled THOMAS A. FOX, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COUNTY OF
SAGINAW, by its BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-11887, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan at Bay City.

On June 25, 2019, Plaintiff Fox filed this complaint on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated against numerous Michigan
counties and county treasurers. He claims that the Defendants have
seized and disposed of property and retained the surplus equity
pursuant to Michigan's General Property Tax Act ("GPTA"), Mich.
Comp. Laws Section 211.1, et seq. Before recent amendments, the
GPTA allowed the statutorily defined "foreclosing governmental
unit" to retain the surplus proceeds of a tax foreclosure sale
without any procedure for compensating the owner.

The Plaintiff's original complaint alleged a taking without just
compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
(Counts I, II), inverse condemnation under Michigan law (Count
III), violation of Article X, Section 2 of the Michigan
Constitution (Count IV), and an excessive fine in violation of the
Eighth Amendment (Count V).

On Sept. 4, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming
additional counties and treasurers as the Defendants and adding
three counts: procedural due process (Count VI), substantive due
process (Count VII), and unjust enrichment (Count VIII).

On Jan. 10, 2020, the case was stayed pending the Sixth Circuit's
decision in Freed v. Thomas, No. 18-2312 (6th Cir. 2020), which
presented nearly identical facts, substantive arguments, and
jurisdictional questions.

On Oct. 16, 2020, shortly after the Sixth Circuit's decision in
Freed, the stay was lifted and the following class was certified:
"All persons and entities that owned real property in the following
counties, whose real property, during the relevant time period, was
seized through a real property tax foreclosure, which was worth
and/or which was sold at tax auction for more than the total tax
delinquency and were not refunded the value of the property in
excess of the delinquent taxes owed: Alcona, Alpena, Arenac, Bay,
Clare, Crawford, Genesee, Gladwin, Gratiot, Huron, Isabella,
Jackson, Lapeer, Lenawee, Macomb, Midland, Montmorency, Ogemaw,
Oscoda, Otsego, Presque Isle, Roscommon, Saginaw, Sanilac, St
Clair, Tuscola, and Washtenaw."

On Jan. 13, 2021, the Court decided several motions to dismiss
filed by the Fox Defendants. Among the various defenses raised
there was the assertion that the County Defendants were immune from
suit because the GPTA specified how the "foreclosing governmental
unit" was to handle the proceeds of a tax foreclosure sale.
Accordingly, the County Defendants argued that in retaining surplus
proceeds under the GPTA, they were acting as an "arm of the
State."

On Feb. 1, 2021, the County Defendants filed a timely notice of
appeal from the Court's denial of sovereign immunity. That appeal
remains pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 3, 2022, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district
court's partial denial of the counties' motions to dismiss on the
grounds that the counties are not entitled to sovereign immunity.

The Defendants now seek a review of this ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as Thomas Fox v. Saginaw County,
MI, et al., Case No. 22-1265, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit, filed on March 31, 2022.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants SAGINAW COUNTY, MI; ALPENA COUNTY, MI, by its
Board of Commissioners; ARENAC COUNTY, MI, by its Board of
Commissioners; BAY COUNTY, MI, by its Board of Commissioners; CLARE
COUNTY, MI, by its Board of Commissioners; GENESEE COUNTY, MI;
GLADWIN COUNTY, MI, by its Board of Commissioners; GRATIOT COUNTY,
MI, by its Board of Commissioners; HURON COUNTY, MI; ISABELLA
COUNTY, MI, by its Board of Commissioners; JACKSON COUNTY, MI;
LAPEER COUNTY, MI; LENAWEE COUNTY, MI; MIDLAND COUNTY, MI, by its
Board of Commissioners; MONTMORENCY COUNTY, MI, by its Board of
Commissioners; OSCODA COUNTY, MI, by its Board of Commissioners;
OSTEGO COUNTY, MI; ROSCOMMON COUNTY, MI; SANILAC COUNTY, MI; ST.
CLAIR COUNTY, MI; and TUSCOLA COUNTY, MI, are represented by:

          Douglas J. Curlew, Esq.
          CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO
          17436 College Parkway, Third Floor
          Livonia, MI 48152
          Telephone: (734) 261-2400

Plaintiff-Appellee THOMAS A. FOX, and all those similarly situated,
is represented by:

          Sharon Sue Almonrode, Esq.
          MILLER LAW FIRM
          950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          E-mail: ssa@millerlawpc.com

MONTGOMERY WARD: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Montgomery Ward, Inc.
The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Montgomery Ward, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02597 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2022).

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

Montgomery Ward -- https://www.wards.com/ -- is the name of two
successive U.S. retail corporations. The original Montgomery Ward &
Co. was a world-pioneering mail-order business and later also a
leading department store chain that operated between 1872 and
2001.[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


NASSAU COUNTY DOA: McLauglin Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Department of
Assessment of the County of Nassau. The case is styled as Mark
McLauglin, Diane McLauglin, All other similarly situated,
Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A, Petitioners v. Department of
Assessment of the County of Nassau, Respondent, Case No.
603649/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., March 22, 2022).

The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)."

The Department of Assessment --
https://www.nassaucountyny.gov/1501/Assessment -- is responsible
for developing fair and equitable assessments for all residential
and commercial properties in Nassau County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG, LLP
          132 Spruce ST
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516-1915



NEW YORK, NY: Ordered to Take Steps to Address Jail Conditions
--------------------------------------------------------------
New York City Mayor Eric Adams on April 3 issued Emergency
Executive Order 69.

WHEREAS, on September 2, 2021, the federal monitor in the Nunez
use-of-force class action stated steps must be taken immediately to
address the conditions in the New York City jails; and

WHEREAS, excessive staff absenteeism among correction officers and
supervising officers has contributed to a rise in unrest and
disorder, and creates a serious risk to the necessary maintenance
and delivery of sanitary conditions; access to basic services
including showers, meals, visitation, religious services,
commissary, and recreation; and prompt processing at intake; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Correction's (DOC's) staffing shortages
are affecting health operations, including the availability of
escorts to bring patients to the clinic and of DOC personnel to
staff the clinics; and

WHEREAS, this Order is given to address the effects of excessive
staff absenteeism and in order to address the conditions at DOC
facilities; and

WHEREAS, the state of emergency existing within DOC facilities,
first declared in Emergency Executive Order No. 241, issued on
September 15, 2021, and extended most recently by Emergency
Executive Order No. 66, issued on March 29, 2022, remains in
effect;

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the powers vested in me by the laws of
the State of New York and the City of New York, including but not
limited to the New York Executive Law, the New York City Charter
and the Administrative Code of the City of New York, and the common
law authority to protect the public in the event of an emergency:

Section 1.  I hereby direct that sections 2 and 3 of Emergency
Executive Order No. 66, dated March 29, 2022, are extended for five
(5) days.

Sec. 2. This Emergency Executive Order shall take effect
immediately and shall remain in effect for five (5) days unless it
is terminated or modified at an earlier date. [GN]

NEW YORK: Jacobson Appeals Racial Discrimination Case Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff William A. Jacobson filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled William A. Jacobson, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. Mary T. Bassett, in her
official capacity as Acting Commissioner of the New York Department
of Health, Case No. 3:22-cv-00033-MAD-ML, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of New York (Syracuse).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought
against New York's racial preferences policy of making antiviral
treatments.

The New York Department of Health recently established guidelines
for medical providers to give automatic priority to "non-whites"
and individuals with "Hispanic/ Latino ethnicity" in distributing
life-saving COVID-19 treatments. Under these guidelines,
non-Hispanic white individuals who test positive for COVID-19 are
ineligible for oral antiviral treatments unless they also
demonstrate "a medical condition or other factors that increase
their risk for severe illness." But similarly situated "non-white"
or "Hispanic/Latino" individuals are automatically eligible for
these life-saving antiviral treatments -- regardless of the
individual's medical situation -- because New York has proclaimed
that one's status as a racial or ethnic minority is itself a "risk
factor" for severe illness from COVID-19, even if the individual
has no pre-existing condition that would make him more susceptible
to harm from COVID-19.

New York's use of racial preferences in the distribution of
COVID-19 treatments is patently unconstitutional and should be
immediately enjoined, said the complaint. Using a patient's skin
color or ethnicity as a basis for deciding who should receive
lifesaving medical treatment is appalling. And directing medical
professionals to award or deny medical care based on immutable
characteristics such as skin color, without regard to the actual
health condition of the individual who is seeking these antiviral
treatments, is nothing more than an attempt to establish a racial
hierarchy in the provision of life-saving medicine. Worse still,
New York's racial preferences ignore the obvious race-neutral
alternative policy of making antiviral treatments available to
patients of any race who can demonstrate risk factors, such as
advanced age, obesity, a compromised immune system, or other
medical conditions, the complaint adds.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Memorandum Decision
and Order dated March 25, 2022, granting  Defendant's motion to
dismiss the case; denying as moot Plaintiff's motions to certify a
class and for a preliminary injunction; and dismissing without
prejudice all claims against Defendant.

