/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220413.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, April 13, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 68

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Andrews Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Bell Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Cronkhite Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Green Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Hughes Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF

3M COMPANY: Lancelin Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Manresa Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Morgan Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Palmer Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Rubin Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF

3M COMPANY: Smith Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: White Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
ADT LLC: Court Grants in Part Omnibus Bid in Limine in Doty Suit
AEGIS FINANCIAL: Faces Darvish Class Suit Over Unwanted Phone Calls
AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Whitcomb Sues Over 32% Decline of Stock Price

AGA SERVICE: Charges Consumers Unlawful Add-on Fees, Tasakos Says
AKI JAPANESE: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Chen Suit Alleges
AMAZON.COM INC: Falcon LLC Sues Over Improper Business Practices
AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Stuart Says
AMTEL LLC: Employee Class Gets Conditional Status in Hafley Suit

AT&T MOBILITY: Court Tosses Allen Bid for Class Certification
BAPTIST HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mitchell Suit Claims
BAUER HOCKEY: Barber Seeks Conditional FLSA Class Certification
BIG KO-KO INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chae Suit Alleges
BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing

BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Denial of Arbitration in B.D. Suit Reversed
BLOOM ENERGY: Everett, et al. Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class
BRAHAMPUTRA LLC: Lamb Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action
BRLLC: Progressive Seeks Leave to File Class Certification Bid
BUCCANEERS LTD: $19.75MM Class Settlement in Cin-Q Wins Prelim. Nod

C & G TWINS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Moreno Suit Alleges
CALIBER HOME: Class Action Settlement in Phillips Wins Final Nod
CALIFORNIA: Denial of Fletcher's Bid for TRO v. DSH Recommended
CANTERBURY AT CEDAR: Faces Martino Suit Over Wrongful Death
CANTERBURY AT CEDAR: Fails to Take Steps Against COVID, Suit Says

CASE WESTERN: Scheduling Order Revised in Lozada Class Suit
CELSION CORPORATION: Faces Fiddler Securities Suit in NJ Court
CELULARITY INC: Rogalla Securities Suit Voluntarily Discontinued
CELULARITY INC: Spero Securities Suit Voluntarily Discontinued
CHAMPION PETFOODS: Pusillo, Callan's Opinions Barred in Zarinebaf

CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Ramos Suit Seeks Hourly Worker's Unpaid Wages
CIRCLE K STORES: Medina Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
COFFEYVILLE RESOURCES: Scheduling Order Entered in El Dorado Suit
CRISP MARKETING: Snyder Sues Over Illegal Prerecorded Messages
CROWN FRIED: Faces Hormozzadeh Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages

CURIS PHARMACY: Katz Seeks to Certify Class in "Fax Ads" Suit
DONALD J TRUMP: Newman to File Letter on Bid to Intervene in Denson
ELANCO ANIMAL: Court Won't Strike Exhibits to Hunter Dismissal Bid
ELECTRIC LAST: Faces Fontaine Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
EMERY FEDERAL: Brown RESPA Suit Moved From D. Md. to S.D. Ohio

EVANSTON, IL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Capesius Suit Alleges
EVERBRIDGE INC: Sylebra Capital Sues Over Share Price Drop
EVMO INC: Faces Hamlin Securities Suit in CA Court
EVMO INC: Faces Koch Securities Suit in California
EVMO INC: Settlement in Principle Reached in Rung Suit

EVMO INC: Settlement in Principle Reached in Vanbecelaere Suit
FEIN & SUCH: Conditional Status of Settlement Class in Perez Sought
FIRST FEDERAL: Faces Rivera Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
FOUNTAINHEAD COMMERCIAL: Final Judgment Entered in Elizabeth Suit
FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hughes Alleges

FSD PHARMA: Settlement Deal in Securities Suit Gets Court OK
GIANT COMPANY: Hobert Class Suit Seeks Proper Overtime Premiums
GODIVA CHOCOLATIER: Huang May Attend Fairness Hearing in Hesse Suit
GOLD MINE: Kim Suit Seeks Overtime Wages for Employees Under FLSA
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Lewis, et al. Win Class Certification Bid

HELVEY & ASSOCIATES: Faces Ortiz Suit Over Unfair Collection Letter
HOLTZMAN ENTERPRISES: German Seeks Certification of Class, Subclass
IBERDROLA SA: Deadline to File Class Status Bid Extended to July 1
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces Adam Suit Over Drop in Share Price
JIN HUA TRADING: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, Garcia Class Suit Says

JOHN KELLY: Court Sets Pretrial Deadlines in Morales Class Suit
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Henderson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Workers
JP MORGAN: Nypl Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial in Antitrust Suit
KNIX WEAR: Menstrual Underwear Contains PFAS, Rivera Suit Says
KROGER CO: Bid to Dismiss White's First Amended Complaint Denied

LAKEVIEW LOAN: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Kunz Suit Says
LAWPRACTICECLE LLC: Goren Loses Bid for Summary Judgment
LHOIST NORTH: Initial OK of Settlement Denied w/o Prejudice
LINA VIVAS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Smith Suit Alleges
LUCID GROUP: Faces Mangino Suit Over 13% Drop of Stock Price

MANHATTAN FOOD: Mercedes Files Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming
MATALCO (US) INC: Ray Sues Over Production Staff's Unpaid OT
MATCH GROUP: Seeks Extension to File Class Certification Response
MATRIX ABSENCE: Heckle Seeks to Certify Class
MBM BUSINESS: Faces Tabai Suit Over Unsolicited Sales Calls

MEDICAL REVIEW: More Time to Respond to Class Action Sought
NEW MULAN: Xochitemol Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
NRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Dal Bosco Suit Over COVID Meds
OTTATI FOODS: Faces Franco Suit Over Employment Discrimination
OXYGEN XL: Faces McDougle Suit Over Debt Collection Practices

PEPSICO INC: Ellis Seeks Unpaid OT Wages for Workers Under NJSWHL
PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Faces Felipe Suit Over Drop in Share Price
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Mislabels Vehicle Horsepower, Artoff Alleges
PRO CUSTOM: Loses Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Niemczyk Suit
REKOR SYSTEMS: Miller Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed

RELIASTAR LIFE: COI & Rider Classes in Advance Trust Suit Certified
REVMD PARTNERS: Faces Zambrano Suit Over Collection of Biometrics
S&A SOLUTIONS INC: Faces Messina Suit Over FCRA Violations
SAINT-GOBAIN: Brown Class Status Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
SHUTTERFLY LLC: Advertises False "Original" Price, Rivali Claims

SOHO MASONS: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, Rios Class Suit Says
STAR PROTECTION: Faces Sharpe Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Telesco Sues Over Coffee's Servings Label
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Must Produce Sales Data, Value Drug Says
TAYLOR-MADE FLOORS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Remmen Alleges

TOM OLIVER: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Betras Suit Alleges
TR CHICAGO: Sanders Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT for Hotel Staff
TRINITY HEALTH: Doe Suit Remanded to Fresno County Superior Court
UNITED STATES: FBOP Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Hallinan Suit
UNIVERSAL NAVIGATION: Risley Sues Over Fraud at Uniswap Protocol

URBAN OUTFITTERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Krueger Suit Alleges
V.F. CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arasa Suit Alleges
VICTORIA'S SECRET: Appeal in Lizama Suit Pending in 8th Cir.
VISCIANO BROTHERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Esposito Alleges
VONS COMPANIES: Faces Germaine Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages

WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Fails to Pay OT Wages After Kronos Hack
WILLIAMS & FUDGE: Faces Meccia Suit Over Illegal Collection Letter
[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 2 - Register Now

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Andrews Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCIS ANDREWS and DOREEN ANDREWS, his wife v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE,
LTD., CORTEVA, 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, 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-01111-RMG (D.S.C., April 6, 2022) seeks damages for
personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, 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.

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. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

The Plaintiffs seek 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 the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Andrews suit has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Bell Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-----------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM BELL and SUSAN BELL, his wife v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE,
LTD., CORTEVA, 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, 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-01105-RMG (D.S.C., April 6, 2022) seeks damages for
personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, 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.

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. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

The Plaintiffs seek 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 the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Bell suit has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Cronkhite Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN CRONKHITE v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, 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,
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-01121-RMG (D.S.C., April 6,
2022) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, 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.

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. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

The Plaintiffs seek 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 the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Cronkhite suit has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
          BANNER LEGAL
          700 12th Street, N.W., Suite 700
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (888) 215-7834
          E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com

               - and -

          S. James Boumil, Esq.
          BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
          120 Fairmount Street
          Lowell, MA, 01852
          Telephone: (978) 458-0507
          E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com

               - and -

          Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
          KYROS LAW
          17 Miles Rd.
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (800) 934-2921
          E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com

3M COMPANY: Green Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Green v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, 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,
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-01096-RMG (D.S.C., April 6,
2022) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, 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.

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. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

The Plaintiffs seek 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 the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Green suit has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Hughes Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN HUGHES v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMOURS
COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, 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,
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-01120-RMG (D.S.C., April 6,
2022) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, 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.

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. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

The Plaintiffs seek 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 the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Hughes suit has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
          BANNER LEGAL
          700 12th Street, N.W., Suite 700
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (888) 215-7834
          E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com

               - and -

          S. James Boumil, Esq.
          BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
          120 Fairmount Street
          Lowell, MA, 01852
          Telephone: (978) 458-0507
          E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com

               - and -

          Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
          KYROS LAW
          17 Miles Rd.
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (800) 934-2921
          E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com

3M COMPANY: Lancelin Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
---------------------------------------------------------------
DELAS LANCELIN and ELLRUTH LANCELIN, his wife, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE,
LTD., CORTEVA, 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, 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-01109-RMG (D.S.C., April 6, 2022) seeks damages for
personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, 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.

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. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

The Plaintiffs seek 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 the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Lancelin suit has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Manresa Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
--------------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO MANRESA v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, 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,
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-01117-RMG (D.S.C., April 6,
2022) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, 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.

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. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

The Plaintiffs seek 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 the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Manresa suit has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
          BANNER LEGAL
          700 12th Street, N.W., Suite 700
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (888) 215-7834
          E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com

               - and -

          S. James Boumil, Esq.
          BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
          120 Fairmount Street
          Lowell, MA, 01852
          Telephone: (978) 458-0507
          E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com

               - and -

          Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
          KYROS LAW
          17 Miles Rd.
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (800) 934-2921
          E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com

3M COMPANY: Morgan Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE MORGAN v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, 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,
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-01117-RMG (D.S.C., April 6,
2022) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, 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.

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. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

The Plaintiffs seek 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 the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Morgan suit has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
          Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C
          270 West Main Street
          Sayville, NY 11782
          Telephone: (631) 600-0000
          Facsimile: (631) 543-5450

3M COMPANY: Palmer Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS PALMER and DONNA PALMER, his wife, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE,
LTD., CORTEVA, 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, 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-01110-RMG (D.S.C., April 6, 2022) seeks damages for
personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, 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.

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. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

The Plaintiffs seek 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 the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Palmer suit has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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

The Plaintiff are represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Rubin Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN RUBIN and KAREN F. RUBIN, his wife, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE,
LTD., CORTEVA, 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, 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-01113-RMG (D.S.C., April 6, 2022) seeks damages for
personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, 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.

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. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

The Plaintiffs seek 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 the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Rubin suit has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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

The Plaintiff are represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: Smith Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------
DONNIE SMITH and CAROL SMITH, his wife, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE,
LTD., CORTEVA, 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, 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-01107-RMG (D.S.C., April 6, 2022) seeks damages for
personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, 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.

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. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

The Plaintiffs seek 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 the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Smith suit has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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

The Plaintiff are represented by:

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

3M COMPANY: White Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
------------------------------------------------------------
JASON WHITE and CARA WHITE, his wife, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE,
LTD., CORTEVA, 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, 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-01097-RMG (D.S.C., April 6, 2022) seeks damages for
personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, 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.

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. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

The Plaintiffs seek 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 the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The White suit has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

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

The Plaintiff are represented by:

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

ADT LLC: Court Grants in Part Omnibus Bid in Limine in Doty Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, SHANA DOTY, Plaintiff v. ADT, LLC d/b/a ADT SECURITY
SERVICES, and TELESFORO AVILES, Defendants; RANDY DOTY, Plaintiff,
v. ADT, LLC d/b/a ADT SECURITY SERVICES and TELESFORO AVILES,
Defendants, Case Nos. 20-60972-CIV-SINGHAL/VALLE,
21-80645-CIV-SINGHAL/VALLE (S.D. Fla.), Judge Raag Singhal of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted in
part and denied in part ADT's Omnibus Motion in Limine.

The matter is before the Court upon ADT's Omnibus Motion in Limine.
The Plaintiffs have filed a response in opposition.

ADT moves to preclude evidence, argument, or testimony regarding
the details of Aviles' conduct with regard to other households or
customers. ADT does not specify exactly what evidence it is
considering, except to say that it could result in 214 mini-trials.
Judge Singhal declines to rule on the admissibility of evidence
with such a broad description. The scope of Aviles' conduct is
relevant, but the particulars may not be. The rules of relevancy
will protect the jury from hearing 214 mini trials. Accordingly,
the Motion is denied without prejudice as to this evidence,
assuming the Plaintiffs establish relevancy.

ADT moves to exclude evidence or testimony regarding ADT documents
that post-date the incident. Judge Singhal finds that the motion
fails to identify the particular documents at issue and he cannot
make a bright line ruling that all documents that post-date the
incident are irrelevant. The motion is denied without prejudice as
to this evidence. ADT may, of course, object at trial on the basis
of relevancy.

ADT seeks to exclude any evidence, argument, or cross-examination
regarding ADT's subsequent remedial measures such as post-incident
changes to ADT Pulse. The Federal Rules of Evidence do not contain
a blanket prohibition on evidence of subsequent remedial measures.
The motion is denied without prejudice as to this evidence.
Admissibility of subsequent remedial measures is determined by Fed.
R. Evid. 407. ADT may raise appropriate objections at trial and
request the Court to instruct the jury as to any evidence of
subsequent remedial measures that is admitted.

ADT seeks an order barring the Plaintiffs from presenting any
evidence, argument, or cross-examination regarding ADT's
settlements with other customers or communications with customers
besides Ms. Doty. Judge Singhal granted in part and denied without
prejudice in part the motion as to this evidence. Evidence of
settlements with other customers will not be admitted.
Communications with other customers may be admissible, subject to
relevancy and other rules of evidence. ADT may raise appropriate
objections at trial.

ADT asks the Court to preclude any evidence, argument, or
cross-examination speculating that images or video of the Doty
family was distributed or posted online. It argues that there is no
evidence that videos or images were shared online and, therefore,
testimony about the possibility is speculative, unsupported, and
may confuse the issues or mislead the jury. The laintiffs argue
that this is a legitimate fear of theirs and has contributed to
their emotional distress.

Judge Singhal holds that their fears and the uncertainty of knowing
whether images were shared likely has probative value that
outweighs the damages of confusion of issues or misleading the
jury. And, again, he cannot rule on admissibility of testimony that
it has not heard. The motion will be denied without prejudice as to
this evidence. ADT may raise appropriate objections at trial.

ADT asks the Court to preclude any evidence, argument, or
cross-examination involving litigation conduct, class allegations,
or expert opinions beyond those disclosed in discovery. Judge
Singhal cannot discern what evidence ADT refers to but can state
that pre-trial matters will not be re-litigated at trial. Evidence
of discovery and class action issues have no relevance to the case.
But, without more information, the Motion will be denied without
prejudice as to this evidence. ADT may raise appropriate objections
at trial.

ADT argues that the Court should exclude the "Factual Resume" from
Avialles' criminal prosecution as irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial,
and inadmissible hearsay. It argues that it details Aviles' conduct
involving five other customers, not the Dotys. The Plaintiffs argue
that Aviles is a party to the litigation and the Factual Resume
falls within the Rule 804(b)(3) hearsay exception. As he has not
reviewed the Factual Resume, Judge Singhal defers ruling on this
issue.

For the reasons he discussed, Judge Singhal granted in part and
denied in part ADT's Omnibus Motion in Limine.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 25, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3zw62acn from Leagle.com.


AEGIS FINANCIAL: Faces Darvish Class Suit Over Unwanted Phone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TOMER DARVISH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AEGIS FINANCIAL CONSULTING, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02226
(C.D. Cal., April 4, 2022) contends that the Defendant promotes and
markets its merchandise, in part, by placing unsolicited phone
calls to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's  illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life
of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory 15
damages on behalf of himself and members of the Class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.

On February 2, 2022, and February 16, 2022, the Defendant caused
multiple calls with prerecorded messages to be transmitted to
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 8881. Because
Plaintiff did not answer his telephone after it rang, voicemails
containing prerecorded messages were left on Plaintiff's phone, the
lawsuit says.

The Defendant is a financial marketing organizations in the
country, providing annuity, life insurance, retirement and business
solutions to consumers. To promote its services, the Defendant
allegedly engages in aggressive unsolicited marketing, harming
thousands of consumers in the process.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          1925 Century Park E #1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 305-975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Whitcomb Sues Over 32% Decline of Stock Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW WHITCOMB, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AFFIRM HOLDINGS, INC., MAX LEVCHIN, and
MICHAEL LINFORD, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02099-RS (N.D. Cal.,
April 1, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Affirm's business, operations,
and compliance policies to trade Affirm securities at artificially
inflated prices between February 12, 2021 and February 10, 2022.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Affirm's buy-now,
pay-later (BNPL) service facilitated excessive consumer debt,
regulatory arbitrage, and data harvesting; (ii) the foregoing
subjected Affirm to a heightened risk of regulatory scrutiny and
enforcement action; (iii) Affirm maintained inadequate disclosure
controls and procedures and internal control over financial
reporting; (iv) accordingly, Affirm's tweet for its second quarter
2022 financial results contained selected metrics that made it
appear that the company had performed better than it actually did;
and (v) as a result, the company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

When the truth emerged, Affirm's share price plummeted from an
intra-day high of $83.57 per share on February 10, 2022, to close
at $58.68 per share, or approximately 32 percent.

Affirm Holdings, Inc. is a publicly traded financial technology
company, with principal executive offices located at 650 California
Street, San Francisco, California. [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

                 - and –

         Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
         J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
         POMERANTZ LLP
         600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 661-1100
         Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
         E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com

AGA SERVICE: Charges Consumers Unlawful Add-on Fees, Tasakos Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW TASAKOS, on behalf of himself, the general public, and those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AGA SERVICE COMPANY (d/b/a ALLIANZ
GLOBAL ASSISTANCE) and JEFFERSON INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00433 (W.D. Wash., April 4, 2022) seeks redress
for Defendants' unlawful, unfair, and deceptive practices relating
to their online marketing and sale of insurance policies on the
checkout pages of ticketing and travel websites in violation of the
Washington's Consumer Protection Act.

The case focuses on Defendants' alleged longstanding practice of
charging consumers with unlawful, and hidden, add-on fees. On major
event and travel websites, including ticketmaster.com and the
websites of major airlines, the Defendants purport to make a
straightforward offer to consumers: insurance for the event tickets
and travel arrangements consumers purchase on those websites.
However, the Defendants unfairly charge unsuspecting consumers
additional fees, on top of the calculated premium, without
disclosing that they are charging those fees, asserts the
complaint.

In places other than the checkout screens where the transactions
occur, the Defendants try to justify those fees by representing
that the fees are for a supposed assistance service. That service
purports to allow insureds to spend time on the telephone with
AGA's customer service representatives to request information about
various topics, such as directions, weather, restaurants, hotels,
new travel arrangements, and possibly medical needs. But consumers
are unaware of such service and they do not want to pay for it, and
certainly not at the price Defendants charge for it, the complaint
adds.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself, the general
public, and similarly situated individuals, seeking a judgment
against Defendants that would, among other things: (1) prohibit
Defendants from charging mandatory and/or undisclosed fees (in
addition to premiums) for AGA's role (whether purportedly for
"assistance" services or otherwise) in connection with the
insurance purchases; (2) require Defendants to plainly and
truthfully disclose all premiums, fees, and charges to consumers
prior to their online purchase of insurance and to give consumers
the option to accept or decline particular add-on fees; and (3)
require Defendants to pay damages to Plaintiff and class members.

AGA Services Co., d/b/a Allianz Global Assistance, is a consumer
specialty insurance and assistance company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen M. Raab, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          113 Cherry Street, #55150
          Seattle, WA 98140
          Telephone: (415) 639-9090
          E-mail: stephen@gutridesafier.com

AKI JAPANESE: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Chen Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
LIU MEI CHEN; QIFU LIN; SHUKAI CHEN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AKI JAPANESE SEAFOOD
CORPORATION d/b/a FUXING RESTAURANT WHOLESALER; JIN WEI JIE; and
MEI ZHENG, Defendants, Case No. 707329/2022 (N.Y., Sup., Queens
Cty., April 4, 2022) is an action against the Defendant's failure
to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Mei Chen was employed by Defendant as a receptionist,
salesperson, and cashier. Plaintiff Lin was employed as helper and
driver. Plaintiff Shukai Chen was employed as helper.

AKI JAPANESE SEAFOOD CORPORATION is a freight shipping trucking
company in Bronx, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

AMAZON.COM INC: Falcon LLC Sues Over Improper Business Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
FLI-LO FALCON, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC.; and AMAZON
LOGISTICS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00441-MLP (W.D. Wa.,
April 05, 2022) seeks damages for the Defendants' fraud, fraudulent
inducement, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and violation of the state of Washington's Consumer
Protection Act based on violations of the Washington's Franchise
Investment Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant
fraudulently induced the Plaintiff and other "Delivery Service
Partners" or "DSPs," owners to enter into DSP contracts ("DSP
Agreements") with Amazon Logistics, Inc. ("ALI") with
misrepresentations that they will own and operate independent
businesses earning profits between $75,000 and $300,000 annually.
In reality, DSPs do not earn profits in that range. ALI uses its
technology and control to limit DSPs' capacity to earn the
represented profits.