The appellate case is captioned as Jacobson v. Bassett, Case No.
22-692, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on April 1, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant William A. Jacobson, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          John Michael Connolly, Esq.
          CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC
          3033 Wilson Boulevard
          Arlington, VA 22201
          Telephone: (703) 243-9423
          E-mail: mike@consovoymccarthy.com

               - and -

          Adam K. Mortara, Esq.
          LAWFAIR LLC
          125 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (773) 750-7154
          E-mail: adam@mortaralaw.com  

               - and -

          James P. Trainor, Esq.
          TRAINOR LAW PLLC
          2452 U.S. Route 9, Suite 203
          Malta, NY 12020
          Telephone: (518) 899-9200
          E-mail: jamest@trainor-lawfirm.com   

Defendant-Appellee Mary T. Bassett, in her official capacity as
Acting Commissioner of the New York Department of Health, is
represented by:

          Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
          NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          28 Liberty Street
          New York, NY 10005

NINTENDO CO: Continues to Defend Joy-Con Drifting Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Logan Moore, writing for Comicbook, reports that Nintendo is
continuing to fight back against an ongoing class-action lawsuit
that has been filed against the gaming company as a result of
Joy-Con drifting issues with the Nintendo Switch controllers. Over
the past couple of years, Nintendo has been dealing with a number
of lawsuits that have been levied at the company associated with
the thumbstick defect found in Joy-Cons. And while the lawsuit is
still going through the legal process, Nintendo has now found a new
defense against some of these claims.

According to a report from Axios, Nintendo's lawyers have recently
argued in a case (Sanchez et. al. v. Nintendo of America) that
certain individuals suing the company have no standing because the
ones affected by the Joy-Con drift issue are children. Essentially,
Nintendo has claimed that children cannot sue the company because
they "allege no cognizable harm to themselves." In addition,
Nintendo's defense cited that the End User License Agreement (EULA)
that Switch users must acknowledge before using the system states
that they must be over the age of 18 to accept.

At this point in time, an arbitrator has actually ruled in favor of
Nintendo's defense and has claimed that two mothers representing
the children in question cannot proceed with a class-action
lawsuit. The lawyers representing these plaintiffs have pushed back
on this ruling, though, and have pushed for a federal judge to
examine the case.

For now, it remains to be seen what happens with this case and many
others that are associated with Joy-Con drift. Although Nintendo
has been dealing with a number of cases of this type over the past
couple of years, many of them have stalled out at one time or
another. As such, we'll be sure to keep you in the loop here on
ComicBook.com if anything else noteworthy comes about with these
situations. [GN]

NORTH CAROLINA: Court Dismisses Beyan Suit Without Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Frank D. Whitney of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, dismissed without
prejudice the lawsuit styled JAMES L. BEYAN, JR., Plaintiff v.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-19-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C.).

The pro se Plaintiff purported to file this case as a class action
lawsuit pursuant to the Court's federal question and diversity
jurisdiction. On Feb. 10, 2022, the Court granted the Plaintiff's
Application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the
Complaint on initial review as frivolous and for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.

The Court granted the Plaintiff 30 days within which to amend his
Complaint to correct the deficiencies identified by the Court. The
Plaintiff was cautioned that the failure to timely comply with the
Order would result in this case's dismissal without further notice.
The February 10 Order was mailed to the Plaintiff at his address of
record on the same day it was entered.

On March 1, 2022, the Order was returned to the Court, marked
"return to sender not deliverable as addressed unable to forward."
The Plaintiff has not provided the Court with an updated address.

Judge Whitney says the Plaintiff failed to timely comply with the
Court's February 10 Order and the time to do so has expired.
Further, he has not informed the Court of his change of address and
he appears to have abandoned this action. Therefore, this action
will be dismissed without prejudice.

Judge Whitney, therefore, ruled that the action is dismissed
without prejudice for the Plaintiff's failure to comply with the
Court's February 10, 2022 Order.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated March 21, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4s8j9tb7 from Leagle.com.


NORTHERN SCANDINAVIA: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northern Scandinavia,
Inc. The case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Northern Scandinavia,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02580 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2022).

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

Northern Scandinavian -- https://www.northerner.com/ -- offers
smokeless tobacco selling specialties and nicotine products
online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


PEOPLECONNECT INC: Appeals Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Boshears Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PeopleConnect, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit entitled JASON FRY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEOPLECONNECT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-01222-MJP, in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle.

According to the complaint, Defendant PeopleConnect, Inc.
("Classmates") is a Washington corporation that operates a website
marketing access to and reprints of over 400,000 yearbooks spanning
more than 60 years. Classmates invites website visitors to buy a
subscription service that offers the ability to "See the people who
remembered you," "See all the visits to your Classmates(R)
Guestbook," "Read and reply to messages in your Classmates Inbox,"
"Save 20% on all Yearbook Reprints," and "Find old friends on
Classmates(R) Locations."

Visitors encounter Classmates' offer to subscribe in two relevant
ways. First, after a visitor searches for an individual and clicks
on a photo of that person, they are directed through a "pop-up
window" to sign up for a free account. Once a visitor obtains an
account, they are then directed to a separate screen offering
access to the subscription services for a fee ranging from $3/month
to $1.50/month depending on the subscription term. Second, visitors
who have registered for a free account are presented with a "banner
ad" adjacent to photographs of an individual for whom the user
searched that tells the user "It's time to upgrade!" The "upgrade"
offer is to buy a subscription, which includes the following
"benefits": "See who visited your profile," "Send private
messages," and "Discount yearbook reprints."

On October 29, 2021, Plaintiff's counsel filed an Amended Complaint
substituting John Boshears as the named plaintiff in place of Mr.
Fry.

Plaintiff Josh Boshears is a citizen of Indiana, where he resides
and attended high school from 1995-1998. Boshears has never used
Classmates' website but learned that it uses pictures of him from
his high school yearbooks to advertise subscription services and
reprints of yearbooks. He has not consented to the use of his
persona. He also claims that he does not know how Classmates came
into possession of the yearbooks with his likeness. He alleges that
Classmates has stolen his intellectual property and invaded his
privacy. He claims that Classmates' use of his persona "caused
[him] mental injury and disturbed his peace of mind." He claims he
"is deeply uncomfortable in the knowledge that Classmates is
distributing his name and photographs as a minor child publicly on
the Internet for a commercial purpose to a worldwide audience."

Boshears brings two claims against Classmates arising out of its
use of his persona to advertise its subscription services: (1) a
violation of the Indiana Right of Publicity Act; and (2) the common
law tort of misappropriation of his name and likeness. Boshears
seeks to represent a class of similarly-situated Indianans.

On March 25, 2022, the Court entered an Order granting in part and
denying in part Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim, and denying Defendant's motion to stay.

The Defendant is taking an appeal from this ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as JOHN BOSHEARS, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v.
PEOPLECONNECT, INC., Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 22-35262, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on
March 28, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on April 4,
2022;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by April 27, 2022;

   -- Transcript shall be filed by May 27, 2022;

   -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record shall be
served and filed on July 6, 2022;

   -- Appellee's answering brief and excerpts of record shall be
served and filed on August 8, 2022; and

   -- The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
served within 21 days of service of the appellee's brief. Failure
of the appellant to comply with the Time Schedule Order will result
in automatic dismissal of the appeal.[BN]

PHILADELPHIA, PA: Appeals Ruling in Prisoner Remick's Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
City of Philadelphia, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled THOMAS REMICK, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. CITY OF
PHILADELPHIA; and BLANCHE CARNEY, in her official capacity as
Commissioner of Prisons, Case No. 2-20-cv-01959, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs commenced
this class action seeking relief from unconstitutional conditions
of confinement that existed at the time and which, absent judicial
intervention, will continue to exist in the Philadelphia Department
of Prisons ("PDP"). Due in large part to severe understaffing in
the PDP and, in particular, lack of sufficient correctional officer
staffing and deployment, the prison population has been subjected
to conditions that include extended lockdowns; lack of out-of-cell
time; denial of timely and adequate medical care; lack of
protection from physical assaults; denial of access to the courts,
to legal counsel, and to timely legal mail; lack of due process in
disciplinary proceedings; lack of access to necessary exercise;
inadequate sanitation, hygiene, quarantine, and separation policies
and procedures to protect against COVID-19 infections; and other
conditions that cause and exacerbate mental illness and mental
distress.

The Plaintiffs filed this class action under 42 U.S.C. section
1983, 28 U.S.C. section 2241, and the Americans with Disabilities
Act, on April 20, 2020, to compel Defendants City of Philadelphia
and Commissioner Blanche Carney to protect individuals incarcerated
in the PDP from the risks of serious harm they face from the twin
dangers of COVID-19 and prolonged isolation in their cells.

On April 23, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, seeking an order
requiring Defendants to ensure that conditions of confinement in
PDP facilities complied with the then-current health and safety
standards necessary to protect the Plaintiff class from the risks
associated with Covid-19 and to provide humane conditions of
confinement, including adequate out-of-cell time consistent with
constitutional requirements.

After various telephone conferences held throughout the month of
May, Judge Berle M. Schiller entered a consent order of partial
settlement on June 3, 2020. The settlement agreement included terms
regarding protective equipment, disinfectant, monitoring, and
reporting. The agreement also stated that the parties would
continue to discuss and work toward a separate settlement agreement
regarding issues of social distancing and cohorting upon the
completion of COVID-19 testing.

The parties reached a settlement agreement to resolve contempt
issues in late June 2021. This settlement agreement required the
City to make a one-time payment of $125,000 to split between two
local bail funds: the Philadelphia Bail Fund and the Philadelphia
Community Bail Fund. Judge Schiller approved the settlement on June
23, 2021.

In September 2021, Judge Schiller issued an order declaring what
ongoing prison conditions should look like, and that facilities
should return to their pre-COVID operations by early 2022,
including eight hours of out-of-cell time, absent extenuating
circumstances.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in mid-October 2021. This
new complaint included requests for injunctive relief in light of
the plaintiffs' concerns about out-of-cell time. On December 9,
2021, Judge Schiller denied the plaintiffs' initial request for
class certification as moot in light of the plaintiffs' amended
complaint, and they filed a new request for class certification on
December 21, 2021.

On January 28, 2022, the plaintiffs asked the court for leave to
file a third amended complaint and filed an amended motion to
certify the class. The court granted the motion for leave and the
plaintiffs filed a third amended class action complaint on February
22, 2022. The amended complaint added six additional plaintiffs
incarcerated in PDP and asserted four claims for relief, three
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and one pursuant to the ADA.

On March 11, the court granted the motion to certify class,
defining the class as, "All persons who are currently or will be in
the future confined in the Philadelphia Department of Prisons, and
are or will be subjected to illegal or unconstitutional conditions
of confinement as a result of policies and restrictions implemented
in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the PDP’s staffing
shortage." The court further defined a subclass of those with
physical and/or psychiatric impairments that substantially limited
one or more of their major life activities.

Two weeks later, the court issued writs of habeas corpus for six of
the plaintiffs to appear before Judge Schiller for a hearing on the
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction on March 29-31,
2022.

The appellate case is captioned as Thomas Remick, et al. v. City of
Philadelphia, et al., Case No. 22-8013, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on March 25, 2022.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; and BLANCHE CARNEY, in
her official capacity as Commissioner of Prisons, are represented
by:

          Meghan E. Claiborne, Esq.
          Diana P. Cortes, Esq.
          Jane L. Istvan, Esq.
          Danielle B. Rosenthal, Esq.
          Craig M. Straw, Esq.
          Anne B. Taylor, Esq.
          Shannon G. Zabel, Esq.
          CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
          1515 Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 683-5447

Plaintiffs-Respondents THOMAS REMICK, NADIYAH WALKER, JAY DIAZ,
MICHAEL ALEJANDRO, MICHAEL DANTZLER, ROBERT HINTON, JOSEPH WEISS,
JOSEPH SKINNER, SADDAM ABDULLAH, JAMES BETHEA, NASIR LEWIS, DYQUILL
PLEDGER, TROY HARLEY, MICHAEL FLYNN, CLAY PIZARRO, and CHRISTIAN
MALDONADO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Benjamin R. Barnett, Esq.
          Theeya Musitief, Esq.
          Nicolas A. Novy, Esq.
          Will W. Sachse, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          2929 Arch Street
          18th Floor, Cira Centre
          Philadelphia, PA 19104
          Telephone: (215) 994-2887

               - and -

          Jonathan H. Feinberg, Esq.
          Susan M. Lin, Esq.
          David Rudovsky, Esq.
          KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING FEINBERG & L IN
          718 Arch Street, Suite 501 South
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 925-4400

               - and -

          Matthew A. Feldman, Esq.
          PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT
          718 Arch Street, Suite 304 South
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 925-2966

               - and -

          Bret Grote, Esq.
          ABOLITIONIST LAW CENTER
          P.O. Box 8654
          Pittsburgh, PA 15221
          Telephone: (412) 654-9070

PREFERRED FAMILY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Wilson Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA WILSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PREFERRED FAMILY HEALTHCARE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-00352 (E.D. Mo., March 25, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime compensation
and related penalties and damages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's practice and policy is
to deny compensation to its employees for hours worked above 40
hours in any workweek. The Defendant refused to pay overtime to
employees for hours worked if Defendant believed the work completed
did not justify the need for overtime pay, despite requiring
employees to finish their assigned work which was nearly impossible
to complete in 40 hours.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant at their Kirksville,
Missouri location as a community support specialist from January 7,
2019, until she was terminated on September 17, 2020.

Preferred Family Healthcare, Inc. provides services related to
mental and behavioral health, substance abuse, employment,
developmental disabilities, child welfare, and other medical
issues.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua P. Wunderlich, Esq.
          Lauren H. Bridge, Esq.
          CORNERSTONE LAW FIRM
          5821 Northwest 72nd Street
          Kansas City, MO 64151
          Telephone: (816) 581-4040
          Facsimile: (816) 741-8889  
          E-mail: j.wunderlich@cornerstonefirm.com
                  l.bridge@cornerstonefirm.com

QUILL LINCOLNSHIRE: Barnes Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Toniah Barnes, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Quill Lincolnshire, Inc., Case No.
2022CA000441, was removed from the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, to
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on April
1, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:22-cv-00651 to the
proceeding.

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

Quill Corporation -- https://www.quill.com/ -- is an American
office supply retailer, founded in 1956, and headquartered in
Lincolnshire, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew Charles Luzadder, Esq.
          KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN, LLP
          333 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 857-2623
          Fax: (312) 857-7095
          Email: mluzadder@kelleydrye.com


RANGER UP LLC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ranger Up LLC. The
case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Ranger Up LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02659
(S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2022).

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

Ranger Up -- https://rangerup.com/ -- is the premium military
apparel brand in the USA.[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


RAO'S SPECIALTY FOODS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rao's Specialty
Foods, Inc. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rao's Specialty Foods,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02617 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2022).

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

Rao's Specialty Foods, Inc. -- https://www.raos.com/ -- produces
and distributes food products. The Company offers sauces, pasta,
marinades and dressings, oils and vinegars, roasted peppers,
vegetables, tomatoes, and other seasonal products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RESET IV LLC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reset IV LLC. The
case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Reset IV LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02667
(S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2022).

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

Reset IV -- https://resetiv.com/ -- is the leading on-demand IV
service in Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and South Florida.[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


RESOURCE REIT: Wilber Trust Shareholder Suit Ongoing in MD
----------------------------------------------------------
Resource REIT, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended January 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 25, 2022, that on February 7, 2022,
the Wilber Trust filed a class action complaint in the Circuit
Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (Karl R. Wilber et al. v. Alan
F. Feldman et al., Case No. 24-C-22-000531) against current and
former members of the company's board, C-III Capital Partners LLC,
and its subsidiary, RRE Legacy Co LLC alleging, among other things,
that the former REIT II directors breached their fiduciary duties
by approving the REIT I Merger given that the Self-Management
Transaction provided inadequate value to both REIT I and REIT II,
thus diluting the stock value of the purported class; that the
current Board failed to consider the value of the claims when
negotiating the proposed transaction with BREIT; and C-III and the
sponsor were unjustly enriched by the said transaction.

On June 17, 2021, stockholders Karl R. Wilber and Julia M. Wilber,
as co-trustees of the Karl R. and Julia M. Wilber Revocable Trust
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of the
company's predecessor entities arising from the Self-Management
Transaction and Resource REIT Mergers and demanding that the board
of directors take action to remedy such breaches.

On August 3, 2021, the company's board formed a special committee
to investigate the allegations. The special committee engaged
independent counsel and conducted a full investigation and, on
January 25, 2022, communicated to Wilber Trust its conclusion that
the claims had no merit and would not be pursued. Wilber Trust
seeks an unspecified award of compensatory damages and invalidation
of the stock consideration paid to C-III and the sponsor in the
Self-Management Transaction. Defendants' response is due on April
15, 2022.

Resource REIT, Inc. is a real estate investment trust in Maryland.


RETAIL ECOMMERCE: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retail Ecommerce
Ventures LLC. The case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Retail Ecommerce
Ventures LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01844-EK-RER (E.D.N.Y., April 1,
2022).

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

Retail Ecommerce Ventures --
https://www.retailecommerceventures.com/ -- create thriving online
stores where physical-first operations previously struggled.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


REZULT GROUP: Stallworth Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Meka Stallworth filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled Meka Stallworth, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE REZULT GROUP,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-00932, in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff brings this
complaint to recover unpaid overtime and other damages from the
Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from approximately December
2018 to April 2019 to perform various consulting and related
services.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours per week,
but they were not paid any overtime at the proper overtime rate at
one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all the hours
they worked in excess of 40. Instead, the Defendant paid them
straight-time-for-overtime in which they only receive regular
hourly rates for all hours worked.  

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Memorandum Opinion
and Order dated February 28, 2022, granting Defendant's motion for
judgment on the pleadings and dismissing the case without
prejudice. The Order further held that Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification and court-authorized notice is moot.

The appellate case is captioned as Meka Stallworth v. Rezult Group,
Inc., Case No. 22-5255, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit, filed on April 1, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MEKA STALLWORTH, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:

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

Defendant-Appellee REZULT GROUP, INC. is represented by:

          Ryan Loofbourrow, Esq.
          KLEIN SOLOMON MILLS
          1322 Fourth Avenue, N.
          Nashville, TN 37208
          Telephone: (615) 600-4780
          E-mail: ryan.loofbourrow@kleinpllc.com

RHYTHM OF LIFE CORP: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rhythm Of Life Corp.
The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Rhythm Of Life Corp., Case No.
1:22-cv-02718 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2022).