By entering into the DSP Agreements, the parties consent to the
application of Washington law. Defendants violated Washington's
Franchise Investment Protection Act by, among other things,
portraying the DSP Program as an opportunity for DSP owners to
operate their own business without reasonable interference by the
Defendants when, in reality, the DSP owners are unable to control
critical aspects of their business, says the suit.

AMAZON.COM, INC. is an online retailer that offers a wide range of
products. The Company products include books, music, computers,
electronics and numerous other products. Amazon offers personalized
shopping services, Web-based credit card payment, and direct
shipping to customers. Amazon also operates a cloud platform
offering services globally. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roger M. Townsend, Esq.
          BRESKIN JOHNSON TOWNSEND, PLLC
          1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 652-8660
          Email: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com

               - and -

          Daniel Hume, Esq.
          David Bishop, Esq.
          Andrew McNeela, Esq.
          Sarah Flohr, Esq.
          KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
          250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
          New York, NY 10177
          Telephone: (212) 371-6600
          Email: dhume@kmllp.com
                 dbishop@kmllp.com
                 amcneela@kmllp.com
                 sflohr@kmllp.com

AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Stuart Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW STUART, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN FINANCIAL RESOURCES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-01878 (D.N.J., April 1, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per
se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, and
declaratory judgment.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to properly secure
and safeguard its customers' sensitive personally identifiable
information (PII) following an unauthorized access to its network
in December 2021. The Defendant's negligence allowed the data
breach including but not limited to its: failure to design,
implement, and maintain reasonable data security systems and
safeguards; and/or failure to exercise reasonable care in the
hiring, supervision, and training of its employees and agents and
vendors; and/or failure to comply with industry-standard data
security practices; and/or failure to comply with federal and state
laws and regulations that govern data security and privacy
practices and are intended to protect the type of sensitive
information. And as a result of the Defendant's failures, the PII
of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and accessed.

American Financial Resources, Inc. is a mortgage lending company,
with its principal place of business at 9 Sylvan Way, Parsippany,
New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Joseph D. Monaco, III, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES JOSEPH D. MONACO, P.C.
         7 Penn Plaza - Suite 1606
         New York, NY 10001
         Telephone: (212) 486-4244
         E-mail: jmonaco@monaco-law.com

                 - and –

         Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
         THE LYON FIRM, LLC
         2754 Erie Avenue
         Cincinnati, OH 45208
         Telephone: (513) 381-2333
         Facsimile: (513) 721-1178
         E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com

                 - and –

         Terence R. Coates, Esq.
         MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
         3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
         Cincinnati, OH 45209
         Telephone: (513) 651-3700
         Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
         E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com

AMTEL LLC: Employee Class Gets Conditional Status in Hafley Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL HAFLEY, et al., on
behalf of themselves and others similarly-situated, v. AMTEL, LLC,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00203-TSB (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Timothy S.
Black entered an order:

   1. denying the Defendant Amtel's partial motion to dismiss;

   2. denying as moot Defendant's motion to stay pending
      resolution of the motion to dismiss;

   3. granting Plaintiffs' motion for approval of
      notice/conditional class certification to a limited
      extent; and

   4. conditionally certifying the following class:

      "All individuals employed by Amtel as exempt-classified
      employees at stores in Ohio in the job title of Store
      Manager at any time from April 29, 2018 to the present who
      did not receive overtime compensation for all hours worked
      over 40 in a workweek."

Within 14 days of this Order, the parties shall submit to the Court
proposed language for notification and consent, revised to be
consistent with this Order, apprising potential plaintiffs of their
rights under the FLSA to opt in as parties to this litigation. The
Court will promptly act to approve the notice. Within 21 days of
this Order, Defendant will identify all putative class members
providing a list, in electronic and importable format, of the
names, addresses, and all known e-mail addresses. The Defendant's
motion for leave to file an amended answer is granted. The
Defendant shall file its amended answer forthwith, the Court said.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KcYmWQ at no extra charge.[CC]

AT&T MOBILITY: Court Tosses Allen Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CYNTHIA ALLEN,
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated, and
KRISTINE WEBB, v. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC a/k/a AT&T Mobility
LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-03730-WMR (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge William
M. Ray entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

The Court said, "This Court agrees with AT&T that the certification
of a class on the issue of liability for any damages (compensatory
and/or punitive) would not be appropriate due to the individual
issues which would predominate whether and to what extent AT&T
would be liable to any particular putative plaintiff, as set forth
above. Indeed, in any subsequent trial where any particular
putative plaintiff’s claim would be considered, a fair argument
can be made that such plaintiff's jury would inherently have to
reconsider the liability issue when evaluating and considering
AT&T's claims and defenses as to that plaintiff. In no world would
that be an efficient process or use of time. Thus, this Court does
not believe that Rule 23(a)(4) should be employed under the
circumstances of this case and declines the Plaintiffs' argument to
use it to save their class-wide claims."

The Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendant AT&, their former
employer, discriminated against them and other pregnant sales
associates with how it designed and implemented its attendance
policies and the related discipline system.

The Plaintiffs have filed this lawsuit seeking damages and
injunction against these practices, not just for themselves, but
also for other pregnant workers who have allegedly suffered because
of this system. AT&T denies these allegations and, as one might
expect, asserts that this lawsuit should not be certified as a
class action.

The Plaintiffs Cynthia Allen and Kristine Webb formerly worked in
such capacity. Ms. Allen was an employee in AT&T's stores in
New York and Las Vegas from December 2012 through April 2017. Ms.
Webb was an employee of AT&T at its retail store in Rapid City,
South Dakota from September 2014 through July 2017.

During their employment terms, both Ms. Allen and Ms. Webb became
pregnant and were, at times, unable to work due to the
complications of their pregnancy.

AT&T operates retail phone stores in locations across the United
States, and in such stores, its employs non-managerial employees as
Retail Sales Consultants and Sales Support Representatives.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ulDZ4c at no extra charge.[CC]

BAPTIST HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mitchell Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLENE MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAPTIST HEALTH SYSTEM,INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00383 (M.D. Fla., April 4, 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 Mitchell was employed by the Defendant as health worker.

BAPTIST HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. operates as a non-profit organization.
The Organization offers medical, urgent care, hospice, women's
health, cancer care, orthopedics, emergency, and occupational
health services. Baptist Health System serves patients in the State
of Alabama. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
          Email: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
                 kimd@forthepeople.com

BAUER HOCKEY: Barber Seeks Conditional FLSA Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BROOKS BARBER,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. BAUER
HOCKEY, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00742-SE (D.N.H.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order granting conditional certification of a
class of:

   "All individuals who were employed by Bauer Hockey, LLC
   furloughed beginning on or about April 13, 2020 through on or
   about June 8, 2020 and did not receive minimum wage for all
   work completed for Bauer's benefit, and who elect to join
   this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)."

Due to the anticipated impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, Bauer
furloughed a number of employees without pay, including Mr. Barber,
beginning on or about April 13, 2020 through on or about June 8,
2020.

The Plaintiff is aware of at least six employees on Bauer's Elite
Athlete Services team (EAS Team) who were subject to the Furlough
and that other employees were furloughed as well.

Thus, Bauer violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") minimum
wage provisions by not compensating Plaintiffs for their work
during the Furlough. To avoid its statutory obligations to
compensate Plaintiffs, Bauer willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs
minimum wage for time worked during the Furlough. Bauer's actions
were willful because of its notice that Plaintiffs were working
during Furlough.

The Plaintiff worked for Bauer as a Marketing Representative from
summer 2016 through February 24, 2021. In this role, Mr. Barber
worked closely with or had some of the same job duties,
responsibilities, and/or goals as other members of the EAS Team
with different job titles or Bauer employees on different teams.

Bauer's EAS Team worked in conjunction with other Bauer teams,
including Bauer's Marketing and Customer Service teams. He and
other members of the EAS Team regularly worked with members of
other Bauer teams/departments to accomplish Bauer's business goals
with, and under instruction and oversight from,
managerial/supervisory members of other Bauer teams/departments,
the lawsuit says.

Bauer is a worldwide company that designs, manufactures, markets,
and sells ice hockey equipment. Bauer's managers, employees,
positions, teams, and departments work collaboratively towards
Bauer's primary business purpose of designing, manufacturing,
marketing, and selling ice hockey equipment.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 18,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ulxvT3
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Ruxton, Esq.
          Brandon J. Verdream, Esq.
          Andrew J. Ruxton, Esq.
          CLARK HILL PLC
          One Oxford Street, 14 th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          E-mail: bverdream@clarkhill.com
                  aruxton@clarkhill.com

               - and -

          Pierre A. Chabot, Esq.
          Marrielle Van Rossum, Esq.
          DEVINE, MILLIMET & BRANCH, P.A.
          111 Amherst Street
          Manchester, NH 03101
          E-mail: pchabot@devinemillimet.com
                  mvanrossum@devinemillimet.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Hannah E. Zaitlin, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          111 Huntington Avenue, Suite 2600
          Boston, MA 02199-7610
          E-mail: hzaitlin@foley.com

               - and -

          Donald W. Schroeder, Esq.
          Katharine O. Beattie, Esq.
          Sara J. Higgins, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          111 Huntington Avenue, Suite 2600
          Boston, MA 02199-7610
          E-mail: dschroeder@foley.com
                  kbeattie@foley.com
                  shiggins@foley.com

BIG KO-KO INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chae Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOYCE CHAE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BIG KO-KO INC. dba KO KO COLLEGE RESTAURANT;
and SUNGYOON HWANG, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01938 (E.D.N.Y.,
April 5, 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 Chae was employed by the Defendant as server.

BIG KO-KO INC. owns and operates Ko Ko College Restaurant in Ithaca
New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan J. Kim, Esq.
          RYAN KIM LAW, P.C.
          222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd. Suite 490
          Fort Lee, NJ 07024
          Email: ryan@RyanKimLaw.com

BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry Limited 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 four
putative U.S. class actions consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

On March 14, 2014, said actions were consolidated and on May 27,
2014, a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed. On
March 13, 2015, the court issued an order granting the company's
motion to dismiss. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration and for leave to file an amended complaint on
November 13, 2015. On August 24, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court order dismissing
the complaint, but vacated the order denying leave to amend and
remanded to the District Court for further proceedings in
connection with the plaintiffs' request for leave to amend. The
court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend on
September 13, 2017.

On September 29, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended class action complaint, which added the company's former
Chief Legal Officer as a defendant. The court denied the motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on March 19, 2018. On August
2, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
that the court grant the defendants' motion for judgment on the
pleadings dismissing the claims of the additional plaintiffs.

On September 24, 2019, the District Court Judge accepted the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation and dismissed the claims of these
plaintiffs against all defendants. On October 17, 2019, said
plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal and filed a motion for class
certification on June 8, 2020. On January 26, 2021, the District
Court granted their motion for class certification. The class
includes "all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of BlackBerry Limited on the NASDAQ during the period
from March 28, 2013, through and including September 20, 2013."

On February 9, 2021, the defendants filed a Rule 23(f) petition for
interlocutory review of the class certification order with the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Second Circuit Court of
Appeals denied the Rule 23(f) petition on June 23, 2021. The Second
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court judgment
dismissing plaintiff's claims on March 11, 2021, and denied their
petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc on April 28,
2021. On April 19, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment, and both parties filed Daubert motions to exclude the
testimony of the oppositions' marketing and accounting experts. On
May 5, 2021, the parties participated in a mediation with Judge
Layn Phillips (ret.), which did not result in an agreement. On
August 13, 2021, Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for approval
of a class notice plan. On September 10, 2021, the Court (i)
granted in part and denied in part the parties' Daubert motions and
(ii) granted Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for approval of the class
notice plan. Postcard notice was mailed on October 8, 2021;
publication notice was issued starting on October 18, 2021. On
January 3, 2022, the Court granted Defendants' motion for summary
judgment with respect to seven statements, and otherwise denied
Defendants' motion.

BlackBerry provides intelligent security software and services to
enterprises and governments around the world.


BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT: Denial of Arbitration in B.D. Suit Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, B.D., a Minor, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and
Respondents v. BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant and
Appellant, Case No. D078506 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of
California for the Fourth District, Division One, reversed the
trial court's order denying Blizzard's motion to compel arbitration
and directed the lower court to enter a new order granting the
motion.

I. Introduction

Blizzard appeals from an order denying its motion to compel
arbitration. B.D., a minor, played Blizzard's online videogame
"Overwatch," and used "real money" to make in-game purchases of
"Loot Boxes" -- items that offer "randomized chances to obtain
desirable or helpful 'loot' in the game." B.D. and his father
(together, Plaintiffs) sued Blizzard, alleging the sale of loot
boxes with randomized values constitutes unlawful gambling, and,
thus, violates the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code,
Section 17200). The Plaintiffs seek only prospective injunctive
relief, plus attorney fees and costs.

Blizzard moved to compel arbitration based on the dispute
resolution policy incorporated into various iterations of the
online license agreement that Blizzard presented to users when they
signed up for, downloaded, and used Blizzard's service. The trial
court denied the motion, finding a "reasonably prudent user would
not have inquiry notice of the agreement" to arbitrate because
"there was no conspicuous notice of an arbitration" provision in
any of the license agreements.

The portion of the license agreement immediately visible in the
text box displayed two significant notices. First, that users may
not use Blizzard's service if they do not agree to all of the terms
in the license agreement. And second, that users should read the
section of the license agreement "below" titled "dispute
resolution" because it contains an arbitration agreement and class
action waiver that affect users' legal rights. That section stated
that disputes under the license agreement would be resolved in
accordance with Blizzard's dispute resolution policy, to which the
section connected via hyperlink. The dispute resolution policy
contained a comprehensive arbitration agreement. The pop-up window
admonished users that by clicking the "Continue" button
(immediately below the admonishment) the user "acknowledged that he
or she has read and understood the license agreement." B.D. could
not have continued to use Blizzard's service if he did not click
the "Continue" button, and Blizzard's records indicate B.D. did, in
fact, continue to use the service.

Alternatively, the Plaintiffs contend that if the Court of Appeals
concludes the parties formed an arbitration agreement, it is
unenforceable because the agreement, together with its class and
collective action waiver provision, run afoul of the rule announced
in McGill v. Citibank, N.A. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 945 that "a provision
in any contract that purports to waive, in all fora, the statutory
right to seek public injunctive relief is invalid and
unenforceable."

II. Background

In March 2020, the Plaintiffs sued Blizzard for allegedly violating
the UCL. They allege B.D. purchased Blizzard's online game,
Overwatch, for about $40, and thereafter made additional purchases
of Loot Boxes totaling about $10. Loot Boxes are caches of virtual
items (e.g., better costumes, character-specific actions, or speech
lines) that enhance the gameplay experience. The loot in Loot Boxes
varies in rarity and perceived value. A player can earn Loot Boxes
through gameplay, or purchase them online from Blizzard. The
Plaintiffs allege B.D. spent about 50 hours playing Overwatch over
the course of about two years.

The Plaintiffs allege Blizzard's sale of Loot Boxes constitutes
unlawful gambling because the player does not know what loot will
be awarded until after the purchase is complete. The complaint
asserts a single cause of action for violation of the UCL, and
prays for injunctive relief, attorney fees, and costs.

III. Discussion

A. Existence of an Arbitration Agreement

Blizzard contends the trial court erred by finding that notice of
the Dispute Resolution Policy's arbitration provision was not
sufficiently conspicuous to establish an agreement to arbitrate.

The Court of Appeals agrees. Before it determines whether Blizzard
provided sufficiently conspicuous notice of the arbitration
provision in the Dispute Resolution Policy so as to bind them, the
Court of Appeals must first determine which iteration(s) of
Blizzard's notices—2016 account-creation, 2016 App-installation,
2017 update pop-up, 2017 account-linking, or 2018 update
pop-up—to evaluate. Blizzard argues that "because all five
agreements predate B.D.'s purchase of loot boxes on Sept. 2, 2018
citation, any of them is sufficient to compel arbitration." The
Plaintiffs do not squarely address the issue.

The Court of Appeals concludes that the 2018 pop-up notice provided
sufficiently conspicuous notice that by clicking on the "Continue"
button at the bottom of the pop-up, the user would be agreeing to
all of the terms of the 2018 License Agreement, which validly
incorporated by reference the Dispute Resolution Policy, together
with its arbitration agreement and class action waiver (both of
which the pop-up notice specifically brought to the user's
attention).

B. The McGill Rule

Alternatively, the Plaintiffs contend that if it concludes (as it
has) that the parties entered into an arbitration agreement, the
Court of Appeals may still affirm the trial court's order on the
alternate ground (not reached by the trial court) that the
arbitration agreement is nevertheless unenforceable because it
precludes the Plaintiffs from pursuing public injunctive relief in
all fora, in violation of the McGill rule. Specifically, the
Plaintiffs contend they are seeking a public (rather than private)
injunction; the arbitration provision precludes them from seeking
it in court; and the class and collective action waiver precludes
them from seeking it in arbitration. Thus, the Plaintiffs maintain
the Dispute Resolution Policy precludes them from seeking a public
injunction "in all fora."

Blizzard counters that the arbitration agreement contains a
"delegation clause" that delegates to the arbitrator -- not the
courts -- the resolution of a McGill rule challenge. Alternatively,
Blizzard maintains the challenge fails on its merits.

The Court of Appeals agrees with Blizzard that the parties agreed
to delegate to the arbitrator the resolution of gateway issues,
such as a McGill rule challenge (including whether the Plaintiffs
seek a public or private injunction, and, if public, whether the
Dispute Resolution Policy prevents them from seeking it in all
fora).

The arbitration provision expressly carves out three classes of
claims that remain subject to litigation in court. Thus, the fact
the Dispute Resolution Policy contemplates that courts may, on
occasion, be called upon to construe various provisions of the
policy does not undermine the policy's otherwise clear and
unmistakable delegation of gateway issues to the arbitrator on
claims subject to arbitration.

Moreover, despite the fact Blizzard raised the delegation issue in
the trial court, the Plaintiffs have never addressed it. And other
than claiming no arbitration agreement was formed -- a claim the
Court of Appeals has rejected -- the Plaintiffs' only other defense
to the arbitration agreement is that the class and collective
action waiver provision violates the McGill rule. But this
challenge is not "specific to the delegation clause." Courts also
routinely hold that the resolution of a McGill rule challenge is a
gateway issue subject to delegation under a clause like the instant
case.

IV. Disposition

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's Dec. 18, 2020 order
and directed the court to enter a new order granting Blizzard's
motion to compel arbitration. Blizzard is entitled to its costs on
appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/bdhndfum from Leagle.com.

Greenberg Traurig, Jeff E. Scott -- scottj@gtlaw.com -- Robert J.
Herrington -- herringtonr@gtlaw.com -- and Dominic E. Draye --
drayed@gtlaw.com -- for the Defendant and Appellant.

Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, Timothy G. Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com --
Leslie E. Hurst -- lhurst@bholaw.com -- Thomas J. O'Reardon II --
toreardon@bholaw.com; Law Offices of Andrew J. Brown and Andrew J.
Brown -- Andrew.Brown@standa.org -- for the Plaintiffs and
Respondents.


BLOOM ENERGY: Everett, et al. Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELISSA M. ROBERTS,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
BLOOM ENERGY CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-02935-HSG (N.D.
Cal.), the Court appointed Lead Plaintiff James Everett Hunt, and
additional plaintiffs Juan Rodriguez, Kurt Voutaz, Joel White,
Andrew Austin, and Ryan Fishman, ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a Class of:

      "all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
      acquired Bloom Energy Corporation common stock pursuant
      and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and either:
      (a) held their shares until April 21, 2020, (b) sold their
      shares prior to April 21, 2020 for less than $15 per
      share, or (c) sold their shares after April 21, 2020 for
      less than $15 per share;"

   2. appointing them as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing Court-appointed Lead Counsel Levi & Korsinsky,
      LLP as Class Counsel.

Bloom Energy is a public company headquartered in San Jose,
California. It manufactures and markets solid oxide fuel cells that
produce electricity on-site. The company was founded in 2001 and
came out of stealth mode in 2010.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 18,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JqbFC9
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam M. Apton, Esq.
          Adam C. McCall, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          75 Broadway, Suite 202
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 373-1671
          Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
          E-mail: aapton@zlk.com
                  amccall@zlk.com

               - and -

          Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street N.W., Suite 115
          Washington, D.C. 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com

               - and -

          Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
          Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq.
          Wesley A. Wong, Esq.
          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com
                  lucasg@hbsslaw.com
                  wesleyw@hbsslaw.com
                  steve@hbsslaw.com

BRAHAMPUTRA LLC: Lamb Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEREK LAMB on Behalf of
Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
BRAHAMPUTRA, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-12145-MCA-LDW (D.N.J.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court on April 18, 2022, to grant
conditional certification of a collective action and
court-authorized notice pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
29 U.S.C. section 216(b).