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

Rhythm of Life Corp., doing business as Broadway Dance Center --
https://www.broadwaydancecenter.com/ -- provides entertainment
services and is a dance school located in New York City.[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


RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Vincent Wong Reminds of May 6 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Attention Rivian Automotive, Inc. ("Rivian Automotive, Inc.")
(NASDAQ: RIVN) shareholders:

The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on April 4 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors. This lawsuit
is on behalf of investors that purchased or otherwise acquired
Rivian common stock pursuant and/or traceable to Rivian's initial
public offering on November 10, 2021 and/or between November 10,
2021, and March 10, 2022.

If you suffered a loss on your investment in Rivian Automotive,
Inc., contact us about potential recovery by using the link below.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/rivian-automotive-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=25454&wire=4

ABOUT THE ACTION: Documents issued in connection with the initial
public offering contained representations that were materially
inaccurate, misleading, and/or incomplete because they failed to
disclose, among other things, that the R1T electric pickup truck
and R1S electric SUV were underpriced to such a degree that Rivian
would have to raise prices shortly after the IPO and that these
price increases would tarnish Rivian's reputation as a trustworthy
and transparent company and would put a significant number of the
existing backlog of 55,400 preorders, along with future preorders,
in jeopardy of cancellation.

DEADLINE: May 6, 2022

Aggrieved Rivian Automotive, Inc. investors only have until May 6,
2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You
are not required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in
any recovery.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]

SAFEMOON LLC: Bronstein, Gewirtz Reminds of May 9 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against SafeMoon.

You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below
or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations
Analyst, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at
212-697-6484.

If you suffered a loss, you can request that the Court appoint you
as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in
directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm
of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential
future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

SafeMoon (SFM)
Class Period: March 8, 2021 - March 7, 2022
Deadline: May 9, 2022
For more info: ww.bgandg.com/sfm.

The complaint alleges that Defendants made false and misleading
statements concerning SafeMoon's growth prospects, financial
ownership, and financial benefits for SAFEMOON token investors, and
used celebrity promotors to lure in unsuspecting investors so that
SafeMoon insiders could sell off their holdings into artificially
created volume. [GN]

SAN JOSE, CA: Wins Bid to Toss Parts of Bohren's 4th Amended Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted in part
with leave to amend the Defendants' motion to dismiss parts of the
fourth amended complaint filed in the lawsuit entitled KEITH
BOHREN, Plaintiff v. SAN JOSE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-04529-BLF (N.D. Cal.).

In this case, Plaintiff Keith Bohren ("Roxanne") brings four claims
arising out of her alleged wrongful arrest. The Court previously
dismissed all claims against the County of Santa Clara with
prejudice and permitted the filing of an amended complaint against
the San Jose police Defendants.

The Defendants make three arguments in their motion to dismiss. The
Court considers each argument.

1. Second and Fourth Causes of Action.

The Defendants argue that the second and fourth causes of action --
a Section 1983 claim based on an alleged Fourteenth Amendment
violation and an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim
-- must be dismissed because the Plaintiff does not plead
nonconclusory facts supporting the elements of those claims. The
Plaintiff responds that the Court found that filing the third
amended complaint, which included these allegations, would not be
futile.

Judge Freeman finds that the Plaintiff's argument is nonresponsive.
The Court's finding that the amendments the Plaintiff sought to
make to these claims would not be futile was not a finding that the
Plaintiff's claim was adequately pled for purposes of Rule 8, and
the Court had not been presented with the arguments that the
Defendants have now made in a motion to dismiss those claims. The
Court has reviewed claims two and four and concurs with the
Defendants that the allegations remain too conclusory to support
either claim, and on that basis the Court will dismiss claims two
and four.

2. Additional Claims and Parties

The Defendants protest that the Plaintiff added the names of five
officers and appears to have added more claims against Officer
Avila (a previously named defendant), which the Defendants say
exceeds the scope of the Court's order permitting amendment. The
Plaintiff responds that the Defendants previously protested the use
of Doe defendants and cannot complain now that the Plaintiff has
added the actual names of the officers.

The Court agrees with the Plaintiff. While the Court's previous
order stated that the only permitted modification to the
Plaintiff's proposed third amended complaint was removal of the
claim asserted against the County of Santa Clara (which the Court
had dismissed with prejudice), the proposed third amended complaint
also named Doe defendants.

Judge Freeman opines that the Plaintiff's replacement of Doe
defendants with their actual names does not add additional parties,
as the Defendants contend. And contrary to the Defendants'
suggestions otherwise, the claims in the third amended complaint
that the Court approved for filing did reference the Doe defendants
in the paragraphs of each claim.

The Court declines to strictly interpret the causes of action based
solely on the caption -- which admittedly did not name the Doe
defendants -- when the Doe defendants are specifically named in the
paragraphs in the causes of action.

The Court, thus, denies the motion to dismiss the officers now
named as Defendants and previously named as Does. Because the Court
is giving leave to amend, in any subsequent motion to dismiss the
Defendants are not foreclosed from arguing that the Plaintiff has
impermissibly added new claims or parties to the amended complaint
(as opposed to merely assigning actual names to Doe defendants).

3. Class Action Allegations.

The Defendants ask the Court to strike the class allegations from
the complaint. The Plaintiff agrees and says that she will proceed
on an individual basis.

Accordingly, the class allegations are stricken. This case will
proceed as an individual action only.

* * *

Judge Freeman notes that the docket indicates that the Plaintiff's
former counsel has passed away and that new counsel has appeared
solely for the purpose of representing her in ongoing settlement
discussions. This leaves the Plaintiff without counsel to fully
litigate this case.

The Court also has concerns that the Plaintiff's representation
during the briefing on the motion to dismiss may not have been
fully adequate. Accordingly, the Court's dismissal of the second
and fourth claims will be with leave to amend to allow the
Plaintiff, when she obtains legal counsel, to pursue amendment of
those claims and capably oppose any motion to dismiss that follows
from the Defendants. Additionally, the Court will stay this case
for approximately 30 days and vacate the upcoming status conference
to allow the Plaintiff to secure full legal representation.

For these reasons, Judge Freeman rules that the Defendants' motion
to dismiss is granted in part with leave to amend as to the second
and fourth causes of action. The class allegations are stricken
with prejudice. The status conference scheduled for April 21, 2022
is vacated. This case is stayed until April 29, 2022, with the
exception of ongoing settlement discussions, to allow the Plaintiff
to obtain legal representation to litigate this case or to decide
to present herself pro se.

The Plaintiff will file a status report on April 29, 2022,
informing the Court whether she found legal representation. After
the Plaintiff secures legal representation, she may file an amended
complaint. The amended complaint may not exceed the scope of
amendment permitted by this order. Addition of new parties or
claims is not permitted without leave of Court or consent of the
Defendants. Any amended complaint will be filed within 21 days of
the Court lifting the stay.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated March 21, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc7bd5ea from Leagle.com.


SAN RAFAEL, CA: Homeless Camper Files Class Action Over Noise
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Rodriguez, writing for The Marine Independent Journal,
reports that a resident of the city-sanctioned homeless camp under
Highway 101 in San Rafael is suing the city and the California
Department of Transportation alleging that exposure to freeway
noise and pollution has led to hearing loss and risk of illness.

The class-action lawsuit cites statistics from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, which states the World Health
Organization recommends that noise exposure levels should not
exceed 70 decibels over a 24-hour period and 85 decibels over a
one-hour period to avoid hearing impairment. The CDC also says the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration recommends workers
should use hearing protection when exposed to 90 decibels or higher
during an eight-hour work day.

The suit cites a CDC report that links living in proximity to a
major road or highway with health effects such as asthma, chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease, respiratory symptoms and other
diseases.

The plaintiff, James Hellard, 49, alleges that the city has been
"forcing" him to live under the overpass for the past two years
because "living anywhere else means my survival gear will be
confiscated."

Using a sound meter app on his cellphone, he recorded vehicle noise
from the highway above measuring at 90 decibels and higher, the
suit says.

"I am currently suffering permanent hearing loss and am inhaling
dangerous amounts of freeway related gasoline exhaust due to
defendants willful and wanton disregard for my welfare," the suit
says.

Hellard seeks monetary relief for physical and emotional damages
and property loss, as well as the ability to camp elsewhere without
risk of having his belongings confiscated, according to the suit.
The suit also asks that campers receive adequate hygiene amenities,
earplugs and N-95 masks, among other provisions.

In an interview, Hellard said his ears ring because of the freeway
noise and that he has noticed that a film that covers the surfaces
of the camp area, and he believes it to be from exhaust. He
complained of pests, including rats, and said there is no running
water and the handwashing stations provided are not refilled with
water and soap often enough.

"Our lives are at risk," he said.

Robbie Powelson, a homeless activist assisting Hellard and other
residents, described the site as an "internment camp" and accused
officials of negligence and false imprisonment.

"The legal community needs rise up to represent victims so they can
receive just compensation and hold their persecutors accountable in
a class-action lawsuit," Powelson said. [GN]

SEE OPTICS: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Barnett Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami
Division, denies the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings and for Summary Judgment of Plaintiff's Complaint in the
lawsuit captioned JILLIAN BARNETT, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEE OPTICS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-20183-JLK (S.D. Fla.).

Background

On Dec. 1, 2021, Plaintiff Jillian Barnett filed her class action
Complaint in state court alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant sent an
unsolicited text message to her personal phone number promoting its
business despite being registered with the national "do-not-call
registry."

On Jan. 13, 2022, the Defendant removed the action to the Court
alleging federal question and supplemental jurisdiction. On Jan.
19, 2022, the Defendant filed its Answer and admits only that in
October 2021, a store manager employed by the Defendant in Florida
manually sent one text to the Plaintiff using the manager's
personal cell phone, but the Defendant denies as untrue the balance
of the allegations.

After the Defendant filed its Answer, the Court, as is its usual
practice, entered its Scheduling Order imposing a discovery
deadline of Feb. 1, 2023, motion practice deadline of Feb. 6, 2022,
and setting final pretrial conference for April 7, 2023, and jury
trial for June 20, 2023.

Discussion

The Defendant argues that among other things, to state a claim
under Section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA, a plaintiff must allege
receipt of more than one telephone call within any 12-month period
and because despite using the plural "calls" and "texts," the
Plaintiff only alleges one text message being sent on Oct. 15,
2021. Secondly, the Defendant argues that under the Florida
Telephone Solicitation Act, a person may not make or knowingly
allow a telephonic sales call to be made if such call involves an
automated system.

However, here, the Defendant provided an affidavit that alleges the
Defendant's store manager personally typed out the text message and
sent it from his personal cellphone without use of automation.

District Judge James Lawrence King says the Defendant's arguments
are well taken; however, parties still have about ten (10) months
to complete discovery.

Given that the Plaintiff's Complaint alleges the Defendant made
multiple "sales calls" and sent automated text messages, the Court
finds that the Plaintiff alleges sufficient facts to plausibly
state a claim and for discovery to proceed. The Defendant's
arguments that the Plaintiff has not provided evidence in support
of her claims are at this point premature and may be re-filed upon
conclusion of discovery.

Therefore, Judge King ruled that Defendant SEE Optics, Inc.'s
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and for Summary Judgment of
Plaintiff's Complaint be denied without prejudice as premature to
be raised after the conclusion of discovery.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated March 21, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4ph2apcd from Leagle.com.


SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Gabriele Files Certiorari Bid With Supreme Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Mark Gabriele, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of
United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled MARK GABRIELE AND JEN-FANG LEE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Petitioners v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 1000, ET AL., Respondents, Case No.
21-1300.

Response is due on April 28, 2022.

The Plaintiffs petition for a writ of certiorari to review the
judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit in the case titled MARK GABRIELE; JEN-FANG LEE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION,
LOCAL 1000; SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION,
Defendants-Appellees, and NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION OF THE
UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-16353.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on November 8, 2021, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs-Appellants' putative class
action.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Gabriele and Lee had appealed the district
court's dismissal of their putative class action brought against
Service Employees International Union Local 1000 and Service
Employees International Union. They seek declaratory and monetary
relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for agency fees collected from
paychecks in violation of the First Amendment. They also bring
common law conversion and restitution claims.

The Ninth Circuit held that the district court properly dismissed
Appellants' First Amendment claim, as it is established law in the
Circuit that a public sector union may "invoke an affirmative
defense of good faith to retrospective monetary liability under
section 1983" for agency fees it collected prior to the Supreme
Court's decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County &
Municipal Employees, Council 31, 138 S.Ct. 2448 (2018).

The Appellants' claim for prospective declaratory relief is moot,
the Ninth Circuit ruled. It explains that it is an inexorable
command of the United States Constitution that the federal courts
confine themselves to deciding actual cases and controversies. The
limitations that Article III imposes upon federal court
jurisdiction are not relaxed in the declaratory judgment context.
When the Supreme Court issued Janus, the Appellants' union stopped
collecting agency fees from non-union members. Shortly thereafter,
the California Attorney General issued an advisory opinion
explaining that the state "may no longer automatically deduct a
mandatory agency fee from the salary or wages of a non-member
public employee who does not affirmatively choose to financially
support the union."

Similarly, the Ninth Circuit held that state administrative agency
that enforces public employment collective bargaining statutes
stated that it "will no longer enforce existing statutory or
regulatory provisions requiring non-members to pay an agency fee
without having consented to such a fee." Accordingly, it held that
the conduct found unconstitutional in Janus has ceased and "could
not reasonably be expected to recur."

The district court also properly dismissed the Appellants' state
law claims, ruled the Ninth Circuit. It found that the collection
of agency fees was permitted by the Dills Act, California
Government Code Section 3513(k), 3515.7, 3515.8. The Appellants'
common law claims, asserting conversion and seeking restitution for
such collection, are inconsistent with the statute. Furthermore,
the common law claims are preempted.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners Mark Gabriele, et al., are
represented by:

          John J. Bursch, Esq.
          BURSCH LAW PLLC
          9339 Cherry Valley SE, #78
          Caledonia, MI 49316  
          Telephone: (616) 450-4235
          E-mail: jbursch@burschlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees-Respondents Service Employers International
Union Local 1000, et al., are represented by:

          Scott A. Kronland, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON, LLP
          177 Post Street Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108  
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          E-mail: skronland@altshulerberzon.com

SITE DESIGNS NYC: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Site Designs NYC
Corp. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Site Designs NYC
Corp., Case No. 1:22-cv-01794-AMD-RML (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2022).

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

Site Designs Nyc Corp. is located in Astoria, NY, United States and
is part of the Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical
Services Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SMARTSHEET INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in Washington Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Smartsheet Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
year ended January 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 25, 2022, that on January 29, 2021, a former
director, Ryan Hinkle, and Insight Venture Partners VII, L.P. and
certain affiliated entities that are former shareholders of the
company filed a complaint against Smartsheet in the Superior Court
of Washington, King County, for the advancement of legal fees,
costs, and expenses incurred in defending the purported class
action claim.

Smartsheet Inc. is an enterprise platform for dynamic work based in
Washington State.


STATE FARM: Rogowski Balks at Unfair Insurance Policy Deductions
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID M. ROGOWSKI, and JOYCE THOMAS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STATE FARM LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-00203-LMC (W.D. Mo.,
March 25, 2022) is a class action for breach of contract and
conversion brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of a class of Missouri
owners of the "Form 94030" life insurance product issued and
administered by Defendant.

According to the complaint, Form 94030 is a "universal life"
insurance policy, the terms of which provide for an "Account Value"
consisting of monies held in trust by Defendant for Plaintiffs and
members of the proposed class. The Defendant is contractually bound
to deduct from the Account Value only those charges that are
explicitly identified and authorized by the terms of its life
insurance policies, which are fully integrated agreements.

The Defendant allegedly deducts charges from the Account Values of
Plaintiffs and the proposed class in excess of amounts specifically
permitted by their policies. For decades, Defendant has
systematically deducted monies from the Account Values of its Form
94030 policy owners in breach of the policy's terms, asserts the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased from Defendant flexible premium adjustable
whole life insurance Form 94030 policies, bearing the policy number
LF-2135-4466 and LF-2083-6867, respectively.

State Farm Life Insurance Company is a life insurance company
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois, and
maintains its principal place of business in Bloomington,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John J. Schirger, Esq.
          Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
          Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq.
          MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC
          4520 Main Street, Suite 1570
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 561-6500
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com
                  mlytle@millerschirger.com
                  jfeierabend@millerschirger.com

               - and -

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          Bradley T. Wilders, Esq.
          Lindsay Todd Perkins, Esq.
          Ethan M. Lange, Esq.
          David A. Hickey, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 561-6501   
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                  wilders@stuevesiegel.com
                  perkins@stuevesiegel.com
                  lange@stuevesiegel.com
                  hickey@stuevesiegel.com

STOREBOUND LLC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Storebound LLC. The
case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Storebound LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02578
(S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2022).

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

StoreBound -- https://www.storebound.com/ -- is a product
innovation company that enables individual inventors, as well as
big brands, to bring new and innovative products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



SUNFLORA INC: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SunFlora, Inc. The
case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. SunFlora, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01797
(E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2022).

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

Sunflora, Inc. -- http://www.sunflora.org/-- is located in
Palmetto, Florida and is part of the Miscellaneous Nondurable Goods
Merchant Wholesalers Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUNRISE SENIOR: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Heredia Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrise Senior Living, LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Audrey Heredia, et al. v.
Sunrise Senior Living LLC, Case No. 8:18-cv-01974-JLS-JDE, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa
Ana.

This is a putative class action arising out of the alleged failure
of the Defendants to staff its assisted living facilities at levels
sufficient to provide the promised level of care to its residents.
The Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (SAC) brings three claims
against Sunrise: violation of the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act; violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; and
elder financial abuse.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on February 22, 2021, the
Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order denying without
prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and
denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend.

The Court said, "The Plaintiffs maintain that they made diligent
efforts during this time to seek new representatives. First,
Plaintiffs argue that Sunrise did not provide a list of putative
class members until December 30, 2019. The Plaintiffs drafted
communications to class members and began conducting interviews and
reviewing documents by March 2020. However, as a result of the
COVID-19 pandemic, such efforts were delayed, and the Plaintiffs
were "unable to locate suitable class representatives who had
signed the Sunrise arbitration agreement until July of 2020. The
Plaintiffs then notified Sunrise of their intent to seek leave to
file a further amended complaint on July 17, 2020, and filed the
instant motion on August 21, 2020. The Court acknowledges that the
COVID-19 pandemic likely made it more difficult for Plaintiffs to
conduct interviews with potential class representatives,
particularly in a case involving elderly class members residing in
assisted-living facilities. But this does not explain why the
Plaintiffs could not have sought an order modifying the Scheduling
Order for the same reasons months earlier -- and especially before
filing and fully briefing a motion for class certification. The
Plaintiffs fail to explain why they could not have sought an order
modifying the schedule at a much earlier point, instead of marching
forward with their motion for class certification with "blind faith
in [the named representatives'] adequacy."