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 18,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35JuzWB
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Glenn, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, PA
          350 Carnegie Center, Suite 150
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com

               - and -

          William M. Hogg, Esq.
          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          HODGES & FOTY, LLP
          4409 Montrose Boulevard, Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
                  whogg@hftrialfirm.com


BRLLC: Progressive Seeks Leave to File Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PROGRESSIVE HEALTH AND
REHAB CORP., an Ohio corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, v.
RESOURCE BIOLOGICS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00142-MWM (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff Progressive seeks
leave to file a "placeholder" motion for class certification.

This case arises from apparent violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), a federal law that has been in effect for
over twenty years. Under the TCPA, which was modified and renamed
the Junk Fax Prevention Act in 2005, it is unlawful to send
unsolicited advertisements to someone's fax machine.

Under the JFPA, an "unsolicited advertisement means any material
advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property,
good, or services which is transmitted to any person without that
person’s prior express invitation or permission, in writing or
otherwise."

Progressive Health received advertisements via its office facsimile
machine on November 18, 2021 and December 9, 2021 ("the Faxes") for
products and/or services of Defendant.

The Defendant had not sought Progressive Health's permission to use
its fax machine to transmit advertisements, and the Faxes did not
display the required opt-out notice. Although the JFPA does provide
for statutory damages, these damages are too minimal to justify a
stand-alone lawsuit by an individual plaintiff. Consequently,
Progressive Health has brought this action to recover on its own
claim but also for the benefit of the class of persons to whom the
Defendant sent the Faxes.

BRLLC is a new start-up Vaccine and Biopharma company headquartered
in Germantown, Maryland.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 18, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3x8QOAC at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew E. Stubbs, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY JONSON LLP
          600 Vine Street, Suite 2650
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 241-4722
          Facsimile: (513) 768-9227
          E-mail: mstubbs@mojolaw.com

               - and -

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com

BUCCANEERS LTD: $19.75MM Class Settlement in Cin-Q Wins Prelim. Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CIN-Q AUTOMOBILES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs v.
BUCCANEERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendant, Case No.
8:13-cv-1592-AEP (M.D. Fla.), Judge Anthony E. Procelli of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division,
granted the Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement and Notice to the Class.

The Motion was submitted by Plaintiffs Cin-Q Automobiles, Inc.
("Cin-Q") and Medical & Chiropractic Clinic, Inc. ("M&C")
(collectively, "Cin-Q Plaintiffs"). Cin-Q Plaintiffs and Defendant
Buccaneers Team LLC f/k/a Buccaneers Limited Partnership ("BTL" or
"Defendant") reached a proposed settlement regarding the class
claims in this action and, by the instant motion, seek preliminary
approval of the class action settlement and issuance of notice to
the putative class.

I. Background

In June 2013, Cin-Q initiated the action against BTL, alleging that
BTL sent unsolicited advertisements via facsimile to Cin-Q in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), as
amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act ("JFPA"). The faxed
advertisements pertained to Tampa Bay Buccaneers tickets and were
allegedly sent by or on behalf of BTL in 2009 and 2010.

The Cin-Q Plaintiffs now move, unopposed, for preliminary approval
of a class action settlement and for notice to the proposed class.
More specifically, pursuant to Rule 23, the Cin-Q Plaintiffs
request that the Court enters an order (1) preliminarily approving
the proposed class action Settlement Agreement and Release,
certifying the Settlement Class, appointing the Cin-Q Plaintiffs as
the Class Representatives, and appointing Addison and the law firm
of Addison Law Office, P.A., and Ross M. Good, Glenn L. Hara , and
Brian J. Wanca and the law firm of Anderson + Wanca as the Class
Counsel; (2) approving the form of Class Notice attached to the
Settlement Agreement and its dissemination to the class by U.S.
mail and website and to determine whether additional notice be sent
by facsimile or publication; and (3) setting dates for opt-outs,
objections, and a fairness hearing.

For purposes of settlement, the parties stipulate to certification
of a Settlement Class defined as: All persons who received or were
successfully sent in 2009 or 2010 one or more facsimile
advertisements relating to tickets for Tampa Bay Buccaneers games.

BTL continues to deny all material allegations and liability, but,
to facilitate settlement, the Settlement Agreement provides, among
other things, for a Settlement Fund up to $19.75 million to pay
valid Class Member claims, to pay incentive awards to the Cin-Q
Plaintiffs, to pay the Class Counsel attorneys' fees and reasonable
out-of-pocket litigation expenses, and to pay notice and
administration costs; payments of $350 to $615 (i.e., $350 for the
first facsimile; $125 for the second facsimile; $90 for the third
facsimile; $25 for the fourth facsimile; and $25 for the fifth
facsimile) to the Class Members who submit a valid Claim (to be
reduced pro rata if the Settlement Fund, after payment of incentive
awards, fees, expenses, and notice and administration costs, cannot
sufficiently pay the validly submitted claims); BTL's agreement to
entry of an injunction prohibiting it from sending any further
unsolicited facsimile advertisements that do not otherwise comply
with the TCPA; and potential awards of attorneys' fees, expenses,
notice and administration costs, and incentive awards to the Cin-Q
Plaintiffs, all of which will be paid from the Settlement Fund. Any
amounts remaining in the Settlement Fund following disbursement of
all awards, attorneys' fees, expenses, notice and administration
costs, and incentive awards will revert in full to BTL within 14
days of payment of all claims.

The Cin-Q Plaintiffs and BTL agree that Class Notice should be sent
by first-class U.S. mail, postage pre-paid, to the Class Members
for whom mailing addresses can be determined and by a Settlement
Website. The Settlement Website will provide information and
relevant documents related to the settlement, including the
Agreement, the Class Notice, the Claim Form, and the Cin-Q
Plaintiffs' motion seeking attorneys' fees. The Cin-Q Plaintiffs
and BTL agree that the Court should determine whether additional
notice should be provided by facsimile and/or by newspaper
publication, if necessary, with the Cin-Q Plaintiffs favoring both
additional forms of notice and BTL opposed to either form of
additional notice.

Regardless of the format, the Class Notice will include
instructions regarding opting out, objecting to, or submitting a
Claim Form to the Settlement Administrator by mail or
electronically. The Claim Form must be signed under penalty of
perjury and identify the fax number or numbers on which the Class
Member received faxes, including faxes from the Tampa Bay
Buccaneers, as well as the Class Member's contact information. The
Claim Form must be returned to the Settlement Administrator on or
before the Claim deadline to receive a share of the Settlement Fund
and may be returned via fax, mail, or electronically on the
Settlement Website.

With respect to claims administration, BTL will retain and pay from
the Settlement Fund an independent, third-party Settlement
Administrator, which the parties will agree upon, subject to Court
approval, who will issue the Class Notice, maintain the Settlement
Website, receive the Claim Forms, assist Class Members in
completing and submitting forms, and issue settlement checks. To
that end, BTL has retained Epiq Class Action & Claim Solutions,
Inc. as Settlement Administrator and submitted the Joint Motion for
Appointment of Third-Party Settlement Administrator, which the
Court is granting in conjunction with the preliminary settlement
approval.

Within 10 days of entry of the preliminary approval order, the
parties will provide Epiq with the records identifying the fax
numbers to which the facsimile advertisements offering tickets to
Tampa Bay Buccaneers games were allegedly sent, which Epiq will use
to locate addresses for Class Members. No later than 30 days after
entry of this preliminary approval order, Epiq will create the
Settlement Website, named BTL-TCPA-Settlement.com or, if
unavailable, a name mutually agreed upon by the parties. No later
than 90 days after entry of the preliminary approval order, Epiq
will mail the Class Notice to all members of the Settlement Class
whose addresses were derived from the process described. Epiq will
reject any claim that does not substantially comply with the
instructions on the Claim Form or the terms of the Agreement or is
postmarked later than the Claim Deadline. The decision of Epiq as
to whether a Claim is valid is final and binding upon the parties,
subject to an appeal by a party or any absent Class Member, which
the parties will endeavor to resolve without Court intervention.

Any disputes regarding such determination, including as to whether
a Claim is fraudulent or valid, is subject to review by the Court.
Prior to the fairness hearing, Epiq will submit documentation to
the Court reflecting that it executed the Notice Program in
accordance with the Settlement Agreement and the preliminary
approval order and will include information regarding the success
rate of the Class Notice transmission, the number of accepted and
rejected Claims, the number of opt-outs and objections, and any
other information that will assist the Court in determining the
efficacy of the Notice Program.

The Settlement Agreement further provides for a Release of Claims.
Specifically, in consideration for the relief provided in the
Settlement Agreement, the Class Members will release all claims
brought or that could have been brought, as defined in the
Settlement Agreement, against BTL and the other Released Parties in
this action about the advertisements sent by fax during the Class
Period but, notably, will not release claims regarding advertising
faxes sent after 2010. In addition, the Class Counsel will submit
motions for an attorneys' fee award and incentive awards prior to
the fairness hearing. The Class Counsel intends to seek an award of
attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed 25% of the Settlement
Fund, or $4,937,500, plus reasonable out-of-pocket expenses
incurred, not to exceed $250,000, to be paid from the Settlement
Fund. Class counsel also intends to seek incentive awards of
$10,000 for Cin-Q and $10,000 for M&C for serving as the Class
Representatives. The motion will be available on the Settlement
Website for Class Members to review.

In response to the Cin-Q Plaintiffs' motion seeking preliminary
approval, Intervenors argue that they should be appointed as the
Co-Class Representatives and their counsel should be appointed as
the Co-Class Counsel. They argue that the Settlement Agreement
represents substantially the same settlement Intervenors proposed
more than five years ago in the Technology Training II Action,
which Cin-Q Plaintiffs initially opposed as a "reverse auction."
According to Intervenors, Class Members will receive no materially
significant increase in overall benefit under the terms of the
Settlement Agreement when compared to the Settlement Agreement of
Technology Training Associates, Inc. and Larry E. Schwanke, D.C.
d/b/a Back to Basics Family Chiropractic ("TTA Plaintiffs").
Rather, the Intervenors contend that, given the passage of time,
the total number of potential Class Members reached and
successfully submitting claims will be greatly reduced. While the
Intervenors agree that the settlement should be preliminarily
approved so that Class Members may receive notice and respond to
the proposed settlement, Intervenors contend that several
deficiencies remain and certain revisions and clarifications should
be made, including as to the Class Notice and the Claim Form.

The Cin-Q Plaintiffs submit a reply brief, asserting that no basis
exists for appointing the Intervenors as the Co-Class
Representatives nor their counsel as the Co-Class Counsel. First,
the Cin-Q Plaintiffs contend that the Court cannot unilaterally
alter the settlement terms, including the terms regarding the
appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel. the
Further, Cin-Q Plaintiffs argue that the Court already concluded
that Intervenors cannot adequately represent the interests of the
class in the Technology Training II Action based upon the findings
set forth in the TTA Eleventh Circuit Appeal, and, as such, neither
the Intervenors nor their counsel can be, nor need to be, appointed
to represent the class in this action. Cin-Q Plaintiffs
additionally contend that any comparisons between the settlement
reached in the Technology Training II Action and the Cin-Q Action
are irrelevant and inaccurate.

In turn, the Intervenors submit a sur-reply brief. They reiterate
their position that they and their counsel should be appointed as
Co-Class Representatives and Co-Class Counsel, arguing that the
settlement terms in this action are materially worse than those
achieved in the Technology Training II Action. According to
Intervenors, despite offering some Class Members modestly more
money, focusing only on that benefit ignores the costs of delay
caused by Cin-Q Plaintiffs' opposition to the Technology Training
II Action settlement, the settlement in this action requires an
onerous proof of claim, and the settlement in the action involves a
weaker plan for providing notice to Class Members. They also note
that three of the Intervenors did not participate in the Technology
Training II Action, and the inclusion of Intervenors and their
counsel in this action will ensure adequate representation of the
class and will achieve the ends of due process.

Given the arguments set forth by Intervenors, the Court conducted a
hearing, at which the counsel for the Cin-Q Plaintiffs, BTL, and
the Intervenors appeared and presented argument relating to the
Class Notice, the Claim Form, and proposed deadlines. The main
issue centered upon the requirement in the Claim Form for Class
Members to verify, under penalty of perjury, that the individual or
entity subscribed to a fax number during the period from July 14,
2009 through June 9, 2010, as identified in the Claim Form, and
that such individual or entity received a fax at such number,
"including faxes from the Tampa Bay Buccaneers."

BTL indicated that such language was necessary to prevent
widespread fraud due to questions of reliability with the fax
numbers contained in the Biggerstaff Report, based on the actions
of the rogue third-party fax broadcaster, FaxQom. According to BTL,
the Biggerstaff Report contains the entire universe of potential
fax numbers for purposes of identifying the potential Class
Members, but questions remain as to whether the fax transmissions
occurred on behalf of BTL to each of the fax numbers identified in
the Biggerstaff Report. Intervenors countered that such language
was not necessary and would in fact deter Class Members from
submitting claims, thereby resulting in a very low response rate.

After considering the issue, the Court directed the parties to
submit additional briefing addressing the indicia of reliability or
unreliability of the Biggerstaff Report to assist in determining
whether the disputed language is in fact necessary to address
reliability issues with the fax numbers. Subsequently, the Cin-Q
Plaintiffs, BTL, and the Intervenors each submitted their
respective briefs. Essentially, the Cin-Q Plaintiffs and BTL argue
that the disputed language is necessary and occurred as the result
of a reasonable compromise, given the outstanding issues regarding
the reliability of the Biggerstaff Report, which included several
anomalies, including wireless numbers, false positives, numbers on
the National or Florida Do Not Call Registry, and online fax
services; involved a lack of access to the basic information
typically relied upon in a TCPA case, such as fax logs; and offered
conclusions conflicting with the expert opinion offered by BTL.

The Intervenors contend that the inclusion of such language treats
class members inequitably, no battle of the experts exists, BTL's
expert bases his opinion upon theoretical speculation as to "false
positives," the Biggerstaff Report is reliable, and all the
information in the Biggerstaff Report was known to BTL at the time
of the TTA Settlement in 2016.

II. Discussion

A. Rule 23(a)

As indicated, pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Cin-Q Plaintiffs request
on behalf of a Settlement Class that the Court enters an order (1)
preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, certifying the
Settlement Class, appointing the Cin-Q Plaintiffs as the Class
Representatives, and appointing Addison and the law firm of Addison
Law Office, P.A., and Good, Hara, and Wanca and the law firm of
Anderson + Wanca as the Class Counsel; (2) approving the form of
Class Notice attached to the Settlement Agreement and its
dissemination to the Settlement Class by U.S. mail and website and
to later determine whether additional Notice be sent by facsimile
or publication; and (3) setting dates for opt-outs, objections, and
a fairness hearing.

In determining whether class certification is appropriate, Rule 23
establishes the legal roadmap courts must follow. Rule 23(a)
requires the moving party to demonstrate that (1) the class is so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there
are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or
defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or
defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Under Rule 23(b)(3), a class action may be maintained if the
requirements of Rule 23(a) are satisfied and 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 question now turns to whether the Cin-Q Plaintiffs can
establish the requirements for class certification. As noted, under
Rule 23(a), one or more if the movant establishes the numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy-of-representation
requirements.

Judge Procelli holds that the Cin-Q Plaintiffs established each of
the Rule 23(a) factors. He finds that (i) given the inordinately
large number of faxes and unique fax numbers, the Cin-Q Plaintiffs
easily establish numerosity; (ii) common questions of fact and law
exist regarding several issues; (iii) given that the claims of the
Settlement Class and the Cin-Q Plaintiffs' claims are based on the
same pattern or practice and the same legal theory, the Cin-Q
Plaintiffs established typicality; and (iv) the Cin-Q Plaintiffs
demonstrated that both they and Addison, Good, Hara, and Wanca will
adequately represent the interests of the Settlement Class.

B. Rule 23(b)

Having met the requirements under Rule 23(a), the Cin-Q Plaintiffs
assert that the putative class also meets the requirements under
Rule 23(b)(3). More precisely, they contend that the putative class
satisfies the requirements regarding predominance of common issues
and superiority of the class action to other means of litigation.

Judge Procelli holds that the facts required to demonstrated
liability relate to BTL's common course of conduct in sending the
same or similar faxes to more than 131,000 fax numbers.
Additionally, the legal questions of whether the faxes are
advertisements, whether BTL qualifies as the sender, whether the
faxes contain the appropriate opt-out notice, and whether BTL's
violations were willful predominate over any issues subject only to
individualized proof. Accordingly, the Cin-Q Plaintiffs established
predominance.

The Cin-Q Plaintiffs have also established that proceeding as a
class action is superior to other methods available to fairly and
efficiently adjudicate this controversy. Given the large number of
purported class members, the similarity of the claims of all class
members, and the relatively small potential recovery in individual
suits, proceeding as a class action lawsuit is superior to any
other forms of litigation.

C. Rule 23(e)

Given that the Cin-Q Plaintiffs and BTL entered into the Settlement
Agreement to settle all claims on behalf of the Settlement Class,
they seek the Court's preliminary approval of the Class,
appointment of the Cin-Q Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives,
appointment of the Class Counsel, issuance of the Notice to the
Class, and the scheduling of a fairness hearing.

After consideration, Judge Procelli concludes that the Settlement
Agreement represents a bona fide end to the adversarial process
rather than the collusive exploitation of the class action
mechanism to the detriment of absent class members. The settlement
amount falls within the range of possible approval and, based on
the foregoing, is preliminarily approved.

In doing so, Judge Procelli (1) preliminarily approves the
following Settlement Class: "All persons who received or were
successfully sent in 2009 or 2010 one or more facsimile
advertisements relating to tickets for Tampa Bay Buccaneers
games."

Judge Procelli also concludes that the Claim Form, the Notice, and
the proposed means of providing notice to the Class Members are all
fair, reasonable, and adequate for purposes of preliminary approval
of the Settlement Agreement. Following issuance of the Notice and
the period for opting out and objecting, the Court will
subsequently conduct a fairness hearing. Such hearing will take
place on Nov. 9, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 10A of the Sam
M. Gibbons United States Courthouse, 801 North Florida Avenue,
Tampa, Florida. The Cin-Q Plaintiffs will move for final approval
of the settlement no later than 21 days prior to the fairness
hearing.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Procelli granted the Unopposed
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and
Notice to the Class. Unless otherwise indicated, the parties will
adhere to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

The following Settlement Class is preliminarily approved for
purposes of settlement: All persons who received or were
successfully sent in 2009 or 2010 one or more facsimile
advertisements relating to tickets for Tampa Bay Buccaneers games.

Addison and the law firm of Addison Law Office, P.A., and Good,
Hara, and Wanca and the law firm of Anderson + Wanca are
preliminarily appointed as the Class Counsel.

The proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to
warrant notice to the Settlement Class. The proposed Notice is
approved and will (i) describe the essential terms of the
settlement; (ii) disclose any special benefits of incentives to the
class representatives; (iii) provide information regarding the
proposed attorneys' fee award; (iv) indicate the time and place of
the fairness hearing for consideration of final approval of the
settlement; (v) include information regarding the method and time
for objection and opting out of the settlement; (vi) explain the
procedures for allocating and distributing the Settlement Fund; and
(vii) prominently display the address of Class Counsel and the
procedure for making inquiries.

The Joint Motion for Appointment of Third-Party Settlement
Administrator is granted. Epiq Class Action & Claim Solutions, Inc.
is appointed as the Settlement Administrator to perform the
functions delineated in the Settlement Agreement. The notice
provisions contained in the Settlement Agreement and the Order (i)
provide the best practicable notice and are reasonably calculated
to apprise the Settlement Class of the pendency of the litigation
and of their right to object to or to exclude themselves from the
proposed settlement; (ii) are reasonable and constitute due,
adequate, and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to receive
notice; and (iii) meet the requirements of applicable law.

The parties were to provide Epiq on April 8, 2022, with the records
identifying the fax numbers to which the facsimile advertisements
offering tickets to Tampa Bay Buccaneers games were allegedly sent,
which Epiq will use to locate addresses for the Class Members.

No later than April 28, 2022, Epiq will create the Settlement
Website, named BTL-TCPA-Settlement.com or, if unavailable, a name
mutually agreed upon by the parties.

No later than May 31, 2022, the Cin-Q Plaintiffs and BTL will
submit simultaneous briefing as to whether the Court should order
additional publication and/or fax notice based on the results of
the reverse-lookup process.

No later than June 27, 2022, Epiq will mail the Class Notice to all
members of the Settlement Class whose addresses were derived from
the process described. Epiq will establish a post office box in the
name of the Settlement Administrator to be used for receiving
requests for exclusion and any other communications. Only Epiq,
Class Counsel, BTL Counsel, the Court, the Clerk of Court, and any
of their designated agents will maintain access to the post office
box, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties. Epiq will reject
any claim that does not substantially comply with the instructions
on the Claim Form or the terms of the Agreement or is postmarked
later than the Claim Deadline.

A fairness hearing to determine final approval of the settlement is
scheduled to occur on Nov. 9, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 10A
of the Sam M. Gibbons United States Courthouse, 801 North Florida
Avenue, Tampa, Florida.

The Claim Form is approved. The deadlines for submitting Claims,
opting out, or objecting are as follows: (i) Deadline for
submitting a Claim is Sept. 26, 2022; (i) Deadline for submitting
an opt-out is Sept. 26, 2022; and (iii) Deadline for submitting an
objection is Sept. 26, 2022.

Any Settlement Class Member who seeks to exclude himself or herself
from the Settlement Class will submit an appropriate, timely
request for exclusion, postmarked no later than Sept. 26, 2022 to
Epiq at the address on the Class Notice.