On August 17, 2021, the Plaintiff filed an amended motion for class
certification.

On November 16, 2021, the Court entered an order denying
Defendants' motions to strike expert testimony and granting
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Defendants sought a review of this order in the appellate case
captioned as Sunrise Senior Living, LLC, et al. v. Audrey Heredia,
et al., Case No. 21-80121, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 1, 2021.

On April 1, 2022, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of
America's motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in
support of the petition for permission to appeal was granted. The
Petitioners' motion for leave to file a reply in support of the
petition was also granted. The court, in its discretion, granted
the petition for permission to appeal the District Court's November
16, 2021 order granting class action certification.

The new appellate case is captioned as Audrey Heredia, et al. v.
Sunrise Senior Living, LLC, et al., Case No. 22-55332, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on
April 1, 2022.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, LLC and SUNRISE
SENIOR LIVING MANAGEMENT, INC. are represented by:

          Bradley Joseph Hamburger, Esq.
          Michael J. Holecek, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
          333 S Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197

               - and -

          Michele L. Maryott, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612-4412
          Telephone: (949) 451-3945
          E-mail: mmaryott@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Jason C. Schwartz, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036-5306
          Telephone: (202) 955-8500
          E-mail: jschwartz@gibsondunn.com  

Plaintiffs-Respondents AUDREY HEREDIA, as successor-in-interest to
the Estate of Carlos Heredia; AMY FEARN, as successor-in-interest
to the Estate of Edith Zack; and HELEN GANZ, by and through her
Guardian ad Litem, Elise Ganz, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Robert S. Arns, Esq.
          Shounak S. Dharap, Esq.
          Robert C. Foss, Esq.
          ARNS LAW FIRM
          515 Folsom Street, 3rd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 495-7800
          E-mail: ddl@arnslaw.com

               - and -

          Sarah Colby, Esq.
          George Nobuo Kawamoto, Esq.
          STEBNER & ASSOCIATES
          870 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 362-9800
          E-mail: sscolby@schneiderwallace.com
                  george@stebnerassociates.com   

               - and -

          Julie Erickson, Esq.
          ERICKSON KRAMER OSBORNE, LLP
          44 Tehama Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 635-0631

               - and -

          Mark T. Johnson, Esq.
          Guy B. Wallace, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY, LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          E-mail: gwallace@schneiderwallace.com  

               - and -

          W. Timothy Needham, Esq.
          Megan Yarnall, Esq.
          JANSSEN MALLOY LLP
          730 Fifth Street
          P.O. Drawer 1288
          Eureka, CA 95501
          Telephone: (707) 445-2071
          E-mail: tneedham@janssenlaw.com  

               - and -

          Michael D. Thamer, Esq.
          MICHAEL D. THAMER LAW OFFICES
          12444 South Highway 3
          P.O. Box 1568
          Callahan, CA 96014
          Telephone: (530) 467-5307
          E-mail: michael@trinityinstitute.com

T-MOBILE US: Faces Class Suit in Florida Over Debt Collection Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AccountsRecovery.net reports that a class-action complaint has been
filed in Florida against a cell phone carrier and the vendors and
third parties it uses to place outbound calls, alleging violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making more than 50
debt collection calls using an automated telephone dialing service
to a wrong number, after being informed that the defendant had the
wrong phone number.

The case is styled Smith v. T-Mobile et al.

The plaintiff -- Brad Smith -- answered his cell phone in February
and was greeted with an artificial or pre-recorded voice that said,
"this call is for Kimberly Hemmerly . . ." The voice indicated that
a live agent could be reached by pressing "0" on his phone, so the
plaintiff did that. The plaintiff notified the representative of
the defendant that the defendant was calling the wrong number in
trying to find Kimberly Hemmerly and that the "misguided" calls
cease, according to the complaint.

Two weeks later, the plaintiff answered his phone, again to hear
the same pre-recorded or artificial voice asking for Kimberly
Hemmerly. Again, the plaintiff pressed "0" to speak with a
representative, informed the representative that the defendant had
called the wrong number, and asked for the calls to stop.

The defendant allegedly made "no less than 50 misguided robocalls"
to the plaintiff's cell phone, even though the plaintiff had never
provided his cell phone number to the defendant.

The plaintiff is seeking to include anyone in the United States who
received calls on their cell phones using an artificial or
pre-recorded voice that attempted to contact a third party without
the proper consent. [GN]

T-MOBILE US: Hit With TCPA Class Action Lawsuit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
lawstreetmedia.com reports that a Florida man has filed suit
against T-Mobile USA Inc. and unknown defendants whom the wireless
carrier allegedly engages as third party vendors or agents to place
outbound calls on its behalf. The suit states a sole Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) claim on behalf of all people in the
United States who received a call on their cell phone from T-Mobile
or its agents using a pre-recorded message without their consent in
the last four years.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs started receiving
unwanted robocalls in February 2022. The calls to his personal cell
phone attempted to collect an alleged debt and were made by an
unknown individual by the name of "Kimberly Hemmerly."

The complaint describes the calls as an artificial or pre-recorded
voice greeting as it was "monotone and Plaintiff would not get a
response when he spoke." The plaintiff tried to investigate the
calls by seeking further information from a live representative.
During that call, he allegedly asked that T-Mobile cease its
misguided dials, yet the request "fell on deaf ears."

T-Mobile thus continued to "pound" the plaintiff with unsolicited
calls, tallying no less than 50 in total. The complaint alleges
that the calls invaded the plaintiff's life and privacy, and that
each time he received one it resulted in accompanying wear and tear
to his cell phone, mental anguish, and "increased risk of personal
injury resulting from the distraction."

The filing also asks that the court certify the case as a
nationwide class action and for damages of up to $1,500 per wilful
violation. The plaintiff is represented by Sulaiman Law Group Ltd.
[GN]

T-MOBILE USA: Smith Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Brad M. Smith, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., John
Does 1-10, Case No. 8:22-cv-00748-KKM-TGW (M.D. Fla., March 31,
2022).

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

T-Mobile US, Inc. -- http://www.t-mobile.com/-- is an American
wireless network operator majority owned by German
telecommunications company Deutsche Telekom, which holds 64.78% of
the common stock.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander J. Taylor, Esq.
          NATIONAL LITIGATION LAW GROUP, LLP
          2401 Northwest 23rd Street, Suite 42
          Oklahoma City, OK 73107
          Phone: (630) 366-0140
          Email: ataylor@nationlit.com


TACK ROOM INC: Guerrero Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tack Room, Inc. The
case is styled as Edelmira Guerrero, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Tack Room, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02585 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2022).

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

Tack Room, Inc. -- https://www.tackroominc.com/ -- tack shop in
Vicksburg, Union County, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


TASKUS INC: Vincent Wong Reminds of April 25 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Attention Taskus, Inc. ("Taskus") (NASDAQ: TASK) shareholders:

The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on April 4 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased
between June 11, 2021 and January 19, 2022.

If you suffered a loss on your investment in Taskus, contact us
about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost
or obligation to you.

https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/taskus-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=25447&wire=4

ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Taskus includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) TaskUs
was experiencing severe financial strain and business challenges,
particularly with its most important customer, Facebook; (2) the
Content Security market was smaller than defendants represented and
defendants' representations were based on outdated market data; (3)
TaskUs improperly recognized revenue from certain key contracts;
(4) defendants overstated the size of TaskUs' workforce as well as
employee retention rates, and understated attrition rates; and (5)
as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

DEADLINE: April 25, 2022

Aggrieved Taskus investors only have until April 25, 2022 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not
required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any
recovery.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]

THURSO SURF: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thurso Surf LLC. The
case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Thurso Surf LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02571 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2022).

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

Thurso Surf -- https://thursosurf.com/ -- offers high-quality
inflatable stand up paddle boards, surf boards, accessories &
more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TIE BAR OPERATING: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Tie Bar Operating
Company, LLC. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. The Tie Bar Operating
Company, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02663 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2022).

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

Tie Bar -- https://www.thetiebar.com/ -- is your one-stop
destination for designer menswear with quality made ties, bow ties,
men's dress shirts, socks, tie bars & more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TMC THE METALS CO: Faces Caper Shareholder Suit in E.D. N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
TMC The Metals Company Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2022, that on October 28,
2021, a shareholder filed a putative class action against the
Company and certain executives in federal district court for the
Eastern District of New York, styled "Caper v. TMC The Metals
Company Inc. (formerly Sustainable Opportunities Acquisition
Corp.), Gerard Barron and Scott Leonard."

The complaint alleges that all defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange
Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Messrs. Barron
and Leonard violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making
false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose
information about the company's operations and prospects during the
period from March 4, 2021 and October 5, 2021.

TMC is a deep-sea minerals exploration company focused on the
collection, processing and refining of polymetallic nodules found
on the seafloor in international waters of the Clarion Clipperton
Zone, about 1,300 nautical miles south-west of San Diego,
California.


TMC THE METALS CO: Faces Tran Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------
TMC The Metals Company Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2022, that on November 15,
2021, a complaint captioned "Tran v. TMC the Metals Company, Inc."
was filed alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

TMC is a deep-sea minerals exploration company focused on the
collection, processing and refining of polymetallic nodules found
on the seafloor in international waters of the Clarion Clipperton
Zone, about 1,300 nautical miles south-west of San Diego,
California.


TOOLS OF MARKETING: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tools of Marketing
Inc. The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Tools of Marketing Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02666 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2022).

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

Tools of Marketing -- https://www.toolsofmarketing.com/ --
specializes in promotional products, wearables, and
fulfillment.[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


TRIP MATE: Rivard Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Francis Rivard filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled FRANCIS RIVARD, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRIP MATE, INC., and
UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-01625-JHR, in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

This is a class action filed on February 1, 2021, for damages and
restitution against Trip Mate, Inc. and United States Fire
Insurance Company arising from their alleged wrongful conduct
towards Plaintiff and other similarly situated insurance
policyholders. The Plaintiff, and the Class he seeks to represent:
(1) purchased a travel protection plan from Trip Mate which
included an array of travel-related protections offering coverage
for both pre- and post-departure perils; (2) whose insured travel
plans were cancelled prior to departure; and (3) did not receive
any pro rata refund for that portion of the gross policy premium
which was paid exclusively for post-departure coverages that were
unearned by Defendants because of the cancellation of those trips.
The Plaintiff and the Class he seeks to represent have suffered
injury in the form of monetary loss and other harms because they
paid premiums for insurance coverages that could not materialize
due to cancellation of their trips. Defendants were never exposed
to, or assumed, any transferred risk of loss, says the suit.

On March 30, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss which
the Court granted on February 28, 2022, through and Order and
Opinion signed by Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez.

The Plaintiff is seeking a review of the Court's dismissal order.

The appellate case is captioned as Francis Rivard v. Trip Mate Inc,
et al., Case No. 22-1554, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, filed on March 30, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant FRANCIS RIVARD, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          John Albanese, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE
          1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
          Minneapolis, MN 55413

               - and -

          John Albanese, Esq.
          Peter R. Kahana, Esq.
          Amey J. Park, Esq.
          Yechiel M. Twersky, Esq.  
          BERGER MONTAGUE
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-4629

Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE CO is represented
by:

          Markham R. Leventhal, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT
          1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 400 West
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 965-8189
          E-mail: mleventhal@carltonfields.com

UNINTERRUPTED LLC: Jaquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uninterrupted, LLC.
The case is styled as Ramon Jaquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Uninterrupted, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02660 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2022).

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

UNINTERRUPTED -- https://www.uninterrupted.com/ -- is an athlete
empowerment brand founded by LeBron James and Maverick Carter.[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


UNIQURL LLC: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uniqurl LLC. The case
is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Uniqurl LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02572-PGG-GWG
(S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2022).

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

Uniqurl -- https://uniqurl.com/ -- is a leave-in conditioner,
moisturizer, curl cream, and Detangler all rolled into one
convenient jar.[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


UNITED RENTALS: Sued for Denying Job to Medical Marijuana Patient
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK DEWBERRY, Plaintiff v. UNITED RENTALS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:22-cv-00077-DPM (E.D. Ark., March 28, 2022) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, against the Defendant for denying employment in
a position not designated in writing as safety-sensitive solely
because of his medical marijuana use away from work, in direct
contravention of Amendment 98 to the Arkansas Constitution.

According to the complaint, the Defendant intentionally did not
proceed with Plaintiff's employment because of his medical
marijuana patient status despite their knowledge of the law
prohibiting such discrimination and knowledge of Plaintiff's status
as a qualifying Plaintiff.

Mr. Dewberry applied for an inside sales representative position
with Defendant in November 2021.

United Rentals, Inc. is an equipment rental company operating a
network of locations in the United States and Canada.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris Burks, Esq.
          WHLAW | WE HELP
          1 Riverfront Pl. Suite 745      
          North Little Rock, AR 72114
          Telephone: (501) 891-6000
          E-mail: chris@wh.la

USA WASTE-MANAGEMENT: Marcaurel Appeals Data Breach Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Janie Marcaurel, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled JANIE MARCAUREL, SHELBY
INGRAM and NOLAN BRODIE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. USA WASTE-MANAGEMENT RESOURCES,
LLC, and WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-06199-UA, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought
against the Defendants for negligence, breach of implied contract,
breach of confidence, invasion of privacy, breach of fiduciary
duty, and violations of California's Consumer Privacy Act,
California's Unfair Competition Law, and California's Customer
Records Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees following a
data breach between January 21 and 23, 2021. Moreover, the
Defendants failed to provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice
to the Plaintiffs and Class members that their PII had been lost
and precisely what types of information was unencrypted and in the
possession of unknown third parties. As a result of the Defendants'
failure to provide reasonable and adequate data security, the
Plaintiffs' and the Class members' unencrypted, non-redacted PII
has been exposed to unauthorized third parties. They are now at a
much higher risk of identity theft and vulnerable to cybercrimes of
all kinds, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Judgment dated
February 24, 2022, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss, closing
the case.

The appellate case is captioned as In Re Waste Management Data
Breach Litigation, Case No. 22-641, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 25, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Janie Marcaurel, Shelby Ingram, Nolan Brodie,
Mark Krezner, Gabriel Fierro, Gerald Davis, Mary J. Fusilier,
Clifford Harris, Andrew Kantack, Miguel Montelongo, Steven Dudley,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4761
          E-mail: guiney@whafh.com

Defendant-Appellee USA Waste-Management Resources, LLC is
represented by:

          Elizabeth Scott, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          2300 North Field Street
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 969-4297
          E-mail: edscott@akingump.com

VESTED BUSINESS: Gomez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vested Business
Brokers LTD. The case is styled as Samuel Gomez, and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Vested Business Brokers
LTD., Case No. 1:22-cv-02707 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2022).

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

Vested Business Brokers -- https://www.vestedbb.com/ -- is a
full-service Merger and Acquisition/Business Brokerage
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
          155 East 55th St., Ste. 6a
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: brad@markslawpc.com


WALGREEN CO: Court Awards Julian's Counsel $76.4K in Fees & Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOY ANN JULIAN, as an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALGREEN CO.,
an Illinois corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-09446-VC (N.D. Cal.), the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California approves an award of
attorneys' fees for $68,750 and costs for $7,697.

District Judge Vince Chhabria finds that the hourly rates claimed
by Class Counsel are reasonable and appropriate and consistent with
the rates charged in the Northern District of California for
attorneys with similar qualifications, skills, and experience. The
hours expended on the litigation also are reasonable. Given the
amount of work required in this case, the Court finds no reason to
depart from the Ninth Circuit's "benchmark" of 25 percent of the
recovery.

Accordingly, the Court approves an award of attorneys' fees in the
amount of $68,750 and costs in the amount of $7,697.30. The Court
orders that 10% of the attorneys' fees or $6,875, be held by the
Settlement Administrator until after the Post-Distribution
Accounting has been filed. This 10% hold-back is equitable in this
case as the Plaintiff's counsel's lodestar far exceeds the
attorneys' fees awarded. The remaining $61,875 of attorneys' fees
and $7,697.30 in costs will be released within the time frames set
out in the Settlement Agreement to be distributed by the Settlement
Administrator among Class Counsel as necessary.

The request for a class representative service payment to Plaintiff
Joy Aim Julian is reasonable given the risks the Plaintiff took and
the amount of time the Plaintiff spent in conjunction with
prosecuting this case. The requested amount is also within the
range of such awards approved in similar cases.

Accordingly, the Court approves the request for a class
representative service payment in the amount of $5,000 to be paid
within the time frames set out in the Settlement Agreement care of
Diversity Law Group, P.C.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated March 21, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ymhthfd9 from Leagle.com.

Howard L. Magee -- hmagee@diversitylaw.com -- Larry W. Lee --
lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- Simon L. Yang -- sly@diversitylaw.com --
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C., in Los Angeles, California.

William L. Marder -- bill@polarislawgroup.com -- POLARIS LAW GROUP,
in Hollister, California.

Dennis S. Hyun -- dhyun@hyunlegal.com -- HYUN LEGAL, APC, in Los
Angeles, California, Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class.


WAREHOUSE-LIGHTING: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Warehouse-Lighting
Com LLC. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Warehouse-Lighting Com
LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-02616 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2022).

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

Warehouse-Lighting COM LLC -- https://www.warehouse-lighting.com/
-- provides LED lighting fixtures and related products for
industrial, commercial, architectural and residential
applications.[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


WEBGROUP CZECH: Doe Appeals Case Dismissal, Reconsideration Rulings
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jane Doe filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit styled JANE DOE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly  situated v. WebGroup Czech Republic, as, WGCZ Holding,
as, WGCZ Limited, sro, NKL  Associates sro, Traffic F, sro, GTFlix
TV, sro, FTCP, sro, VS Media, Inc., HC Media, sro, HC Multimedia
LLC, FBP Media sro, Serverstack, Inc., Digital Ocean Holdings,
Inc., and Digital Ocean, LLC f/k/a/ Digital Ocean, Inc., STEPHANE
MICHAEL PACAUD, DEBORAH MALORIE PACAUD, Case No. 2:21-cv-02428, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this class
action complaint is brought against the Defendants who financially
benefited from, or otherwise participated in, a sex trafficking
venture in which the Plaintiff was a victim.