Any Settlement Class Member who does not submit a timely, written
request for exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by
all proceedings, orders, and judgments in the litigation, even if
such Settlement Class Member previously initiated or subsequently
initiates individual litigation or other proceedings encompassed by
the Release.

Any attorney hired by a Settlement Class Member for the purposes of
objecting to the proposed settlement, attorneys' fee award, or
incentive award and who intends to make an appearance at the
fairness hearing will provide to Epiq (who will forward it to the
Class Counsel and BTL Counsel) and file with the Clerk of Court a
notice of intention to appear no later than Oct. 3, 2022. Any
Settlement Class Member who files and serves a written objection
and who intends to make an appearance at the fairness hearing may
so state in their objection.

Epiq will provide the opt-out list to the Class Counsel and BTL
Counsel no later than Oct. 6, 2022 after the opt-out and objection
deadline and then file with the Court the opt-out list with an
affidavit attesting to the completeness and accuracy thereof no
later than Oct. 11, 2022.

Any Settlement Class Member who does not become an opt-out and who
seeks to object to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the
settlement or the Settlement Agreement will file with the Court and
serve on the Class Counsel and BTL Counsel by Oct. 10, 2022 a
statement of the objection signed by the Settlement Class Member.
Any response to an objection will be filed with the Court no later
than Oct. 24, 2022.

On Oct. 31, 2022, Epiq will submit proof of compliance with the
Settlement Class Notice Program and the Order.

No later than April 28, 2022, the Class Counsel may submit any
motions for an attorneys' fee award and incentive awards. The Class
Counsel's motion will be made available on the Settlement Website
no later than May 2, 2022. Any other party seeking to pursue an
incentive award or any other attorney seeking to pursue an award of
fees must submit such motions to the Court no later than Oct. 24,
2022.

The action is stayed pending final approval of the settlement,
except that such stay will not prevent the filing of any motions,
affidavits, or other filings necessary to obtain and preserve final
judicial approval of the settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/52wzaarn from Leagle.com.


C & G TWINS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Moreno Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO ANTONIO MONGE MORENO; and ROCIO RAMIREZ, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. C & G
TWINS, CORP. (d/b/a BAGEL BOBS); G. H. C. BAGELS CORP. (d/b/a BAGEL
BOBS); GEORGE KAROUNAS, and DENNIS RAFTIS, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-02775 (S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2022) is an action against the
Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
and provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as deli workers.

C & G TWINS, CORP. (d/b/a BAGEL BOBS) owns and operates a bagel
shop located at New York, NY 10028 under the name "Bagel Bobs."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

CALIBER HOME: Class Action Settlement in Phillips Wins Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stephen Phillips, Mary
Tourville-Phillips, Sandi Barnett, Gregory Benjamin, Tyrus Davis,
and Christopher Bingham, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., Case No.
0:19-cv-02711-WMW-LIB (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Wilhelmina M.
Wright entered an order that:

   1. The Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of
      Class Action Settlement is granted.

      a. The Settlement Class is finally certified, for
         settlement purposes only, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and
         23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

      b. The Settlement Agreement is finally approved as being
         fair, reasonable  and adequate pursuant to Rule 23(e)
         of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

      c. Plaintiffs Stephen Phillips, Mary Tourville-Phillips,
         Sandi Barnett, Gregory Benjamin, Tyrus Davis, and
         Christopher Bingham are confirmed as Class
         Representatives.

      d. James L. Kauffman, Randall K. Pulliam, Hassan A.
         Zavareei and Kristen G. Simplicio are confirmed as
         Class Counsel.

      e. The Court confirms that the Notice Plan complied with
         the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
         Civil Procedure and due process.

      f. The Court confirms the cy pres recipient as Habitat for
         Humanity.

      g. All Settlement Class Members who timely requested
         exclusion are excluded from the Settlement. The
         Settlement Class Members who did not timely request
         exclusion are hereby bound by the terms of the
         Settlement Agreement.

   2. The Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Award of Attorneys’
      Fees, Litigation Costs, and Service Awards, is granted.

      a. The Court awards $1,666,500 in attorneys' fees and
         $10,410.66 in litigation expenses to Class Counsel.

      b. The Court approves Service Awards of $5,000 each to
         Class Representatives Stephen Phillips, Mary Tourville-
         Phillips, Sandi Barnett, Gregory Benjamin, Tyrus Davis,
         and Christopher Bingham.

   3. Without affecting the finality of this Order and the
      judgment, the Court retains jurisdiction over this matter
      for the purpose of resolving disputes related to the
      interpretation, administration, implementation,
      effectuation and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement.

Caliber Home is a full-service national mortgage lender.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KoemVS at no extra charge.[CC]



CALIFORNIA: Denial of Fletcher's Bid for TRO v. DSH Recommended
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALLAN FLETCHER, Plaintiff v. CLENDENIN, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00249-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California recommended that the Plaintiff's
motion for temporary restraining order be denied.

I. Background

Plaintiff Fletcher is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California Welfare
and Institutions Code Section 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and
are not prisoners within the meaning of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act.

On March 24, 2022, the Court screened the complaint and granted the
Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint or a notice of
voluntary dismissal.

Currently before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion for a
temporary restraining order and order to show cause re: preliminary
injunction, filed March 21, 2022. The Plaintiff states that he
requests a temporary restraining order enjoining the Defendants
from continuing to violate his rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause.

The Plaintiff includes a proposed temporary restraining order that
orders the Defendants to undertake the following:

     1. Use all authority and procedures necessary under the law,
including Governor Newsom's Executive Order (No. N-35-20), to
expeditiously assess for transfer or discharge DSH-Coalinga
patients to a less restrictive and congregate setting to alleviate
crowded conditions;

     2. Identify all patients vulnerable and at high risk to
infection or reinfection with COVID-19 and its variants due to
underlying medical conditions, utilizing current CDC Guidelines,
and provide the court with a list of these patients;

     3. Provide updates, no less frequently than monthly, to the
Court concerning the transfer from DSH-Coalinga or discharge, of
patients who are at high risk and medically vulnerable;

     4. Immediately require all Level of Care (LOC) staff at DSH-C
when submitting the Rapid Antigen Test, to wait the results prior
to entry to the Secured Treatment Area (STA) and comingling with
patients on housing units;

     5. Immediately require all Level of Care (LOC) staff at DSH-C
to desist from working overtime, or being directed, to float from
quarantined to non-quarantined patient housing units with a 16-hour
period;

     6. Immediately provide to all DSH-Coalinga patients the N-95
face mask (without removal of any parts or alterations) to reduce
COVID-19 exposure; and ensure that all DSH-C staff working the
Secured Treatment Areas of patient housing, be mandated to properly
wear and be completely garbed with the Personal Protective
Equipment, to include: face shield, N-95 mask, latex gloves,
surgical gown, and shoe coverings, without parts removed or items
altered;

     7. Immediately require that all LOC staff at DSH-C will on
each shift sanitize all high-touch areas such as telephones,
tables, chairs, door knobs, hand rails, counter tops, microwave,
sinks, refrigerator, ice-machine, wheelchairs, walkers, Vitals
machines, etc., and cleaning will include sweeping, mopping of
common areas and hallways, removal of trash, and cleaning and
sanitizing patient restrooms and showers on a daily basis; and

     8. Immediately restore access to all previously suspended
adjunct sex-offender treatment groups, including alternative
treatment options such as independent study and out-patient
treatment; to also include providing textbooks and qualified
licensed facilitators, as well as a realistic treatment plan
highlighting a viable pathway to release; and, ensuring all
patients have access to no less than two hours twice a week for
SOTP treatment, and no less than two hours per adjunct group.

The proposed temporary restraining order further provides:

     A. The Court appoint an independent monitor, or special
master, to ensure compliance with the Court's order, and provide
that the monitor be given access to units, to transfer or discharge
discussions and documents, confidential communications with
Plaintiff and others similarly situated at DSH-Coalinga, to report
on: 1) the adequacy of the Defendants' actions to effectuate safe
transfer or discharge of patients, and 2) the adequacy of
conditions of confinement, policies, practices and precautions
taken to ensure the health, safety, and medical wellbeing of all
patients and staff of the facility;

     B. The Court will retain jurisdiction of this case until the
Defendants have fully complied with the within orders of the Court,
and there is a reasonable assurance that they will continue to
comply in the future absent the Court's continuing jurisdiction;

     C. It is further ordered that the Temporary Restraining Order
will expire on: And is further ordered that copies of the
complaint, motion, declarations, exhibits, and memorandum of points
and authorities, and this order to show cause and temporary
restraining order be served on all parties on: Not later than: ;
and

     D. Grant any further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.

Judge McAuliffe construes the request as a Motion for Preliminary
Injunction.

II. Discussion

Judge McAuliffe holds that the Plaintiff has not met the
requirements for the injunctive relief he seeks in this motion. The
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking
relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a
governmental entity. The Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion
thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or malicious,
if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief.

As explained, the Court did not find that the complaint stated any
cognizable claims. As the Plaintiff has not yet filed a first
amended complaint for screening, Judge McAuliffe cannot find that
the Plaintiff has shown a likelihood of success on the merits. In
addition, no defendant has been ordered served, and no defendant
has yet made an appearance. Thus, the Court at this time lacks
personal jurisdiction over the Defendants or any other staff at the
Department of State Hospitals or DSH-Coalinga.

Finally, although the Plaintiff has set forth serious allegations
regarding the actions of the Defendants named in the lawsuit, Judge
McAuliffe finds that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that any
relief sought is "narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary
to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least
intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal
right."

In his motion, the Plaintiff is requesting that the Court
interferes with the Department of State Hospitals' administration
in determining the housing and transfer of patients, staffing
assignments, and patient programming, as well as to appoint a
special master to monitor DSH's compliance with such orders. Such
relief cannot be granted. Although the Court understands that the
Plaintiff is raising serious allegations regarding possible
violations of the Plaintiff's rights, and the rights of other
patients at DSH-Coalinga, the relief requested is not the least
intrusive means necessary to correct any potential violation.

Finally, Judge McAuliffe notes that the Plaintiff is requesting
relief on behalf of other civil detainees by bringing the action as
a purported class action. As discussed in the Court's screening
order, the Plaintiff may not represent other civil detainees, and
therefore may not request relief on behalf of all civil detainees
housed in DSH facilities or housed at DSH-Coalinga.

III. Order and Recommendation

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court directed to randomly assign a
District Judge to the action.

Judge McAuliffe recommended that the Plaintiff's motion for
temporary restraining order be denied.

These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the
provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1). Within 14 days
after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, the
Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document
should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendation." The Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of
the "right to challenge the magistrate's factual findings" on
appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 25, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/364fm52h from Leagle.com.


CANTERBURY AT CEDAR: Faces Martino Suit Over Wrongful Death
-----------------------------------------------------------
ESTATE OF ANTHONY S. MARTINO, JR.; and ANTHONY J. MARTINO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. THE CANTERBURY AT CEDAR GROVE, CARE AND
REHABILITATION; WINDSOR HEALTHCARE; HYMAN JACOBS, JOHN AND JANE
DOES 1-10 (DOCTORS, NURSES, PHYSICIAN'S ASSISTANTS, NURSE
PRACTITIONERS, ETC.); and ABC AND XYZ CORPORATIONS 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. ESX-L-002084-22 (N.J. Sup., Essex Cty., April
4, 2022) is an action against the Defendant for negligence and
gross negligence, wrongful death and medical malpractice.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants failed
to take the proper steps to protect the residents and patients at
their facility from the Covid-19 virus. The Defendants' management
provided masks only to registered nurses, not to others who also
interacted with residents, including housekeepers, recreation
therapists and nursing assistants, among other potential miscues.

As a consequence of the Defendants' failures in this regard,
Anthony S. Martino, Jr., a resident and patient, died on April 4,
2020, with his cause of death confirmed as "acute respiratory
failure likely from Covid-19 infection," says the suit.

THE CANTERBURY AT CEDAR GROVE, CARE AND REHABILITATION is a nursing
home in Cedar Grove, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniele G.P. Marchese, Esq.
          THE MARCHESE LAW FIRM, LLC
          93 Spring Street, Suite 300
          Newton, NJ 07860
          Telephone: (973) 383-3898
          Facsimile: (973) 383-7349


CANTERBURY AT CEDAR: Fails to Take Steps Against COVID, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ESTATE OF EVELYN WELL, v. THE CANTERBURY AT CEDAR GROVE, CARE AND
REHABILITATION; WINDSOR HEALTHCARE; HYMAN JACOBS, JOHN AND JANE
DOES 1-10 (DOCTORS, NURSES, PHYSICIAN'S ASSISTANTS, NURSE
PRACTITIONERS, ETC.); and ABC AND XYZ CORPORATIONS 1-10, Case No.
ESX-L-002085-22 (NJ Sup., Essex Cty., April 4, 2022) arises as a
result of the Defendants' failures in protecting the Plaintiff and
all "others similarly situated," in this Class Action, such as
those residents and/or patients that died from the Covid-19 virus
during and throughout the outbreak and pandemic, and their heirs,
survivors and next of kin.

Estate of Evelyn Wells brings this action in its own right and on
behalf of all "others similarly situated," whether deceased or next
of kin and/or heirs of the deceased.

The Defendant "The Canterbury at Cedar Grove, Care and
Rehabilitation" is located at: 398 Pompton Ave, Cedar Grove, NJ
07009, and is owned by the Defendants Windsor Healthcare and Hyman
Jacobs.

JOHN and JANE Does 1-10 are as yet unnamed health care
professionals (medical doctors, nurses, physician's assistants and
other medical professionals duly licensed to practice medicine
under the laws of the State of New Jersey), and/or administrators,
and/or aides, and/or sanitation workers, and/or orderlies and/or
food preparation employees, and/or security officers, who worked at
Defendants The Canterbury at Cedar Grove, Care and Rehabilitation
and/or Windsor Healthcare facilitiy; ABC and XYZ CORPORATIONS 1-10
are as yet unnamed entities, agents, managers, owners, operators
that owned and/or operated Defendants The Canterbury at Cedar
Grove, Care and Rehabilitation and/or Windsor Healthcare.

In or about January of 2020, the Defendants were made aware of a
virus spreading world-wide and nationally, known as Covid-19, that
caused severe medical distress and death in individuals who caught
the disease, especially the elderly.

COVID-19 can spread rapidly in long-term residential care
facilities and persons with chronic underlying medical conditions
are at greater risk for COVID-19.

In fact, in February 2020, at a health care facility in Washington
State, residents and/or patients there were the first in the nation
to suffer from and die as a result of the Covid-19 virus; news of
the dire situation and the first deaths in the United States at the
Life Care Center in Kirkland, Washington was widespread.

The Defendants The Canterbury at Cedar Grove, Care and
Rehabilitation and/or Windsor Healthcare first declared a Covid-19
outbreak in late March of 2020.

Despite these facts, Defendants failed to take the proper steps to
protect the residents and/or patients at their facility from the
Covid-19 virus.

Evidently, at first, Defendants' management provided masks only to
registered nurses, not to others who also interacted with
residents, including housekeepers, recreation therapists and
nursing assistants, among other potential miscues.

As a consequence of Defendants' failures in this regard, Evelyn
Wells, a resident/patient, died on April 4, 2020, with her cause of
death confirmed from Covid-19 infection.

In the wake of the outbreak and the aforementioned failures, other
patients were infected and died at Defendants' facility from
Covid-19 infections, and there may be more deaths.

Ms. Wells' death and that of the other residents/patients were a
direct result of Defendants' failures to take measures to protect
them at the facility from the deadly Covid-19 virus, and/or medical
malpractice.

As a direct and foreseeable consequence of the Defendants' failures
in taking safety precautions during the Covid-19 outbreak
(pandemic), members of the Class sustained loss, damages, injury
and death, and their survivors and/or heirs have also sustained
loss and damages as a direct consequence of the same, says the
suit.

The alleged claims asserted herein are premised on negligence and
gross negligence, wrongful death and medical malpractice.
Plaintiffs also seek recovery of damages, replete with punitive
damages, from all of the Defendants based upon the aforementioned
causes of action, and, conduct that was grossly reckless, willful,
and wanton, in the face of the Covid-19 outbreak and pandemic.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel G.P. Marchese, Esq.
          THE MARCHESE LAW FIRM, LLC
          michigan-lawoffice.com
          929 W University Dr Suite 101
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 270-2709

CASE WESTERN: Scheduling Order Revised in Lozada Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lozada v. Case Western
Reserve University, Case No. 1:20-cv-02336-DAR (N.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge David A. Ruiz entered an order granting the Plaintiff's
Unopposed Motion for Extension of Certain Deadlines in the August
11, 2021 Scheduling Order Minute Entry as follows:

                             Existing Date     Revised Date

-- Fact Discovery:           April 11, 2022    Aug. 11, 2022

-- Plaintiffs' expert        April 11, 2022    Aug. 11, 2022
   reports must be
   produced by:

-- Defendant's expert        May 11, 2022      Sept. 12, 2022
   reports must be
   produced by:

-- Motion for Class          Aug. 11, 2022     Dec. 11, 2022
   Certification &
   Summary Judgment:

-- Depositions of Experts:   July 11, 2022     Nov. 11, 2022

-- All fact and expert       July 11, 2022     Nov. 11, 2022
   discovery:

Case Western is a private research university in Cleveland, Ohio.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uaL9Id at no extra charge.[CC]

CELSION CORPORATION: Faces Fiddler 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
derivative shareholder lawsuit filed in February 2021 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned "Fidler v.
Michael H. Tardugno et al.," Case No. 3:21-cv-02662.

The plaintiff alleges breach of fiduciary duty and other claims
arising out of alleged statements made by certain of the company's
directors and/or officers regarding "ThermoDox," a DNA-based
immunotherapy for the localized treatment of ovarian cancer.

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.


CELULARITY INC: Rogalla Securities Suit Voluntarily Discontinued
----------------------------------------------------------------
Celularity Inc. (formerly GX 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
a February 8, 2021 putative class action lawsuit filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York by a purported stockholder
captioned "Rogalla v. GX Acquisition Corp., et al.," Index No.
650877/2021 (N.Y. Sup.) was voluntarily discontinued.

Rogalla alleged breach of fiduciary duty claims against the GX
Board in connection with a January 8, 2021 merger and aiding and
abetting the GX Board's breaches of fiduciary duties claims against
GX, These claims were based on allegations that the prospectus in
connection with the merger was materially misleading and/or omitted
material information concerning the merger.

On July 20, 2021, Rogalla voluntarily discontinued that action.


CELULARITY INC: Spero Securities Suit Voluntarily Discontinued
--------------------------------------------------------------
Celularity Inc. (formerly GX 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
a February 4, 2021 putative class action lawsuit filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York by a purported stockholder
in connection with the Business Combination "Spero v. GX
Acquisition Corp., et al.," Index No. 650812/2021 (N.Y. Sup.) was
voluntarily discontinued.

Spero alleged breach of fiduciary duty and filed claims against the
GX Board in connection with merger and aiding and abetting the GX
Boards' breaches of fiduciary duties claims against GX. These
claims were based on the sales process and valuation of Celularity,
as well as allegations that the S-4 Registration Statement related
to the merger was materially misleading and/or omitted material
information.

Spero generally requested injunctive relief or rescission,
unspecified damages and awards of attorneys' and experts' fees,
among other remedies.

On April 29, 2021, Spero voluntarily discontinued that action.


CHAMPION PETFOODS: Pusillo, Callan's Opinions Barred in Zarinebaf
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AFSHIN ZARINEBAF and ZACHARY CHERNIK, individually and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs
v. CHAMPION PETFOODS USA INC. and CHAMPION PETFOODS LP, Defendants,
Case No. 18 C 6951 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order:

   a. granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion
      to exclude the proposed testimony of the Plaintiffs'
      experts Stefan Boedeker, Bruce G. Silverman, Dr. Sean
      Callan, and Dr. Gary Pusillo; and

   b. denying the Plaintiffs move to exclude the proposed
      testimony of Champion's expert Dr. Robert Poppenga.

I. Introduction

The case is a putative class action brought by Plaintiffs Afshin
Zarinebaf, Zachary Chernik, and Joan Meyer on behalf of Illinois
consumers. The consumers are purchasers of dog food who allege that
they were deceived by the packaging on the dog food that indicated
that the food was nutritious and fresh when in fact it contained
amounts of various metals and unnatural ingredients.

Defendants Champion Petfoods USA Inc. and Champion Petfoods LP
(collectively "Champion") responded to the allegations by asserting
that the trace amounts of alleged contaminants contained within the
dog food is negligible, found in nature, and safe.

Both parties moved to exclude proffered experts. The Court held
Daubert hearings to review the testimony in its gatekeeping
function. The Defendants move to exclude the proposed testimony of
the Plaintiffs' experts Stefan Boedeker, Bruce G. Silverman, Dr.
Sean Callan, and Dr. Gary Pusillo. The Plaintiffs move to exclude
the proposed testimony of Champion's expert Dr. Robert Poppenga.

II. Background

In their Third Amended Complaint ("TAC"), the Plaintiffs allege
that Champions' ORIJEN and ACANA branded dog food contains or has a
risk of containing heavy metals, Bisphenol-A (BPA), pentobarbital,
non-regional ingredients, non-fresh ingredients, and/or unnatural
ingredients. Their claim is that the presence (or risk of presence)
of these various "contaminants" and ingredients in the dog food
brands render certain statements on the dog food packaging—
"Biologically Appropriate," "Fresh Regional Ingredients," and/or
"Delivering Nutrients Naturally"—misleading or deceptive. The
Plaintiffs thus allege violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA), fraudulent
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

A three-day Daubert hearing was held in the case on Sept. 9, 22,
and 27, 2021, and each of the five challenged experts testified and
were cross-examined as to their qualifications, methodology, and
the relevance of their opinions (to the extent challenged by the
movant). There is a fully briefed motion for summary judgment
pending, and the parties agreed that the Court would first decide
the instant Daubert motions.