The Plaintiff, who was under 18 years of age at the time of
filming, was depicted in commercial sex acts and child pornography,
which was then made available for viewing on websites owned or
operated by the Defendants. This violated, among other laws, the
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, says the suit.

The Plaintiff and the proposed class are victims and survivors of
childhood sex trafficking who had videos and images of their
childhood sex trafficking sold and/or distributed on websites
owned, operated, managed and controlled by Defendants. Defendants
have exploited this child sexual abuse material for profit.
Moreover, the Defendants, on their websites, created, organized,
and disseminated images and videos that depict child sexual abuse,
often referred to as child pornography. Each of these images and
videos are crime scenes the Defendants monetized, adds the suit.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated January
13, 2022, granting Defendants' motions to dismiss, and Court's
Order dated February 25, 2022, granting in part Plaintiff's motion
for reconsideration and denying in part the motion as to
overturning the order dismissing Plaintiff's claims against the
Foreign Defendants, as well as granting the motion as to amending
the order to dismiss the claims without prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned as Jane Doe v. WebGroup Czech
Republic, a.s., et al., Case No. 22-55315, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 30, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Jane Doe Mediation Questionnaire was due on April
6, 2022;

   -- Appellant Jane Doe opening brief is due on May 31, 2022;

   -- Appellees Digital Ocean Holdings, Inc., Digital Ocean, LLC,
FBP Media, s.r.o., FTCP, s.r.o., GTFlix TV, s.r.o., HC Media,
s.r.o., HC Multimedia LLC, NKL Associates, s.r.o., Deborah Malorie
Pacaud, Stephane Michael Pacaud, Serverstack, Inc., Traffic F,
s.r.o., VS Media, Inc., WGCZ Holding, a.s., WGCZ Limited, s.r.o.
and WebGroup Czech Republic, a.s. answering brief is due on July 1,
2022; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant JANE DOE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Benjamin W. Bull, Esq.
          Peter Andrew Gentala, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER ON SEXUAL EXPLOITATION
          1201 F Street, NW Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 393-7245

Defendants-Appellees WEBGROUP CZECH REPUBLIC, A.S.; WGCZ HOLDING,
A.S.; WGCZ LIMITED, S.R.O.; NKL ASSOCIATES, S.R.O.; TRAFFIC F,
S.R.O.; GTFLIX TV, S.R.O.; FTCP, S.R.O.; VS MEDIA, INC.; HC MEDIA,
S.R.O.; HC MULTIMEDIA LLC; FBP MEDIA, S.R.O.; STEPHANE MICHAEL
PACAUD; DEBORAH MALORIE PACAUD; SERVERSTACK, INC.; DIGITAL OCEAN
HOLDINGS, INC.; and DIGITAL OCEAN, LLC, FKA Digital Ocean, Inc.,
are represented by:

          Michael Ernest Williams, Esq.
          Michael Thomas Zeller, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          865 S Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 443-3251

               - and -

          Victor Hao-Jan Jih, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          633 W 5th Street, Suite 1550
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (323) 210-2900

               - and -

          Brian M. Willen, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 999-5800

WESTCHESTER JEWISH: Cherner Appeals Case Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Dan Cherner filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled DAN CHERNER, on his own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTCHESTER JEWISH
COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC., and KATHLEEN MCKAY, Defendants, Case No.
7:20-cv-08331-CS, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

In May 2016, the Plaintiff filed for custody of his children in New
York State Family Court, and filed an Amended Petition on August
30, 2016. On September 29, 2016, the Family Court appointed
Defendant McKay, a psychologist employed by or affiliated with
Defendant WJCS to perform a forensic evaluation of Plaintiff and
his family to assist in the determination of custody issues. The
Plaintiff alleges that he "and the other party were ordered to pay
defendant McKay $7,500 each - in other words, the court decided
that this was a 'private pay' matter as opposed to the court system
paying for the evaluation." The Plaintiff challenges the timing,
methods, content and conclusions of McKay's evaluation.

In November 2017, the New York State Family Court "issued a final
order giving [Plaintiff] primary physical custody of his children."


The Plaintiff brings this action against McKay, the court-appointed
forensic evaluator, and WJCS, McKay's employer. The Plaintiff
asserts that the Defendants interfered with and violated his right
by refusing to comply with the court's order, and, specifically, by
refusing and failing to observe Mr. Cherner's children with each
parent and by deliberately delaying completion of their assignment
in violation of the court's order.

On June 28-29, 2021, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Plaintiff's first amended complaint which the Court granted through
an Opinion and Order dated February 28, 2022 signed by Judge Cathy
Seibel, and Judgment dated March 1, 2022.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the dismissal order.

The appellate case is captioned as Cherner v. Westchester Jewish
Community Services, Inc., Case No. 22-642, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on March 25,
2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Dan Cherner, on his own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, appears pro se.

Defendants-Appellees Westchester Jewish Community Services, Inc.
and Kathleen McKay are represented by:

          Daniel William Milstein, Esq.
          AARONSON RAPPAPORT FEINSTEIN & DEUTSCH, LLP
          600 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 593-5366
          E-mail: dwmilstein@arfdlaw.com

               - and -

          Michelle Ashley Frankel, Esq.
          MARTIN CLEARWATER & BELL LLP
          220 East 42nd Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 697-3122
          E-mail: michelle.frankel@mcblaw.com

WESTFIELD NATIONAL: Undervalues Total Loss Claims, Tracer Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CORRY TRACER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WESTFIELD NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an
Ohio corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02064-CSB-EIL (C.D.
Ill., March 25, 2022) is a class action on behalf of Plaintiff and
all other similarly situated claimants in Illinois who received a
payment for the loss of a totaled vehicle from Defendant, where
Defendant used valuation reports prepared by Mitchell
International, Inc. to determine the actual cash value of the loss
vehicles.

According to the complaint, the Defendant systemically thumbs the
scale when calculating the actual cash value of claimants' loss
vehicles by applying so-called "Projected Sold Adjustments" that
are: (a) deceptive and unexplained; (b) contrary to appraisal
standards and methodologies; (c) not based in fact, as they are
contrary to the used car industry's market pricing and inventory
management practices; and (d) not applied by the major competitor
of Defendant's vendor Mitchell.

Through Defendant's deceptive, fraudulent, and unfair scheme, the
Defendant violated consumer protection laws, including the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, breached its
contracts and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing with its
insureds, and was unjustly enriched, asserts the complaint.

Mr. Tracer, at all relevant times, was an Illinois citizen. At all
relevant times, the Plaintiff was contracted with Westfield for
automobile insurance. On November 13, 2019, the Plaintiff was in a
car wreck and Defendant deemed his vehicle to be a total loss.

Westfield National Insurance Company is an Ohio-based company which
provides insurance coverage throughout the United States for
first-party property damage under collision and/or comprehensive
coverage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299   
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          Christopher Gold, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                  chris@edelsberglaw.com

WINE CELLAR GROUP: Williams Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Wine Cellar
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Milton Williams, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated v. The Wine Cellar
Group, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02657 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2022).

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

The Wine Cellar Group -- https://www.thewinecellargroup.com/ --
source exceptional quality, boutique style wines from family-run
vineyards all over the world.[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


XOCHITL INC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Xochitl, Inc. The
case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Xochitl, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02618
(S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2022).

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

Xochitl, Inc. -- https://xochitlchipsandsalsa.com/ -- is a Chips
and Salsa Company founded in Dallas, Texas.[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


[*] JALA Receives $51K Cy pres Award from Class Action Proceeds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Max Marbut, writing for Jacksonville Daily Record, reports that
Jacksonville Area Legal Aid received a $51,356 cy pres award from
the proceeds of a federal class-action lawsuit in which it was
determined the plaintiff patients were improperly billed by a
hospital.

Under cy pres doctrine, the courts can approve a charitable
donation out of unclaimed class action funds.

Jim Kowalski, JALA CEO, said the award will support the public
service law firm's work, including consumer protection.

"We are extremely grateful to the attorneys as well as the judge in
this case. We hope this inspires others involved in class action
litigation to consider JALA as a recipient for future cy pres
awards," Kowalski said.

The French term cy pres means "as near as possible." The legal
doctrine is applied in class-action cases in which full restitution
to all injured parties is impossible or unfeasible, such as when
the amount of damage per person is insignificant, even though the
aggregate damages are large.

Legal aid programs often are the beneficiaries of cy pres awards,
as the work they do benefits people who cannot afford to hire an
attorney but face civil legal issues like those of the class from
which the award was derived.

JALA's mission is to provide high-quality legal assistance to
low-income and other special-need groups. [GN]

[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 2 - Be A Sponsor
------------------------------------------------------------------
Beard Group, Inc. is hosting the 6th Annual Class Action Money &
Ethics Conference on Monday, May 2nd.

The conference will be held in person at The Harmonie Club in
Manhattan.  Major sponsors include Baird Mandalas Brockstedt LLC,
and Schochor, Federico and Staton, P.A.

Sponsorship opportunities remain available.

For sponsorship options and details, contact:

     Bernard Toliver, CMP
     Tel: (240) 629-3300 ext. 149
     E-mail: bernard@beardgroup.com

For more conference information, visit us at
https://www.classactionconference.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 ***