III. Discussion

A. Stefan Boedeker

Champion moves to exclude the opinions of the Plaintiffs' expert
Stefan Boedeker. The Plaintiffs retained Boedeker, an experienced
statistician and economist, to identify a framework to compute
class-wide damages, outline an economic model to quantify alleged
economic losses to the class, conduct empirical analysis to
estimate damages, and conduct consumer analysis on the alleged
misrepresentations and omissions.

As an initial matter, Champion agrees that Boedeker is qualified
and challenges only the reliability and relevance of his proffered
opinions. It argues that Boedeker's failure to use a control group
for his Expectation Survey renders his methodology unreliable. It
argues that failure to do a pre-test to confirm that the question
set was clear and understandable demonstrates unreliability. Beyond
its objections to Boedeker's methodology, Champion also challenges
the relevance of the conclusions drawn from his conjoint studies;
namely, that the conjoint surveys cannot adequately calculate class
wide damages and that Boedeker failed to consider supply side
economics when reaching his conclusions.

Judge Kendall holds that Boedeker has adequately accounted for
supply side factors in the case by using actual market prices.
Boedeker used the results from the four conjoint surveys to
calculate "economic losses for individual misrepresentations,
groups of is representations, individual omissions, and groups of
omissions." Boedeker's report does allow for the results to be
viewed in isolation or in combination. His report also concludes
that if Champion is found liable for alleged misrepresentations and
omissions, "the economic losses presented in his report are similar
to the price premium for Ori-jen/Acana products over non-premium
brand products." A price premium theory based on a conjoint
analysis is an acceptable method for computing damages. Hence,
Champion's motion to exclude Boedeker is denied.

B. Bruce Silverman

Champion moves to exclude the opinions of Bruce Silverman.
Silverman, an advertising executive with many years of experience,
will opine for the Plaintiffs that (i) that pet parents have had
access to many media reports regarding the dangers posed to
themselves and their pets by the presence of heavy metals, BPA, and
pentobarbital in dog foods; (ii) that consumers would be very
concerned about the possible presence of those contaminants in
CPF's dog food; and (iii) that consumers rely on packaging messages
when deciding which dog food to purchase, which is true of the
challenged claims; (iv) that consumers would not be happy to hear
that CPF's products were mostly formulated with ingredients that
are neither fresh or local; and (v) that disclosure of such
material information would change consumer behavior.

Champion argues that Silverman's opinions (1) are methodologically
unreliable; (2) do not fit the facts of the case; (3) are outside
of Silverman's relevant experience; and (4) offer nothing helpful
to the jury.

Judge Kendall holds that (i) whether or not Silverman could have
"done more" can be fairly explored on cross-examination; (ii) the
criticisms of Silverman's lack of experience with premium dog food,
specifically, do not render his opinions unreliable; and (iii)
while these may not be hyper-technical or scientific issues that
the average juror would find wholly unapproachable, Silverman's
testimony -- backed by his experience -- would aid the jury in its
comprehension of the marketing materials, the packaging claims, and
consumer perceptions of both. Champion's motion to exclude
Silverman is denied.

C. Sean Callan

Champion also moves to exclude the affirmative opinions of Dr. Sean
Callan, the Plaintiffs' expert. Dr. Callan is the Senior Vice
President at Ellipse Analytics, holds a Ph.D. in psychology with a
major in behavioral and cognitive neuroscience, and a minor in
statistics, and received post-doctoral training in molecular
neuroscience with a focus on molecular biochemistry. Dr. Callan
submitted two expert reports in the case: One, on BPA and the
other, on pentobarbital. Champion seeks to exclude Dr. Callan's
opinions on pentobarbital as "baseless and speculative."

Dr. Callan summarizes his pentobarbital opinions: "Pentobarbital
was present in certain raw materials used in creating Champion dog
foods. While third party testing performed by Champion did not
detect pentobarbital in the finished kibble product, prior research
has demonstrated that pentobarbital is not destroyed during kibble
manufacturing and is likely present at some level in the finished
product given the contamination of certain raw materials.
Additionally, the quantity of random sampling performed by Champion
was insufficient to assess the actual risk given the small sample
number and size tested relative to the total size of potentially
contaminated finished product and the heterogeneity of certain raw
materials."

Judge Kendall finds that Dr. Callan has not offered a verifiable
scientific methodology, but rather a series of unscientific leaps
and the remainder of his opinions are similarly unsupported. Dr.
Callan may be qualified to opine generally on sampling size or
margin of error as scientific concepts, but must be able to tie
those concepts to the specific facts of the case and has not done
so. Dr. Callan's opinions on Champion's sampling and the
heterogeneity of tallow are conclusory not sufficiently reliable to
aid a trier of fact. Without more, this amounts to "I know it when
I see it" and not a reliable scientifically backed methodology.
Hence, Champion's motion to exclude Dr. Callan is granted.

D. Gary Pusillo

Finally, Champion moves to exclude the affirmative opinions of the
Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Gary Pusillo from both of his expert
reports.  Dr. Pusillo offers the opinions that t (1) the Dog Food
contains Heavy Metals and risked containing bisphenol A ("BPA"),
which were then consumed by dogs eating the Dog Food; (2) the
sources of Heavy Metals and BPA in the Dog Food vary and can be
controlled by reasonable manufacturing practices; and (3) some of
CPF's ingredients do not match its claims of Biologically
Appropriate and Fresh Regional Ingredients. Champion objects to Dr.
Pusillo's opinions as exceeding the bounds of his expertise such
that he is not qualified under Rule 702. Champion also argues that
Dr. Pusillo's opinions are not relevant, based on unreliable
methodology, and would not aid the jury.

Judge Kendall finds that Dr. Pusillo is undoubtedly a
well-credentialed individual; however, some of Dr. Pusillo's
proffered opinions challenged by Champion extend too far beyond his
expertise. For that reason, Dr. Pusillo may not present expert
opinions on BPA. Dr. Pusillo's extensive work experience involving
heavy metals, in addition to his education and continuing
education, render him qualified to offer his opinions on heavy
metals.

Finding Dr. Pusillo qualified to offer his non-BPA opinions, Judge
Kendall must still consider whether Dr. Pusillo's remaining
opinions are sufficiently reliable and relevant to render
admissible. Dr. Pusillo has no opinion on what amount of these
"contaminants" would be safe, or what amounts would cause an
adverse reaction.  Without such foundational scientific reasoning,
Dr. Pusillo is left with unsubstantiated opinions that are neither
reliable nor relevant.

Dr. Pusillo's Packaging Opinions are also not reliable nor
relevant. He is not an expert as to what constitutes "raw" or
"fresh" in the pet food industry, so cannot offer a sufficiently
reliable opinion as to whether Champion's pet food meets those
standards. Finally, Dr. Pusillo's opinions are unreliable because
of the evidence that portions of his reports are simply
regurgitations of other sources with varying degrees of scientific
reliability.

Champion's motion to exclude Dr. Pusillo is granted.

E. Dr. Robert Poppenga

The Plaintiffs move to exclude twelve opinions of Champion's expert
Dr. Robert Poppenga. Dr. Poppenga is a veterinary toxicologist and
the current Head of the Toxicology Section at the University of
California Davis. The Plaintiffs do not take issue with Dr.
Poppenga's qualifications.

The 12 opinions that Plaintiffs do challenge, include but not
limited to the following: (1) that heavy metals occur in nature and
the environment and are routinely found in pet foods at safe
levels; (2) that the MTLs established by the NRC and used by the
FDA to inform regulatory decisions are the best and most widely
used scientific guidance available for determining what are safe
levels of heavy metals in dog food; and (3) that the testing
performed by Champion was sufficient to identify whether there was
an ongoing, systemic presence of excessive amounts of metals of
concern, which there was not.

The Plaintiffs argue that (i) all 12 of Dr. Poppenga's opinions are
irrelevant to the issues in the case; (ii) opinions 2, 4-7, and 9
are impermissible legal conclusions; and (iii) opinions 1-7, 9, and
11 are unreliable.

Judge Kendall opines that Dr. Poppenga's comparison of Champion's
products to other dog foods on the market is sufficiently relevant
when considering that Plaintiffs will have to prove that any
alleged misrepresentations or omissions were material and impacted
their choice to pay a premium for Champion brand dog foods. The
opinions Dr. Poppenga offers are also not on the applicable law of
the case, but on regulatory guidance in the industry. Lastly, Dr.
Poppenga considered analytical results from accredited laboratories
and peer-reviewed studies to form his opinions—the type of
scientific materials experts in his field would reasonably rely on.
Therefore, Judge Kendall denied the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude
the opinions of Dr. Poppenga.

IV. Conclusion

For these reasons, Judge Kendall denied the motions to exclude
Boedeker, Silverman, and Poppenga. She granted Champion's motions
to exclude Dr. Pusillo and Dr. Callan.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9y89nh from
Leagle.com.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Ramos Suit Seeks Hourly Worker's Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL RAMOS and MIRIAN QQUEHUE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY RESTAURANTS,
INC., Case No. 7:22-cv-02786 (S.D.N.Y., April 5, 2022) seeks to
recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, statutory damages,
pre-and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law,
and the Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Throughout their employment periods, the Plaintiffs and all other
hourly-paid workers at the Cheesecake Factory restaurants (the
"Hourly Workers") spent more than 25% of their work time performing
duties that were physical in nature and were therefore "manual
workers" under the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). Despite this, the
Cheesecake Factory paid all Hourly Workers in New York State on a
biweeklybasis, in violation of the frequency of payments section of
the NYLL. Further, the Defendant required several tip-earning
employees, such as Ramos, to work off the clock, thereby failing to
pay them for all hours worked per workweek, says the suit.

Plaintiff Daniel Ramos works as a busser at a Cheesecake Factory
location in Yonkers, New York. The Plaintiff Mirian Qquehue worked
as a cook at two Cheesecake Factory restaurants located in
Westchester, New York from 2011 to December 24, 2021.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Louis Pechman, Esq.
          Gianfranco J. Cuadra, Esq.
          PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLC
          488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583-9500
          E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
                  cuafra@pechmanlaw.com

CIRCLE K STORES: Medina Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ELISE MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CIRCLE K STORES, INC.; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVB2200288, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Bernardino, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on April 1, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-00557 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of
California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide meal periods or premium pay,
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to provide suitable and adequate seating, failure to
reimburse business expenditures, failure to provide timely and
accurate itemized wage statements, waiting time penalties, unlawful
business practices, and failure to furnish personnel records.

Circle K Stores, Inc. is an international chain of convenience
stores, headquartered in Tempe, Arizona. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Maria Rodriguez, Esq.
         Christopher Braham, Esq.
         Ashley Attia, Esq.
         MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
         2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200
         Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
         Telephone: (310) 277-4110
         Facsimile: (310) 277-4730
         E-mail: mcrodriguez@mwe.com
                 cbraham@mwe.com
                 aattia@mwe.com

COFFEYVILLE RESOURCES: Scheduling Order Entered in El Dorado Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EL DORADO MINERALS, LLC,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v.
COFFEYVILLE RESOURCES REFINING & MARKETING, LLC, Case No.
4:21-cv-00542-GKF-JFJ (), the Hon. Judge Gregory Y. Frezell entered
a class certification scheduling order:

  1. Motions for leave to amend or          April 22, 2022
     add additional parties:

  2. Documents previously produced          Oct. 19, 2022
     by parties shall be deemed
     authenticated except as to those
     objected to:

  3. Plaintiff's rule 26 expert             Nov. 18, 2022
     disclosures, expert reports,
     for class certification purposes
     (not filed of record):

  4. Defendant's rule 26 expert             Dec. 19, 2022
     disclosures, expert reports,
     for class certification purposes
     for expert (not filed of record):

  5. The plaintiff’s rule 26 rebuttal       Jan. 19, 2023
     expert report (not filed of
     record):

  6. Motion for class certification         Feb.  2, 2023
     filed with all supporting
     evidence:

  7. Response to motion for class           March 6, 2023
     certification filed with
     all supporting evidence:

  8. Class certification discovery          March 6, 2023
     cutoff:

  9. Reply to motion for class              April 6, 2023
     certification filed with any
     rebuttal evidence, including
     rebuttal expert disclosures,
     if any:

10. Hearing on motion for class            May 16, 2023
     certification at 1:30 pm:

Coffeyville Resources owns and operates an oil refinery.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3v27eYV at no extra charge.[CC]


CRISP MARKETING: Snyder Sues Over Illegal Prerecorded Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
YOLANDA SNYDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CRISP MARKETING, LLC., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-22-004909 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., April 4,
2022) is a putative class action brought by the Plaintiff under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act arising from the Defendant's
conduct of sending prerecorded voice messages to the cellular
telephones of consumers without consent to promote its business.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful
conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment,
aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of
individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf
of herself and Class Members, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the alleged unlawful actions of
Defendant.

Crisp Marketing LLC operates a marketing consulting services
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          515 E Las Olas Blvd, Ste. 120
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 533-4092  
          E-mail: meisenband@eisenbandlaw.com

CROWN FRIED: Faces Hormozzadeh Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mohammad Hormozzadeh, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated in the proposed FLSA Collective Action v. Crown Fried
Chicken 308, Inc., and Tarsem Singh, Case No. 1:22-cv-01865
(E.D.N.Y., April 4, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
overtime wages, unlawfully deducted wages, liquidated and statutory
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, (FLSA), New York
State Labor Law (NYLL) and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act
("WTPA").

The Defendants are associated and joint employers, act in the
interest of each other with respect to employees, pay employees by
the same method, and share control over the employees.

The Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants. The Plaintiff was
employed as a general worker and delivery person at Crown Fried
Chicken from December 10, 2021 to, through and including, March 16,
2022.

The Plaintiff’s work duties required neither discretion nor
independent judgment. From December 10, 2021 to, through and
including, March 16, 2022, Hormozzadeh regularly worked seven days
per week, from approximately 10:00 a.m. to as late as 9:00 p.m.,
for a total of either approximately 11 hours each day, and for a
total period of approximately 77 hours during each of the weeks,
respectively.

The Plaintiff was employed as a general worker and delivery person
at Defendants' restaurant. The Plaintiff was employed as a
non-managerial employee for Defendants from December 10, 2021 to,
through and including, March 16, 2022.

The Defendants own, operate and/or control a restaurant known as
"Crown Fried Chicken", located at 308 Tompkins Avenue, Brooklyn,
New York. The Individual Defendant possesses operational control
over the Corporate Defendant, possess an ownership interest in the
Corporate Defendant, and controls significant functions of the
Corporate Defendant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42 nd Street, Suite 4700
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 792-0046
          E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com

CURIS PHARMACY: Katz Seeks to Certify Class in "Fax Ads" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRUCE E. KATZ, M.D., P.C.,
D/B/A JUVA SKIN AND LASER CENTER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. CURIS PHARMACY, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00644-VSB (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "All persons in the United States who (1) on or after four
      years prior to the filing of the initial complaint in this
      action, (2) were sent, by Defendant or on Defendant's
      behalf, (3) a telephone facsimile message, (4) from whom
      Defendant claims it obtained prior express permission or
      invitation to send faxes in the same manner as Defendant
      claims it obtained prior express permission or invitation
      to send a fax the Plaintiff."

   2. appointing its attorneys as Class Counsel;

   3. appointing the Plaintiff as Class Representative; and

   4. granting award such additional relief as it deems necessary,
reasonable, and just.

In this case, the Defendant allegedly subjected the Plaintiff and
the Class to a uniform course of conduct. The Defendant sent
unsolicited fax advertisements that marketed their products and
services to thousands of individuals with whom it had no prior
business dealings or consent.

The Defendant also uniformly failed to apprise recipients of their
ability to opt-out of receiving future faxes, as required by the
Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (JFPA). And Defendant's default
means they admit they've acted and refused to act in the same or
similar manner with respect to Plaintiff and all class members.
Therefore, an injunction against transmitting faxes without
permission will apply to and benefit the entire class uniformly.
Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is therefore appropriate, the
lawsuit says.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jpqLgg
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Arons, Esq.
          ARONS & ARONS, LLC
          76 South Orange Ave., Suite 100
          South Orange, New Jersey 07079
          Telephone: (973) 762-0795
          Facsimile: (973) 762-0279
          E-mail: ja@aronslaw.net

               - and -

          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 E Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213-0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
          E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com

DONALD J TRUMP: Newman to File Letter on Bid to Intervene in Denson
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESSICA DENSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DONALD J. TRUMP FOR
PRESIDENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 20 Civ. 4737 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y.),
Judge Paul G. Gardephe of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued an Order directing Omarosa Newman to
submit a letter addressing why her motion is not moot in light of
the arbitrator's Sept. 24, 2021 ruling.

Ms. Newman has moved to intervene -- pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 24 -- in the putative class action. She argues that
she is entitled to intervene because the Defendant has "sued her in
arbitration on the invalid and unenforceable confidentiality and
non-disparagement provisions" of the agreement at issue in the
matter.

On Oct. 27, 2021, the Plaintiff notified the Court that Newman
prevailed in arbitration. In a Sept. 24, 2021 ruling, the
arbitrator granted Newman summary judgment, finding that "the
confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions are vague,
indefinite, and therefore void and unenforceable."

Judge Gardephe ordered Newman to submit a letter addressing why her
motion is not moot in light of the arbitrator's Sept. 24, 2021
ruling.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 25, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/3na6x42r from Leagle.com.


ELANCO ANIMAL: Court Won't Strike Exhibits to Hunter Dismissal Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SANDRA HUNTER, et al., Plaintiffs v. ELANCO ANIMAL
HEALTH INCORPORATED, et al. Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-01460-SEB-MG (S.D. Ind.), Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
Indianapolis Division, denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike.

The Plaintiffs moved to strike certain exhibits submitted by the
Defendants in support of their pending motion to dismiss pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), to which the Defendants
responded in opposition.

I. Introduction

The Plaintiffs brought the action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 alleging that the Defendants (collectively,
"Elanco") made false and misleading statements in their public
disclosures concerning Elanco's business.

On Jan. 13, 2021, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
first amended complaint ("FAC") pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 8, 9(b), and 12(b)(6) and for failure to meet the
pleading standards set forth in the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(b)(3) ("PSLRA").

On March 15, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved to strike certain exhibits
submitted by the Defendants in support of their pending motion to
dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), to which
the Defendants responded in opposition.

II. Background

The class action lawsuit was originally brought by Plaintiff
Hunter, individually and on behalf of all other persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Elanco securities
during the Class Period (between Sept. 20, 2018, and May 6, 2020),
including persons or entities that acquired Elanco common stock
pursuant to Elanco's merger with Aratana Therapeutics on July 18,
2019 and were damaged thereby. The FAC alleges that Defendants made
material misrepresentations and omissions regarding Elanco's
top-line revenue growth rate and related underlying end-user demand
as part of an alleged "channel stuffing" scheme during the Class
Period in violation of the Exchange Act and the Securities Act. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants knew that Elanco's materially
inflated channel inventory put Elanco's sales, revenues, and/or
results of operations at risk, and that this channel stuffing
scheme resulted in Elanco's share price drop on May 7, 2020.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' FAC on the grounds
that the Plaintiffs failed to plead any undisclosed
channel-stuffing that rendered any of the challenged statements
false or misleading or any intent to engage in a channel-stuffing
fraud. Rather, the Defendants contend that Elanco worked to grow
sales through legitimate marketing practices during the Class
Period, periodically reduced its financial guidance to reflect
decreased revenue, and later reduced its channel inventory after
the pandemic began.

In support of the Defendants' motion to dismiss, the Defendants'
attorney, Stacy Nettleton, filed a declaration to which were
attached copies of 77 exhibits, of which the Plaintiffs seek to
strike (1) Exhibit 15, American Veterinarian Medical Association's
("AVMA") March 20, 2020 guidance; (2) Exhibit 16, Patterson
Companies press release dated April 6, 2020; (3) Exhibit 17,
AmerisourceBergen Corporation's ("ABC") May 7, 2020 earnings call;
and (4) Exhibit 18, excerpts from Covetrus's Form 10-Q filed on May
14, 2020.

III. Discussion

The Plaintiffs assert that Exhibits 15, 16, 17, and 18 should be
stricken pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) as they are neither
incorporated into the FAC by reference nor the proper subject of
judicial notice. They further allege that the Defendants rely on
these extraneous documents to establish the truth of the disputed
matters asserted, which is improper on a motion to dismiss.
Defendants respond that the Plaintiffs' motion is procedurally
improper and, alternatively, that the four challenged Exhibits were
effectively incorporated into the FAC, are subject to judicial
notice, and may be considered in support of the undisputed facts
for which they are cited.

Because Judge Barker agrees that the Plaintiffs' motion is
procedurally improper in this instance, she does not consider the
merits of the parties' arguments as to each specific Exhibit at
this juncture.

The Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs' objection to their use
of the Exhibits should have been made (and in fact were made) in
the Plaintiffs' opposition to their motion to dismiss and, as a
result, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to now raise additional
arguments in a collateral filing. Citing Local Rule 56-1(i), they
note that the Court "disfavors collateral motions -- such as
motions to strike -- in the summary judgment process" because "any
dispute over the admissibility or effect of evidence must be raised
through an objection within a party's brief." While Local Rule 56-1
applies in the summary judgment context, it is appropriate in the
motion to dismiss context as well. The Plaintiffs concede that
Local Rule 56-1(i) has been applied in the context of motions to
dismiss but maintain that the Court is not required to apply the
rule.

Judge Barker finds that the Plaintiffs' motion to strike is
procedurally improper. On March 4, 2021, the Plaintiffs requested
and received leave to file an oversize brief in response to
Defendants' motion to dismiss based, in part, on their
representation that they needed additional space to "adequately
respond to the arguments raised in the Defendants' motion." The
Plaintiffs subsequently filed a 53-page opposition brief, including
40 pages of substantive argument. Their opposition brief includes
the very argument that they have now raised again in this separate
collateral motion, to wit, that the Court should not consider
Exhibits 15-18. Thus, the Plaintiffs' arguments have already been
brought before the Court, and "the Court is capable of applying the
correct standard to the facts discussed by the parties, and
deciding which of those facts are properly considered based on the
motion to dismiss standard."

The Plaintiffs are not entitled to another brief in which to raise
arguments against dismissal as this separate filing is unnecessary,
duplicative, and exceeds the allotted 40 pages for the Plaintiffs'
opposition to the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs'
arguments concerning the contested Exhibits will be addressed and
resolved in the Court's resolution of the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss.

IV. Conclusion

Accordingly, Judge Barker denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 25, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y3acfkfy from Leagle.com.


ELECTRIC LAST: Faces Fontaine Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PIERRE FONTAINE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ELECTRIC LAST MILE SOLUTIONS, INC. F/K/A FORUM MERGER
III CORP., TAYLOR, JASON LUO, DAVID BORIS, MARSHALL KIEV, ALBERT
LI, ROBERT SONG, Case No. 1:22-cv-01902 (D.N.J., April 4, 2022) is
a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired ELMS and/or FIIU securities, between November
12, 2020 and February 1, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period")
seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

On November 12, 2020, the first day of the Class Period, the
Company filed with the SEC its quarterly report for the period
ended September 30, 2020 (the "3Q20 Report") signed by Defendants
Kiev and Boris. Attached to the 3Q20 Report were certifications
pursuant to SOX signed by Defendants Kiev and Boris attesting to
the accuracy of financial reporting, the disclosure of any material
changes to the Company's internal control over financial reporting
and the disclosure of all fraud.

On February 1, 2022, after trading hours, the Company issued a
press release entitled "Electric Last Mile Solutions Announces
Leadership Transition and Financial Update" which announced changes
to is leadership and that certain of its financial statements
needed restatement.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.88 per share, or
51%, to close at $2.71 per share on February 2, 2022, the next
trading day, on unusually heavy trading volume, damaging
investors.

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

The market for ELMS securities was open, well-developed and
efficient at all relevant times. As a result of these materially
false and/or misleading statements, and/or failures to disclose,
ELMS securities traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period. Plaintiff and other members of the Class purchased or
otherwise acquired ELMS and/or FIIU securities relying upon the
integrity of the market price and market information relating to
ELMS and have been damaged thereby.

During the Class Period, the Defendants materially misled the
investing public, thereby inflating the price of ELMS securities,
by publicly issuing false and/or misleading statements and/or
omitting to disclose material facts necessary to make Defendants'
statements, as set forth herein, not false and/or misleading, the
lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff purchased ELMS securities during the Class Period and
was economically damaged thereby.

ELMS purports to be a pure-play commercial electric vehicle
company. On June 25, 2021, Electric Last Mile, Inc. and Forum
Merger III Corp., a special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC") or
blank check company, closed the merger (the "Merger") which
resulted in ELMS. The Individual Defendants are officers of the
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph N. Cotilletta, Esq.
          Francis P. McConville, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          David J. Schwartz
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: jcotilletta@labaton.com
                  fmcconville@labaton.com
                  dschwartz@labaton.com

               - and -

          Brian Schall, Esq.
          THE SCHALL LAW FIRM
          1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 303-1964
          E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com

EMERY FEDERAL: Brown RESPA Suit Moved From D. Md. to S.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANGELIA BROWN, MICHAEL AND SHARLENE ELLIS, and
JOSEPH TAYLOR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. EMERY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 8:21-cv-00591, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio on April 1, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Ohio assigned Case
No. 1:22-cv-00175-MRB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and the Racketeer
Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by receiving and
accepting things of value paid by All Star through its brokers,
loan officers, employees and/or agents in exchange for the
assignment and referral of business to All Star.

Emery Federal Credit Union is a federally chartered credit union
with its headquarters located in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Timothy F. Maloney, Esq.
         Veronica B. Nannis, Esq.
         JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A.
         6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
         Greenbelt, MD 20770
         Telephone: (301) 220-2200
         Facsimile: (301) 220-1214
         E-mail: tmaloney@jgllaw.com
                 vnannis@jgllaw.com

                 - and –

         Michael Paul Smith, Esq.
         Melissa L. English, Esq.
         SMITH, GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC
         600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
         Towson, MD 21204
         Telephone: (410) 821-0070
         Facsimile: (410) 821-0071
         E-mail: mpsmith@sgs-law.com
                 menglish@sgs-law.com

                 - and –

         Gregory M. Utter, Esq.
         Melissa S. Matthews, Esq.
         KEATING MUETHING & KLEKAMP, PLL
         1 East Fourth Street, Suite 1400
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Telephone: (513) 579-6540
         Facsimile: (513) 579-6457
         E-mail: gmutter@kmklaw.com
                 mmatthews@kmklaw.com

EVANSTON, IL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Capesius Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL J. CAPESIUS; RICHARD T. CLUCAS, JR.;; JOSEPH DES JARDINS;
LYNN M. FISHMAN; CARL HASTEN; LINDA THOMPSON; and TORY WIDEMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CITY OF EVANSTON, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-01754
(N.D. Il., April 5, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as telecommunicator.

EVANSTON is a college town suburb of Chicago. Located in Cook
County, Illinois, United States, it is situated on the North Shore
along Lake Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan A. Hagerty, Esq.
          Matt Pierce, Esq.
          Naomi Frisch, Esq.
          ASHER, GITTLER, & D’ALBA, LTD.
          200 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 720
          Chicago, Illinois 60606
          Telephone: (312) 263-1500
          Facsimile: (312) 263-1520
          Email: rah@ulaw.com
                 mjp@ulaw.com
                 naomi@ulaw.com

EVERBRIDGE INC: Sylebra Capital Sues Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------
SYLEBRA CAPITAL PARTNERS MASTER FUND LTD, SYLEBRA CAPITAL PARC
MASTER FUND, AND SYLEBRA CAPITAL MENLO MASTER FUND, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v.
EVERBRIDGE, INC., DAVID MEREDITH, PATRICK BRICKLEY, and JAIME
ELLERTSON, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-2249 (C.D. Cal., April 4,
2022) is a securities class action brought by the Plaintiffs on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Everbridge common stock between November 4, 2019 and
February 24, 2022, inclusive, against Everbridge and certain of its
officers for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Everbridge is a global software company that provides enterprise
software applications to automate and accelerate organizations'
operational response to "critical events" in order to keep people
safe and organizations running. The events for which the software
is designed to operate include public safety threats, Information
Technology outages, cyber-attacks, product recalls or supply-chain
interruptions.

According to the complaint, shortly before and throughout the class
period, Everbridge engaged in an unusual buying spree, purchasing
nine separate companies. During that same time, Defendants misled
investors regarding both the significant problems Everbridge was
encountering by its multiple acquisitions and the extent to which
the revenues it obtained from those acquired companies were being
used to mask increasingly stagnant organic growth. The failure to
fully integrate the acquired companies with Everbridge, and the
increasing complexity its products introduced into the Company's
offerings, rendered it increasingly difficult to pitch a single,
coherent system to Chief Information Officers of prospective
customers. The eventual result was a drop off of organic sales to
such an extent that it could no longer be camouflaged with the
revenues from additional acquisitions, says the suit.

On all this news, Everbridge's common stock price eventually fell
$15.68 per share, or 33.9%, to close at $30.61 per share on
February 25, 2022.

As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common
stock, Plaintiffs and other Class members have suffered significant
losses and damages, the complaint asserts.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan A. Llorens, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: ryanl@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

EVMO INC: Faces Hamlin Securities Suit in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------
EVmo, Inc. (formerly YayYo, 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 31, 2022, that it is
facing a case docketed "Jason Hamlin v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy
El-Batrawi, et al., 20-cv-8235" (C.D. Cal., September 9, 2020).

This action, filed in the in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, is a securities class action on
behalf of all purchasers of the company's common stock pursuant to
the registration statement and prospectus filed with the SEC and
distributed in connection with its IPO, which was launched on
November 14, 2019, alleging misrepresentations and material
omissions in the SEC filings in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933. Said case was later consolidated with
another similar case, docketed "William Koch v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy
El-Batrawi, et al., 20-cv-8591" (C.D. Cal., September 18, 2020).

EVmo, Inc. is a holding company operating principally through two
wholly-owned subsidiaries, Rideshare Car Rentals LLC and Distinct
Cars, LLC. Rideshare offers an online bookings platform while
Distinct Cars maintains a fleet of passenger vehicles and transit
vans for use in the last-mile logistical space for rent to
customers who are drivers in the ridesharing and delivery gig
industries. EVmo was initially formed on June 21, 2016 as a
Delaware limited liability company under the name "YayYo, LLC."


EVMO INC: Faces Koch Securities Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------
EVmo, Inc. (formerly YayYo, 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 31, 2022, that it is
facing a case docketed "William Koch v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy
El-Batrawi, et al., 20-cv-8591" (C.D. Cal., September 18, 2020).

This action, filed in the in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, is a securities class action on
behalf of all purchasers of the company's common stock pursuant to
the registration statement and prospectus filed with the SEC and
distributed in connection with its IPO, which was launched on
November 14, 2019, alleging misrepresentations and material
omissions in the SEC filings in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933. Said case was later consolidated with
another similar case, docketed "Jason Hamlin v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy
El-Batrawi, et al., 20-cv-8235" (C.D. Cal., September 9, 2020).

EVmo, Inc. is a holding company operating principally through two
wholly-owned subsidiaries, Rideshare Car Rentals LLC and Distinct
Cars, LLC. Rideshare offers an online bookings platform while
Distinct Cars maintains a fleet of passenger vehicles and transit
vans for use in the last-mile logistical space for rent to
customers who are drivers in the ridesharing and delivery gig
industries. EVmo was initially formed on June 21, 2016 as a
Delaware limited liability company under the name "YayYo, LLC."


EVMO INC: Settlement in Principle Reached in Rung Suit
------------------------------------------------------
EVmo, Inc. (formerly YayYo, 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 31, 2022, that the
parties in the case captioned "Ivan Rung v. YayYo, Inc., Ramy
El-Batrawi, et al.," Case No. 20STCV27876 (Cal. Sup., July 22,
2020), have announced a "settlement in principle," which is subject
to court approval in the district court.

This action, filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court, is a
securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of the
company's common stock pursuant to the registration statement and
prospectus filed with the SEC and distributed in connection with
its IPO, which was launched on November 14, 2019, alleging
misrepresentations and material omissions in the SEC filings in
violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

EVmo, Inc. is a holding company operating principally through two
wholly-owned subsidiaries, Rideshare Car Rentals LLC and  Distinct
Cars, LLC. Rideshare offers an online bookings platform while
Distinct Cars maintains a fleet of passenger vehicles and transit
vans for use in the last-mile logistical space for rent to
customers who are drivers in the ridesharing and delivery gig
industries. EVmo was initially formed on June 21, 2016 as a
Delaware limited liability company under the name "YayYo, LLC."


EVMO INC: Settlement in Principle Reached in Vanbecelaere Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
EVmo, Inc. (formerly YayYo, 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 31, 2022, that the
parties in the case captioned "Michael Vanbecelaere v. YayYo, Inc.,
Ramy El-Batrawi, et al.," Case No. 20STCV28066 (Cal. Sup., July 23,
2020), have announced a "settlement in principle," which is subject
to court approval in the district court.

This action, filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court, is a
securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of the
company's common stock pursuant to the registration statement and
prospectus filed with the SEC and distributed in connection with
its IPO, which was launched on November 14, 2019, alleging
misrepresentations and material omissions in the SEC filings in
violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

EVmo, Inc. is a holding company operating principally through two
wholly-owned subsidiaries, Rideshare Car Rentals LLC and Distinct
Cars, LLC. Rideshare offers an online bookings platform while
Distinct Cars maintains a fleet of passenger vehicles and transit
vans for use in the last-mile logistical space for rent to
customers who are drivers in the ridesharing and delivery gig
industries. EVmo was initially formed on June 21, 2016 as a
Delaware limited liability company under the name "YayYo, LLC."


FEIN & SUCH: Conditional Status of Settlement Class in Perez Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOCELYN PEREZ, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. FEIN, SUCH, KAHN &
SHEPARD, P.C.; THE ACCOUNTS RETRIEVABLE SYSTEM INC. d/b/a ARS, LLC
and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 2:20-cv-03809-AME (D.N.J.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of a settlement class
      defined as:

      CLASS A - All New Jersey consumers who FEIN SUCH LAW
      collected or attempted to collect a debt from, which was
      owned by ARS.

      CLASS B - All New Jersey consumers who were sent initial
      letters and/or notices from FEIN SUCH LAW in an attempt to
      collect on a judgment where interest, costs and/or fees
      were still accruing on the judgment, but the initial
      letters and/or notices failed to advise that the balance
      was subject to increase;

   2. approving conditionally the settlement of this action upon
      the terms and conditions set forth in the Class Action
      Settlement Agreement;

   3. conditionally approving the defined Class for the purposes
      of Settlement;

   4. approving the form and substance of, and the directing the
      manner of service of, the notice to the Class;

   5. Setting a date, time and place for a Fairness Hearing; and

   6. Granting the parties to this action and the Class such
      other and further relief.

FSKS is a general practice law firm.

Accounts Retrievable Systems is a New York judgment collection,
commercial collections and consumer recovery serving clients
worldwide.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 21, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ujMz3j at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin Wolf, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
          E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregg Tabakin, Esq.
          FEIN, SUCH, KAHN & SHEPARD, P.C.
          7 Century Drive, Suite 201
          Parsippany, NJ 07054
          Telephone: (973) 867-4507
          E-mail: gtabakin@fskslaw.com

FIRST FEDERAL: Faces Rivera Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
PIERINA RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. FIRST FEDERAL CREDIT CONTROL INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-21028-RNS (S.D. Cal., April 5, 2022) sues Defendant First
Federal Credit Control Inc for violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

On a date better known by Defendant, Defendant began attempting to
collect a debt (the "Consumer Debt") from Plaintiff. The Consumer
Debt is an obligation allegedly had by Plaintiff to pay money
arising from a transaction between the creditor of the Consumer
Debt, Lakes Radiology, and Plaintiff (the "Subject Service"), says
the suit.

The Subject Service was primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes. The Defendant is a business entity engaged in
the business of soliciting consumer debts for collection. The
Defendant is a business entity engaged in the business of
collecting consumer debts.

The Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly
or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due
another.

The Defendant is registered with the Florida Office of Financial
Regulation as a "Consumer Collection Agency." The Defendant’s
"Consumer Collection Agency" license number is CCA9904310. The
records specified by Rule 69V-180.080, Florida Administrative Code,
of which Defendant does maintain, are current to within one week of
the current date.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  tom@jibraellaw.com

FOUNTAINHEAD COMMERCIAL: Final Judgment Entered in Elizabeth Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California entered Final Judgment in the lawsuit
captioned ELIZABETH M. BYRNES, INC., a corporation, on behalf of
itself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOUNTAINHEAD
COMMERCIAL CAPITAL, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-04149-DDP (RAOx) (C.D. Cal.).

The cause came before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss Second
Amended Class Action Complaint filed by Defendants Fountainhead
Commercial Capital, LLC, and Fountainhead SBF LLC.

For the reasons set forth in the Court's Order Granting Defendants'
Motion To Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, entered separately on
Nov. 24, 2021, which Order dismissed with prejudice all of the
causes of action brought against the Defendants on the merits,
Judge Pregerson entered Final Judgment in favor of the Defendants
Fountainhead Commercial Capital, LLC and Fountainhead SBF LLC and
against the Plaintiff Elizabeth M. Byrnes, Inc., a corporation,
which filed the action on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated. The Plaintiff will recover nothing from the action.

The Court retains and reserves jurisdiction to enter any further
orders that may be just and necessary, including to enforce the
Final Judgment and to determine entitlement to an award of
attorneys' fees and/or costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 25, 2022 Final Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mr32bw5j from Leagle.com.


FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Hughes Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
BREZIE HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE, INC. d/b/a FRANCISCAN
HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00675-TWP-TAB (S.D., Ind.,
April 4, 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 Hughes was employed by the Defendant as health worker.

FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE, INC., doing business as Franciscan Physician
Network, provides health care services. The Company offers cancer
and diabetes care, emergency medicine, pediatrics, surgeries,
diagnostics, ophthalmology, intensive care, pain management, and
rehabilitation services. Franciscan Physician Network serves
patients in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

FSD PHARMA: Settlement Deal in Securities Suit Gets Court OK
------------------------------------------------------------
FSD Pharma 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 on February 4, 2021, a
settlement agreement was approved by the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice with regards to a shareholder-proposed class action
alleging that the company made statements containing
misrepresentations related to the build-out of its facility in
violation of the Ontario Securities Act.

On October 26, 2020, the company entered into the settlement
agreement with respect to the class action in the amount of
C$5,500,000. On February 4, 2021, this was approved by the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice.

FSD Pharma Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in Toronto,
Canada.


GIANT COMPANY: Hobert Class Suit Seeks Proper Overtime Premiums
---------------------------------------------------------------
CORBIN HOLBERT and BRET GLIDEWELL, each individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. THE GIANT COMPANY LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-00501-JPW (M.D. Pa., April 4, 2022) arises from the effect
of hack of Kronos in 2021 to The Giant Company's timekeeping and
payroll systems, leading to problems in timekeeping and payroll
throughout the Giant Company's organization.

Allegedly, the Giant Company's workers who were not exempt from the
overtime requirements under federal and state law, were not paid
for all hours worked or were not paid their proper overtime premium
after the onset of the Kronos hack as a result of the hack.

According to the complaint, The Giant Company could have easily
implemented a system for recording hours and paying wages to
non-exempt employees until issues related to the hack were
resolved. But it did not. Instead, The Giant Company used prior pay
periods or reduced payroll estimates to avoid paying wages and
proper overtime to these non-exempt hourly and salaried employees.
The Giant Company pushed the cost of the Kronos hack onto the most
economically vulnerable people in its workforce. The burden of the
Kronos hack was made to fall on front-line workers -- average
Americans -- who rely on the full and timely payment of their wages
to make ends meet.

The Giant Company's alleged failure to pay wages, including proper
overtime, for all hours worked violates the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA), the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL), the Maryland
Wage and Hour Law (MWHL), and the Maryland Wage Payment and
Collection Law (MWPCL).

Holbert and Glidewell bring this lawsuit to recover these unpaid
overtime wages and other damages owed by The Giant Company to him
and the non-overtime-exempt workers like him, who were the ultimate
victims of not just the Kronos hack, but also The Giant Company's
decision to make its front line workers bear the economic burden
for the hack.

The Giant Company is a Pennsylvania-based supermarket chain with
stores in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angeli Murthy, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Rd.Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 327-5369
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3016
          E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com

               - and -

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

GODIVA CHOCOLATIER: Huang May Attend Fairness Hearing in Hesse Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVE HESSE and ADAM BUXBAUM, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GODIVA
CHOCOLATIER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 19 CV 0972 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.),
Judge Loretta A. Preska of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York permitted Mr. Huang to attend the fairness
hearing by telephone.

The Court is in receipt of Mr. Huang's request to attend the
fairness hearing by telephone. Although the Court made clear in its
Oct. 26, 2021 order granting preliminary approval of the class
action settlement that the fairness hearing would be held "in
Courtroom 906 at the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, located at 40
Foley Square, New York, NY 10007," and although the Court today
relocated the hearing across the street to Courtroom 12A at 500
Pearl Street, New York, NY, given the circumstances, Judge Preska
permitted Mr. Huang to attend the fairness hearing by telephone.
The Court's deputy will contact Mr. Huang at the telephone number
provided shortly before the hearing begins.

Judge Preska notes that the hearing is open to the public but
public access by telephone will not be available.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 25, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/5n6cz7ms from Leagle.com.


GOLD MINE: Kim Suit Seeks Overtime Wages for Employees Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KYUNG BO KIM and YOUNG SUN KIM on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, v. GOLD MINE BEVERAGE, LLC, CHRIS CHO, and
HYOJOUNG CHO, Case No. 1:22-cv-01339-SDG (N.D. Ga., April 5, 2022)
is a class action complaint brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, seeking to recover overtime wages owed to Plaintiffs
and all similarly situated persons who are presently or were
formerly employed by a business known as Gold Mine Beverage, also
known as Lovejoy Package Store.

The action challenges the Defendants paid Plaintiff Kyung Bo Kim
and similarly situated workers a fixed hourly rate regardless of
number of hours Plaintiff worked. The Plaintiff brings this action
on behalf of themselves and similarly situated who worked for
Defendants and paid fixed hourly rate regardless of number of hours
they worked in the United States and were not paid properly in
accordance with the FLSA.

During the three year period preceding the filing of this action
and continuing to the present (the "Collective Action Period"), the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated Defendants' employees who opt in
to this action pursuant to the FLSA, U.S.C. section 216(b) allege
that they were paid in an unlawful manner and are entitled to
recover overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Throughout Plaintiffs' employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff
Kyung Bo Kim were employed as an assistant manager, and Young Sun
Kim were employed as a stocker. The Plaintiffs' primary duty did
not include works requiring exercise of discretion and judgment,
the lawsuit says.

Gold Mine owns and operates a retail stores in Northern District of
Georgia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian G Kim, Esq.
          BRIAN PLAINTIFFS, PC
          1815 Satellite Blvd. No. 403
          Duluth, GA 30097
          Telephone: (678) 878-4200
          Facsimile: (404) 878-4208
          E-Mail: brian@briankimpc.com

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Lewis, et al. Win Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERRY LEWIS and DAVID V.
LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
1:18-cv-05111-RBK-MJS (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Robert B. Kugler
entered an order that:

   1. The Defendant GEICO's motion to Strike the Testimony and
      Report of Lance Kaufman is denied;

   2. The Defendant Defendant's Motion to Strike the Testimony
      and Report of David Schwickerath is granted; and

   3. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class is granted.

Government Employees provides insurance products.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NSmZtQ at no extra
charge.[CC]

HELVEY & ASSOCIATES: Faces Ortiz Suit Over Unfair Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NIDIA ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, v. HELVEY & ASSOCIATES INC., Case No. 0:22-cv-60675 (S.D.
Fla., April 5, 2022) is a class action lawsuit alleging violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Defendant violated section 1692g of the FDCPA and section
1006.34(b)(3) of Reg F by failing to use one of the five
itemization dates permitted by section 1006.34(b)(3) of Reg F in a
Collection Letter, as the Defendant was required to use one of the
five itemization dates set forth under section 1006.34(b)(3) in the
Collection Letter, but instead, used the Represented Itemization
Date in the Collection Letter, whereby the Represented Itemization
Date is not one of the five dates permitted by section
1006.34(b)(3) of Reg F.

On a date better known by the Defendant, the Defendant began
attempting to collect a debt (the "Consumer Debt") from Plaintiff.
The Consumer Debt is an obligation allegedly had by Plaintiff to
pay money arising from a transaction between the creditor of the
Consumer Debt, Duke Energy Florida, and Plaintiff (the "Subject
Service").

The Subject Service was primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes. The Defendant is a business entity engaged in
the business of soliciting consumer debts for collection. The
Defendant is a business entity engaged in the business of
collecting consumer debts. The Defendant regularly collects or
attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or
asserted to be owed or due another.

The Defendant is registered with the Florida Office of Financial
Regulation as a "Consumer Collection Agency."

On a date better known by Defendant, the Defendant sent a letter to
Plaintiff, of which was internally dated February 16, 2022, (the
"Collection Letter") in an attempt to collect the Consumer Debt.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of
Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons as a class action. The "Class" that Plaintiff
seeks to represent is the below defined "FDCPA Class."

The "FDCPA Class" consists of: [1] all persons with Florida
addresses [2] that were sent a letter [3] from and/or by Defendant,
or someone on Defendant's behalf [4] in an attempt to collect a
debt [5] during the twelve [12] months preceding the filing of this
Class Action Complaint [6] whereby said letter is required to
provide an "itemization date" required by C.F.R. section
1006.34(b)(3) [7] and the "itemization date" provided is not Last
Statement Date, the Charge Off Date, the Last Payment Date, the
Transaction Date, or the Judgment Date associated with the
underlying debt.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
           THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
           110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
           Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
           Telephone: (954) 907-1136
           Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
           E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                   tom@jibraellaw.com

HOLTZMAN ENTERPRISES: German Seeks Certification of Class, Subclass
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAITH GERMAN, and ASHLYN
HOFFMAN, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v.
HOLTZMAN ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a Great Clips -- HEI, Case No.
1:19-cv-03540-PAB-STV (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order certifying a class consisting of all individuals who
worked for the Defendant as stylists, managers, and/or assistant
managers during the period from December 13, 2013 to the present.

The Plaintiffs also seek certification of a subclass consisting
of:

   "all Class Members who worked for the Defendant from December
    13, 2016 to the present."

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant violated the Class
Members' rights under the Colorado Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA") and
its implementing regulations by failing to pay them minimum wages
and overtime compensation for all of the time that they worked.
They further assert that the Defendant violated the Subclass
Members' rights under the Colorado Wage Act/Colorado Wage Claim Act
("CWCA") and its implementing regulations by failing to pay them
wages and overtime compensation at their agreed hourly rates for
all of the time that they worked during the CWCA Period.

Because the Class and the Subclass satisfy the prerequisites of
Rule 23(a) and the of Rule 23(b)(3), class certification is
appropriate, the Plaintiffs contend.

The Defendant owned and operated approximately 30 stores in the
state of Colorado during the Relevant Period. During the Relevant
Period, the Defendant employed at least 612 individuals as
stylists, managers, and/or assistant managers ("Class Members").

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 18,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3r281Ig
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Claire E. Hunter, Esq.
          Shelby Woods, Esq.
          Adam M. Harrison, Esq.
          HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
          730 17 th Street, Suite 750
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (720) 255-0370
          Facsimile: (720) 668-8989
          E-mail: chunter@hkm.com
                  swoods@hkm.com
                  aharrison@hkm.com

IBERDROLA SA: Deadline to File Class Status Bid Extended to July 1
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEVESQUE, et al., v.
IBERDROLA SA, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00389 (D. Maine),  the Hon.
Judge John C. Nivison entered an order on motion to amend
scheduling order as follows:

  -- Deadline for Plaintiffs to                June 3, 2022
     designate expert witnesses
     is extended to:

  -- Deadline for Plaintiffs to                July 1, 2022
     file motion for class
     certification is extended to:

  -- Deadline for Defendants to                Aug. 19, 2022
     designate expert witnesses is
     extended to:

  -- Deadline for Defendants to                Sept. 30, 2022
     file opposition to motion
     for class certification is
     extended to:

  -- Deadline for Plaintiffs to                Oct. 28, 2022
     file reply in support of
     motion for class certification
     is extended to:

  -- Deadline to complete discovery            Dec. 23, 2022
     is extended to:

  -- Deadline for the Plaintiffs               July 15, 2022
     to serve written settlement
     demand is extended to:

  -- Deadline for Defendants to                Sept. 16, 2022
     serve written response to
     settlement demand is extended
     to:

The suit alleges violation of the Racketeering (RICO) Act.

Iberdrola is a Spanish multinational electric utility company based
in Bilbao, Spain.[CC]

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Faces Adam Suit Over Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUNE E. ADAMS IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED 7/21/14 FBO EDWARD ROBERT
ADAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION; VIRGINIA
M. ROMETTY; MARTIN J. SCHROETER; JAMES J. KAVANAUGH; and ARVIND
KRISHNA, Defendants, Case No. 7:22-cv-02831 (S.D.N.Y., April 5,
2022) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons
and entities, who purchased the securities of IBM during the period
of April 4, 2017, and October 20, 2021, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages and pursue remedies
under the the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, on October 20, 2021, after the close of
the market, the Company issued a press release announcing its
3Q2021 results. The Company announced total revenues for the
quarter of $17.62 billion, a shortfall of $191.84 million based on
analyst estimates. The main culprit was Cloud & Cognitive Software
segment, which had revenues of $5.69 billion, a shortfall of
approximately $80 million based on analyst estimates of $5.77
billion. Over 42% of the shortfall of approximately $190 million
was attributable to Cloud & Cognitive Software, including Watson,
the segment where most of the strategic revenue produced by the
fraudulent scheme and the wrongful reclassification of revenues
from non-strategic to strategic historically went.

The Defendants had curtailed their fraudulent scheme and shifting
of revenue in anticipation of the new business model based on the
Red Hat hybrid cloud acquisition and other IP, which was now poised
to substantially increase IBM's total revenue, says the suit.

On October 20, 2021, IBM stock closed at $133.87 per share. After
the news of IBM's poor 3Q2021 results became publicly disseminated,
IBM stock fell dramatically. From its close on October 20, 2021, of
$133.87 per share, IBM shares closed at $121.07 per share on
October 21, 2021, a drop of almost $13 per share.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION (IBM) provides computer
solutions. The Company offers application, technology consulting
and support, process design and operations, cloud, digital
workplace, and network services, as well as business resiliency,
strategy, and design solutions. IBM serves clients worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
          Sanford P. Dumain, Esq.
          Jennifer S. Czeisler, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300

JIN HUA TRADING: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, Garcia Class Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO GARCIA, BLANBINO MARTINEZ, CELERINO PRIMITIVO, FLORENTINO
TORRES, JORGE RAMOS, JOSE RAMOS, MARCOS RAMOS, PEDRO BARRAGAN,
ROBERTO TORRES, TEODOLO TORRES, CHRISTIAN ANGEL, PASCUAL SALINAS
and FORTINO MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. JIN HUA TRADING LLC and PINK PINK TRADING
INC., YIN NGAN WONG and HEHUA CHEN, as individuals, Case No.
1:22-cv-01859 (E.D.N.Y., April 4, 2022) seeks to recover damages
for the Defendants' egregious violations of state and federal wage
and hour laws arising out of Plaintiffs' employment with the
Defendants located in Brooklyn, New York.

As a result of the alleged violations of Federal and New York State
labor laws delineated below, the Plaintiffs seeks compensatory
damages and liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $100,000.00.
The Plaintiffs also seeks interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all
other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves, and other
employees similarly situated as authorized under the Fair Labor
Standards Act. The employees similarly situated are the "Collective
Class:"

"All persons who are or have been employed by the Defendants as
helpers, supplies loaders, stockers, shipment and order preparers,
loaders, cleaners, delivery men and driver assistants or any other
similarly titled personnel with substantially similar job
requirements and pay provisions, who were performing the same sort
of functions for the Defendants, other than the executive and
management positions, who have been subject to Defendants' common
practices, policies, programs, procedures, protocols and plans
including willfully failing and refusing to pay required overtime
wages."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598


JOHN KELLY: Court Sets Pretrial Deadlines in Morales Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nataly Morales v. John
Kelly Foods, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-08432-JAK-MAA (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt, entered an order setting pretrial
deadlines as follows:

  -- Last day to amend or add parties:      April 25, 2022

  -- Last day to participate in a           October 19, 2022
     settlement conference/mediation:

  -- Last day to file notice of             October 21, 2022
     settlement / joint report re
     settlement:

  -- Post Mediation Status Conference:      October 31, 2022

  -- Deadline to file Motion for            July 11, 2022
     Class Certification:

  -- Deadline to file Opposition            August 8, 2022
     to Motion for Class Certification:

  -- Deadline to file Reply in Support      August 22, 2022
     of Motion for Class Certification:

  -- Hearing on Motion for Class            September 12, 2022
     Certification:

  -- Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off:          November 14, 2022

  -- Initial Expert Disclosures:            December 5, 2022

  -- Rebuttal Expert Disclosures:           December 19, 2022

  -- Expert Discovery Cut-Off:              January 9, 2023

  -- Last day to file All Motions:          January 9, 2023
     (including discoverymotions)

John Kelly offers gourmet chocolates sold in department stores,
specialty shops, hotel gift shops, grocery stores and online.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3LUatrZ at no extra charge.[CC]

JOHNSON CONTROLS: Henderson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN HENDERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-00414 (E.D. Wis., April 3, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff and
similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Mr. Henderson has worked for the Defendant since June 2014.

Johnson Controls, Inc. is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) company, headquartered in Wisconsin. [BN]

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

JP MORGAN: Nypl Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial in Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs JOHN NYPL, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled JOHN NYPL, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
JP MORGAN CHASE & Co., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-9300, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (New York City).

Plaintiffs John Nypl, et al. brought this suit on behalf of a
nationwide putative class of purchasers and end-users of foreign
currency transactions from banks at benchmark exchange rates fixed,
rigged, and manipulated by Bank of America Corporation, Bank of
America, N.A., JP Morgan Chase & Co, J.P. Morgan Bank, N.A., JP
Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., HSBC Bank USA, N.A., HSBC North American
Holdings, Citigroup, Inc., Citicorp, Citibank, N.A., UBS AG,
Barclays PLC, Barclays Capital, Inc., Royal Bank of Scotland, PLC,
and other unnamed co-conspirators, pursuant to a conspiracy,
combination and agreement to fix, rig and manipulate foreign
currency benchmark exchange rates in violation of section 1 of the
Sherman Act. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and monetary
damages, including treble damages, to compensate them for
overcharge damages caused by reason of the unlawful conspiracy.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 5, 2022, Judge
Lorna G. Schofield of the Southern District of New York issued an
Opinion and Order (1) denying the Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23
class certification; (2) granting in part and denying in part the
Defendants' motion to exclude the report and testimony of the
Plaintiffs' expert, Carl S. Saba; and (3) denying the Plaintiffs'
motion to exclude the rebuttal report and testimony of the
Defendants' expert, Bruce A. Strombom.

The Plaintiffs are taking an appeal from this Order and have filed
an appellate case captioned as Nypl v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., Case
No. 22-698, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, on April 4, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Lisa McCarthy, an individual; Mad Travel,
Inc., AKA Travel Leaders; Valarie Jolly, an individual; Go
Everywhere, Inc., a corporation; and William Rubinsohn and John
Nypl, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Joseph M. Alioto, Sr., Esq.
          ALIOTO LAW FIRM
          1 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 434-8900

Defendants-Respondents JP Morgan Chase & Co., Bank of America,
N.A., Bank of America Corporation, HSBC Bank (USA), N.A., HSBC
North American Holdings Inc., Citigroup, Inc., UBS AG, Barclays
PLC, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Citicorp, Citibank, N.A., Barclays
Capital, Inc., and Royal Bank of Scotland, plc are represented by:

          Tansy Woan, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          One Manhattan West
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 735-2472

               - and -

          Adam Selim Hakki, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 848-4924

               - and -

          James Matthew Goodin, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          111 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 443-0472

               - and -

          Andrew A. Ruffino, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          The New York Times Building
          620 8th Avenue
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 841-1097

               - and -

          Eric Jonathan Stock, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 351-2301

               - and -

          Adam Seth Paris, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          1888 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 712-6600

               - and -

          Paul S. Mishkin, Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 450-4000

KNIX WEAR: Menstrual Underwear Contains PFAS, Rivera Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
GEMMA RIVERA and MARISA FRANZ, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KNIX WEAR, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-02137 (N.D. Cal., April 4, 2022) is a
class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated consumers who purchased
Defendant's menstrual underwear, which are unfit for their intended
use because they allegedly contain unsafe per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS), in violation of the California's Unfair
Competition Law, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act, the California's False Advertising Law, and
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

According to the complaint, based on Defendant's representations, a
reasonable consumer would expect that the products can be safely
used as marketed and sold. However, the products are not safe,
posing a significant health risk to unsuspecting consumers. Yet,
neither before nor at the time of purchase does Defendant notify
consumers like Plaintiffs that their products are unsafe, contain
heightened levels of PFAS, or should otherwise be used with
caution, says the suit.

Ms. Rivera and Ms. Franz purchased Defendant's product directly
from Knix's website in approximately February 2022 and May 2021,
respectively.

Knix Wear, Inc. is a manufacturer of intimate apparel for
women.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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 -

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

KROGER CO: Bid to Dismiss White's First Amended Complaint Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PHILLIP WHITE, Plaintiff v. THE KROGER CO., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-08004-RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard
Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California denied Kroger's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
operative First Amended Complaint.

I. Introduction

In the putative class action, the Plaintiff alleges that sunscreen
products produced by Defendant Fruit of the Earth, and sold by
Defendant Kroger under its "house brand," are misleadingly labeled
as "reef friendly," when they in fact contain ingredients with the
potential to damage reefs. The Plaintiff advances claims under
California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section
17200, et seq. ("UCL"); California False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus.
& Prof. Code Section 17500, et seq. ("FAL"); and the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal Civ. Code Section 1750, et seq.
("CLRA"), as well as breach of implied warranty and "unjust
enrichment."

Kroger moves to dismiss the operative First Amended Complaint in
its entirety, arguing the claim "reef friendly" is inactionable as
it is "mere puffery," and that in any event the question should be
left to agency regulation under the primary jurisdiction doctrine.
Kroger also raises several other challenges to portions of the
complaint.

II. Discussion

A. Puffery

Kroger acknowledges the "reasonable consumer" inquiry is ordinarily
fact-intensive and not well-suited for resolution at the pleading
stage. Kroger insists, however, that the question of whether a
challenged representation is "mere puffery," and therefore
inactionable, is a separate issue, and one of pure law. It would
not be proper to disregard potential factual issues regarding how
reasonable consumers would understand a representation when
evaluating whether it constitutes "puffery." In some instances,
however, it is possible to conclude at the pleading stage that an
alleged misrepresentation is too generalized, vague, subjective,
and/or constitutes exaggerated boasting, such that a consumer
cannot reasonably rely on the claim.

Kroger, however, has failed to show that "reef friendly" is such a
term in the context of the allegations of the complaint, Judge
Seeborg holds. While neither the FTC guides nor the California
statute directly creates a private cause of action, they do
undermine any argument that "reef friendly" can be dismissed as
mere puffery. Kroger's response is that the California statute does
not specifically list "reef friendly" as a prohibited term, and
that under "basic statutory interpretation principles" California
law should therefore be read as hurting, rather than helping
plaintiff's position. Kroger's attempt to invoke "expressio unius
est exclusio alterius," is misdirected because as noted the
statutes expressly extend to "ecologically friendly," "earth
friendly," "environmentally friendly," or any other like term."
Accordingly, the complaint is not subject to dismissal on grounds
that the alleged misrepresentations are mere puffery.

B. Primary jurisdiction

Judge Seeborg finds that Kroger points to pending legislation in
Congress that, if enacted, likely will result in the FDA eventually
developing regulations that may govern sunscreen ingredients and
how they may be represented, in connection with reef health. That
possibility is too remote at this juncture to warrant a stay or
dismissal, particularly where evaluating the merits of the
misrepresentation claim under existing law is well within the
expertise of the courts.

C. Rule 9(b)

Kroger argues the claims sounding in fraud are not pleaded with the
specificity required by Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The complaint, however, quite clearly sets out what representation
is allegedly misleading, where and how the Defendants make the
representation, and why the Plaintiffs contend it is misleading,
Judge Seeborg holds. It is sufficient. Kroger's argument that the
studies cited in the complaint do not prove the Plaintiff's claims
or that the allegations are otherwise factually insufficient
misconstrues his pleading burden.

D. Other issues

Kroger argues the breach of implied warranty claim fails because
the Plaintiff fails to explain how the challenged sunscreen
products do "not possess even the most basic degree of fitness for
ordinary use." Under Cal. Com. Code Section 2314(2)(f), however,
the implied warranty of merchantability includes a promise that the
goods "conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the
container or label." The Plaintiff has adequately alleged breach of
that implied promise.

Kroger's challenges to the Plaintiff's standing with respect to
specific sunscreen products he did not purchase and to his ability
to represent a nationwide class both represent matters that are
better addressed at the class certification stage, notwithstanding
the fact that in some circumstances they can be decided at the
pleading stage.

Finally, while the viability of "unjust enrichment" as a standalone
claim remains a matter of some dispute, there is no basis to
dismiss it here where underlying claims remain. Accordingly, it may
go forward.

III. Conclusion

Judge Seeborg denied the motion to dismiss.

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


LAKEVIEW LOAN: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Kunz Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD KUNZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-21003-MGC (S.D. Fla., April 1, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant for negligence and violation of
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to properly secure
and safeguard its customers' sensitive personally identifiable
information (PII) following an unauthorized access to its file
servers from October 27, 2021 to December 7, 2021. Despite learning
of the data breach in December 2021, the Defendant did not notify
the Plaintiff and Class Members until mid-March 2022. The Plaintiff
and Class Members were unable to take actions to protect themselves
and attempt to mitigate the harm until they received notice. They
have suffered numerous actual and imminent injuries as a result of
the data breach including but not limited to: (a) theft of their
PII; (b) costs associated with the detection and prevention of
identity theft; and (c) emotional distress, stress, nuisance, and
annoyance.

Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC is a mortgage servicer, with its
principal place of business in Coral Gables, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
         Dorothy P. Antullis, Esq.
         Eric S. Dwoskin, Esq.
         Maxwell H. Sawyer, Esq.
         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
         Boca Raton, FL 33432
         Telephone: (561) 750-3000
         Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
         E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                 dantullis@rgrdlaw.com
                 edwoskin@rgrdlaw.com
                 msawyer@rgrdlaw.com

                 - and –

         Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
         CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
         100 Washington Ave., Ste. 1700
         Minneapolis, MN 55401
         Telephone: (612) 339-7300
         Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
         E-mail: bbleicher@chestnutcambronne.com

LAWPRACTICECLE LLC: Goren Loses Bid for Summary Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM D. GOREN, for
himself and other similarly situated individuals, v.
LAWPRACTICECLE, L.L.C., a Florida limited liability company, Case
No. 8:21-cv-01503-WFJ-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge William F.
Jung entered an order:

  1. declining to make a pre-certification ruling on the
     merits of Plaintiff's motion; and

  2. denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment with
     leave to re-file after a class certification determination.

The Court said, "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 Defendant. As explained in Koehler, this is the unfairness
that the rule against one-way intervention aims to avoid. The Court
also notes that this case of first impression may look different
than the run-of-the-mill fraud class action in which this 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 Plaintiff’s motion. Even if this Court
were to overlook the fact that 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 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 Defendant failed to offer
auxiliary aids for its other courses.

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
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"). The Plaintiff contends
that when he asked 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 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 Plaintiff and
other individuals with hearing disabilities.

The Plaintiff also seeks a nationwide injunction requiring
Defendant to provide captioning for all courses and dial-in numbers
for all live courses.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NUcjuW at no extra charge.[CC]

LHOIST NORTH: Initial OK of Settlement Denied w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SIONE FUAPAU, et al., v.
LHOIST NORTH AMERICA OF ARIZONA, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-04404-VKD
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi entered an order
denying without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement.

The Court finds that plaintiffs have met the requirements for
conditional class certification, but have not shown that Mr.
Mendoza is an adequate class representative. The Plaintiffs also
have not shown that the proposed settlement of the class and
representative claims is fair, adequate, and reasonable.

The Settlement Agreement defines the proposed class as

   "all current and former non- Proposed Class exempt employees
   of Defendant who worked in the State of California at any
   time during the Class Period."

   -- Payment Terms

      The Settlement Agreement provides that Lhoist will pay
      $320,000.00 (gross settlement amount) in full satisfaction
      of all class and representative action claims.

      The gross settlement amount includes: (1) individual
      payments to class members; (2) 10 payments for attorneys’
      fees and costs awarded to class counsel, not to exceed
      $106,666.67 for fees and $25,000 for costs; (3) claims
      administration costs, estimated to be $6,250; and (4) a
      payment to resolve any and all claims of class members and
      the State of California arising under PAGA, 75% of which
      shall be paid to the LWDA, and 25% of which shall be
      distributed to the class members.

      The net settlement amount for individual class settlement
      payments after deducting attorneys’ fees and costs, claims

      administration costs, and the payment to resolve PAGA
      claims is estimated to be $167,083.33.

      Any unclaimed portion of the settlement funds will be
      distributed to the Watsonville Law Center as a designated
      cy pres recipient.

The Plaintiffs Sione Fuapau, Alfredo Godinez, Gabriel Mendoza,
Manuel Vaca, Michael Nau, Antonio Guzman, Jesus Guerrero, Ivan
Pacheco, and Miguel Reyes, Jr. filed this state law wage-and-hour
action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
against their employer, Lhoist North America. The Plaintiffs allege
that Lhoist violated California state labor laws.

The Plaintiffs allege that during their employment, Lhoist
intentionally failed to pay its employees the full wages owed for
overtime hours worked, nondiscretionary safety bonuses earned, and
contractually promised shift premiums. They say that Lhoist
regularly required employees to work, without overtime pay, more
than eight hours in a single workday and more than 40 hours in a
workweek. The Plaintiffs further allege that employees never
received off-duty meal periods, even though Lhoist automatically
deducted 30 minutes of pay per day from each employee to account
for meal periods.

Lhoist is an Arizona corporation that operates a mineral products
business with its headquarters in Fort Worth, Texas.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jiND0X at no extra charge.[CC]

LINA VIVAS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Smith Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
AARON SMITH; and ROBIN JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LINA VIVAS MAINTENANCE,
INC; and LINA VIVAS, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01862 (E.D.N.Y.,
April4, 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 Defendant as manual laborer,
driver, and cleaner.

LINA VIVAS MAINTENANCE, INC. provides janitorial, sanitation, and
maintenance services for firms through the five boroughs of New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
         Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
         LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 792-0046
         Email: Joshua@levinepstein.com

LUCID GROUP: Faces Mangino Suit Over 13% Drop of Stock Price
------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR W. MANGINO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LUCID GROUP, INC., PETER RAWLINSON, and
SHERRY HOUSE, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02094-JD (N.D. Cal.,
April 1, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts, about Lucid's business and operations to
trade Lucid common stock at artificially inflated prices between
November 15, 2021, and February 28, 2022. Specifically, the
Defendants overstated Lucid's production capabilities while
concealing that extraordinary supply chain and logistics challenges
were hampering the company's operations from the start of the Class
Period.

When the truth emerged, the price of Lucid common stock fell $3.99
per share, or more than 13 percent, from a close of $28.98 per
share on February 28, 2022, to close at $24.99 per share on March
1, 2022.

Lucid Group, Inc. is a company that designs, engineers, builds, and
sells luxury electric vehicles, with principal executive offices in
Newark, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jennifer L. Joost, Esq.
         KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
         One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Telephone: (415) 400-3000
         Facsimile: (415) 400-3001
         E-mail: jjoost@ktmc.com

                 - and –

         Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
         Darren J. Check, Esq.
         Ryan T. Degnan, Esq.
         Barbara A. Schwartz, Esq.
         KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (610) 667-7706
         Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
         E-mail: namjed@ktmc.com
                 dcheck@ktmc.com
                 rdegnan@ktmc.com
                 bschwartz@ktmc.com

MANHATTAN FOOD: Mercedes Files Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming
-------------------------------------------------------------
LORENA MERCEDES; ETHEL DUBOUZET; and BARBORA SIMPSON individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
MANHATTAN FOOD & BEV LTD. d/b/a REICHENBACH HALL; WILIAM
REICHENBACH aka WILLY REICHENBACH; and KEITH REICHENBACH
individually, Defendants, Case No. CACE-22-004886 (Fla. Cir.,
Broward Cty., April 4, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as waiters.

MANHATTAN FOOD & BEV LTD. d/b/a REICHENBACH HALL owns and operates
a restaurant in New York, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse C. Rose, Esq.
          THE ROSE LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3272 Steinway Street, Suite 503
          Astoria, NY 11103
          Telephone: (718) 989-1864
          Facsimile: (917) 831-4595

MATALCO (US) INC: Ray Sues Over Production Staff's Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
IVAN RAY, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MATALCO (U.S.), INC. Defendant, Case No.
5:22-cv-00527-SL (N.D. Ohio, April 4, 2022) challenges Defendant's
alleged policies and practices of failing to pay proper overtime
compensation to Plaintiff and class members in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act.

Representative Plaintiff and others similarly situated were
employed by Defendant as production employees. They were not paid
overtime compensation for all of the hours they worked over 40 each
workweek, says the suit.

Matalco (U.S.), Inc. manufactures aluminum products and sells those
products throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B  
          North Canton, OH 44720
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com

MATCH GROUP: Seeks Extension to File Class Certification Response
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMIR ALI CHERIF BENOUIS,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
MATCH GROUP, INC., AMANDA W. GINSBERG AND GARY SWIDLER, Case No.
3:19-cv-02356-S (N.D. Tex.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter
an order extending the deadline for responding to Plaintiff's
motion to certify class to Monday, April 25, 2022, with Plaintiff's
reply deadline extended until June 1, 2022.

Match Group is an American internet and technology company
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. It owns and operates the largest
global portfolio of popular online dating services including
Tinder, Match.com, Meetic, OkCupid, Hinge, PlentyOfFish, Ship, and
OurTime.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 21, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uoa4IB at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Peter A. Stokes, Esq.
          Veronica P. Kendrick, Esq.
          Gerard G. Pecht, Esq.
          Robert L. Greeson, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600
          Dallas, Texas 75201-7921
          Telephone: (214) 855-8000
          E-mail: robert.greeson@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  veronica.kendrick@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  gerard.pecht@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  peter.stokes@nortonrosefulbright.com

MATRIX ABSENCE: Heckle Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Erica Heckle, v. Matrix
Absence Management, Inc., Case No. 7:21-cv-01463-VB (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class under
Rule 23 consisting of the following:

   "All current and former Telephonic Claims Examiners employed
   by Defendant from February 18, 2015, to the final date of
   judgment in Defendant's Hawthorne, New York office (whether
   in-person or remotely from home)."

In addition, the Plaintiff moves for an Order appointing the
counsel for Plaintiff to serve as Class Counsel.

Matrix Absence provides absence management services.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 21,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O0lcTS
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq.
          THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM , PC
          3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (281) 572-0727
          E-mail: travis@hedgpethlaw.com

               - and -

          Molly A. Elkin, Esq.
          Sarah M. Block, Esq.
          MCGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
          1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 833-8855
          Facsimile: (202) 452-1090
          E-mail: mae@mselaborlaw.com
                  smb@mselaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Jack Siegel, Esq.
          Stacy Thomsen, Esq.
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
          5706 E Mockingbird Lane, Suite 115
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 790-4454
          E-mail: jack@siegellawgroup.biz
                  stacy@siegellawgroup.biz

The Defendant is represented by:

          Evan B. Citron, Esq.
          Jamie Haar, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS
          NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          599 Lexington Ave., 17 th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 492-2068
          Facsimile: (212) 492-2501
          E-mail: evan.citron@ogletreedeakins.com
                  jamie.haar@ogletreedeakins.com

MBM BUSINESS: Faces Tabai Suit Over Unsolicited Sales Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
CAROLINA TABAI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MBM BUSINESS HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. CACE-22-004882 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., April
4, 2022) is a class action brought under the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act arising from the Defendant's alleged engagement in
telephonic sales calls to consumers, including Plaintiff, without
having secured prior express written consent.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's telephonic sales calls
have caused Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including
violations of their statutory rights, statutory damages, annoyance,
nuisance, and invasion of their privacy.

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory
damages on behalf of himself and the Class members, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the unlawful
actions of the Defendant.

MBM Business Holdings, Inc. is a foreign corporation and a
"telephone solicitor" as defined by Fla. Stat. Section
501.059(f).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

MEDICAL REVIEW: More Time to Respond to Class Action Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Amer v. Medical Review
Institute of America, Case No. 2:22-cv-00132-DAK-DBP (D. Utah.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension
of time for Medical Review Institute of America (MRIoA) to respond
to the class action complaint on or before April 21, 2022.

Additionally, the Parties by and through his undersigned counsel,
hereby move the Court for an extension of time for Plaintiff to
file a motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23, through and including October 21, 2022.

The Parties state as follows:

  1. Plaintiff filed the Class Action Complaint on February 25,
     2022.

  2. The complaint was served on March 1, 2022.

  3. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, MRIoA's
     current response deadline is March 22, 2022.

  4. MRIoA respectfully requests a 30-day extension of time to
     respond to Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint to adequately
     prepare its response. The extension request is also due to
     the press of defense counsel's other business matters with
     deadlines prior to or around the same time as the current
     deadline to respond to this case.

MRIoA delivers technology-enabled review services.

A copy of the Parties' motion to certify class dated March 21, 2022
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JqrmZT at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
         KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
         E-mail: jason@kazlg.com

The Defendant is represented by:

         Douglas C. Smith, Esq.
         Jon P. Kardassakis, Esq.
         LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
         6550 South Millrock Drive, Suite 200
         Salt Lake City, UT 84121
         Telephone: (801) 562-5555
         Facsimile: 801.562.5510
         E-mail: Douglas.Smith@LewisBrisbois.com
                Jon.Kardassakis@lewisbrisbois.com

NEW MULAN: Xochitemol Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELOY XOCHITEMOL, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW MULAN LLC (D/B/A NEW MULAN), WEI YU
A/K/A WENDY YU, and QUN YAO, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01899
(E.D.N.Y., April 4, 2022) is a class action brought by the
Plaintiff against the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards and for violations of
the New York Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage
orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendants allegedly maintained a policy and practice of
requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40
hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime
compensation required by federal and state law and regulations.

Mr. Xochitemol was employed by Defendants as a busboy and
dishwasher at New Mulan from approximately June 1, 2017 until March
2020 and from approximately May 15, 2020 until March 24, 2021.

New Mulan LLC owns, operates, and controls a seafood restaurant,
located in Queens, New York under the name "New Mulan."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

NRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Dal Bosco Suit Over COVID Meds
---------------------------------------------------------
NRx Pharmaceuticals, 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 on January 18, 2022, a
federal securities class action complaint was filed against the
company, its Chief Executive Officer at the time, Jonathan Javitt,
and its former Chief Financial Officer, William Fricker, by
purported stockholder Cristian Dal Bosco.

The Dal Bosco complaint alleges that the company made false or
misleading statements or otherwise failed to disclose that the
company's Emergency Use Application contained insufficient data
regarding the potential benefits and risks of "ZYESAMI," NRx's
investigational drug for COVID-19 related respiratory failure.

NRx is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company which develops
therapeutics for the treatment of central nervous system disorders
and life-threatening pulmonary diseases.


OTTATI FOODS: Faces Franco Suit Over Employment Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
SOFIA FRANCO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. OTTATI FOODS LTD. d/b/a MARINO'S SUPERMARKET, PETER
MARINO, and MARIA MARINO, Case No. 1:22-cv-01898 (E.D.N.Y., April
4, 2022) challenges the Defendants' practice of gender, ethnicity,
and national origin discrimination and retaliation in the terms,
conditions, and privileges of Plaintiff's employment in violation
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII), the New York City
Human Rights Law and for Defendant's failure to pay overtime under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants have allegedly maintained a policy and practice of
failing to pay Plaintiff for each hour she worked above 40 hours
per week at her regular rate plus overtime compensation, as
required by federal and state law and regulations.

Throughout Plaintiff's employment, the Plaintiff usually worked 5
or 6 days a week for more than 40 hours. For example, during the
week beginning August 13, 2018 through August 20, 2018, the
Plaintiff worked from August 13 through August 19 for a total of no
less than 62 hours. The Plaintiff worked no less than 10 hours on
August 13, 8 hours on August 14, 8 hours on August 15, 12 hours on
August 16, 10 hours on August 17, 7 hours on August 18, and 7 hours
on August 19 for a total of no less than 62 hours. Throughout her
employment, the Plaintiff regularly worked 48 hours per week and
occasionally up to or more than 60 hours per week, says the suit.

In 2019, the Defendants also directed Plaintiff to arrive at work
10 minutes early to count the money in cash register. The
Defendants paid Plaintiff $13.00 an hour and then raised her pay to
$15.00 per hour. Instead of paying time and a half as required by
law, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff by check for her first 40
hours worked, then paid her at her regular hourly rate in cash for
all hours worked above 40.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
          FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP
          225 Broadway, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 571-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 505-2001

OXYGEN XL: Faces McDougle Suit Over Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
DARIUS MCDOUGLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OXYGEN XL, Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-00488
(Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., April 4, 2022) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

OXYGEN XL is a debt recovery firm and engaged in the business of
soliciting consumer debts for collection. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
         Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
         110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 907-1176
         Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
         E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                 tom@jibraellaw.com

PEPSICO INC: Ellis Seeks Unpaid OT Wages for Workers Under NJSWHL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TRACY ELLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PEPSICO, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01895 (D.N.J., April 4,
2022) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay wages, including
proper overtime, for all hours worked violates the New Jersey State
Wage and Hour Law.

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

As a result, PepsiCo's workers who were not exempt from the
overtime requirements under New Jersey law, were not paid for all
hours worked or were not paid their proper overtime premium after
the onset of the Kronos hack, says the suit.

Tracy Ellis is one such PepsiCo worker.

PepsiCo could have easily implemented a system for recording hours
and paying wages to non-exempt employees until issues related to
the hack were resolved. But it didn't. Instead, PepsiCo used prior
pay periods or reduced payroll estimates to avoid paying wages and
proper overtime to these non-exempt hourly and salaried employees,
the lawsuit says.

PepsiCo pushed the cost of the Kronos hack onto the most
economically vulnerable people in its workforce. The burden of the
Kronos hack was made to fall on front-line workers -- average
Americans -- who rely on the full and timely paymet of their wages
to make ends meet, the lawsuit says

PepsiCo is a food, snack, and beverage corporation. Many of
PepsiCo's employees are paid by the non-overitme-exempt hourly and
salaried workers. Since at least 2021, PepsiCo has used timekeeping
software and hardware operated and maintained by Kronos.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) WORKERS
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
          E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com
                  rmorgan@forthepeople.com

               - and -

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

PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Faces Felipe Suit Over Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN A. FELIPE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated as administrator of the CHRISTIAN A. FELIPE
CONTRIBUTORY IRA, Plaintiff v. PLAYSTUDIOS, INC.; ANDREW PASCAL;
and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02164 (N.D.
Cal., April 5, 2022) is an action by the Plaintiff and on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased, or
otherwise acquired securities of Playstudios, Inc. ("Playstudios")
between June 22, 2021 and March 1, 2022, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), including, but not limited to, those who purchased
or acquired Playstudios securities pursuant to the offering of the
private investment in public equity ("PIPE" offering), seeking to
recover damages and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and  Securities Act of 1933.

According to the complaint, on February 1, 2021, Acies Acquisition
Corp. ("Acies") announced that it had reached a merger agreement
with Playstudios ("Old Playstudios"), a privately-held gaming
company incorporated under the laws of Delaware (the "Merger" or
"Merger Agreement"). In the press release announcing the Merger,
Playstudios announced that the transaction implied an enterprise
valuation for Playstudios of $1.1 billion and that the
consideration to Old Playstudios shareholders for the Merger would
comprise at least 89.1 million shares Acies common stock, worth $10
per share, up to $150 million in cash, and a $250 million
investment PIPE of common stock of Acies.

Playstudios and Andrew Pascal, Old Playstudios CEO, solicited votes
from stockholders necessary to complete the business combination by
means of: (1) the Acies Registration Statement ("Registration
Statement"), which was declared effective on May 25, 2021; (2) the
Acies Proxy Statement ("Proxy"), which was filed with the SEC on
May 25, 2021; and (3) by other public statements that touted Old
Playstudios' financial performance and operations, including
statements on earnings calls and the Amended Acies Registration
Statement, which was declared effective on July 30, 2021. While the
Registration Statement and Proxy Statement recited in general terms
potential risks that could arise in connection with the Merger with
Old Playstudios, they provided no reason to suspect that many of
these potential risks had already materialized. In short, Acies'
shareholders had no reason to doubt the Proxy Statement's
characterization of Old Playstudios as a profitable, rapidly
growing, and valuable business with strong future potential, says
the suit.

The truth began to come to light after Playstudios released its
financial results for the second quarter of 2021, ended on June 30,
2021, on August 11, 2021. The financial results reported for the
quarter were finalized on June 30, 2021, just nine days after the
Merger closed. At that time, Playstudios revealed for the first
time that the Kingdom Boss launch was being delayed until later in
the year and investors should expect decreased revenues and profits
during the year as a result. On this news, Playstudios stock price
fell $.66 to close at $5.09 per share on August 12, 2021, a decline
of 13%.

On February 24, 2022, Playstudios filed its annual report for 2021
with the SEC and issued a press release summarizing financial
results for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2021. On
this news, Playstudios stock price fell $.24 to close at $4.86 per
share on February 25, 2022, thereby injuring investors, a decline
of 5%.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful conduct, the
Plaintiff and other Class members paid artificially inflated prices
for their Playstudios securities and suffered substantial losses
and damages thereby.

PLAYSTUDIOS, Inc. operates as a software company. The Company
develops and operates free-to-play casual games for mobile and
social platforms. PLAYSTUDIOS serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin D. Gamarnik, Esq
          Robert A. Curtis, Esq..
          Aaron L. Arndt, Esq.
          Jordan A. Liebman, Esq.
          FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
          15 West Carrillo Street
          Santa Barbara CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 962-9495
          Facsimile: (805) 962-0722
          Email: kgamarnik@foleybezek.com
                 rcurtis@foleybezek.com
                 aarndt@foleybezek.com
                 liebman@foleybezek.com

               - and -

          Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
          Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
          Email: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
                 kpachman@susmangodfrey.com

POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Mislabels Vehicle Horsepower, Artoff Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
TIM ARTOFF, individually on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC.; POLARIS SALES,
INC.; and POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00514-MC (D. Or., April 5,
2022) is a class action on behalf of all persons who purchased in
Oregon since May 25, 2017 who purchased Polaris Utility Terrain
Vehicles ("UTVs") that Polaris advertised that the vehicles'
rollover protection system ("ROPS") complied with the department of
Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") requirements
and standards.

According to the complaint, the Class Vehicles consisting of 2015
to 2019 Polaris UTVs are believed to have horsepower ranging from
approximately 168 horsepower to 68 horsepower for the smaller
2-door Rangers. For every model of Class Vehicles, the Defendant
tested the vehicles by the gross vehicle weight. The Defendant
intentionally refused to test at 110 pounds times either the
maximum power take off horsepower or 95% of the net engine flywheel
horsepower.

By allegedly failing to provide consumers accurate and truthful
information about the true nature and characteristics of the Class
Vehicles pertaining to compliance with all applicable federal and
state statutes, standards, and regulations, including self-adopted
regulations, specifically OSHA requirements, consumers are damaged
based on the benefit of the bargain, that they have to retrofit the
Class Vehicles for adequate safety, and are faced with a strong
likelihood of serious injury or death.

The Plaintiff in seeing and reading the sticker, relied on the
language contained therein to purchase the 2021 RZR Turbo S
Velocity. If the sticker said that the ROPS structure failed to
meet OSHA requirements, he would not have purchased the 2021 RZR
Turbo S Velocity.

POLARIS INDUSTRIES LTD was founded in 1981. The Company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of new and used
passenger automobiles, trucks, trailers, and other motor vehicles.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lance C. Behringer, Esq.
          CARPENTER & ZUCKERMAN
          8827 W. Olympic Blvd.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 273-1230
          Email: lbehringer@cz.law

               - and -

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 619-8966
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher W. Wood, Esq.
          DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA
          WOOD CAMPORA, LLP
          20 Bicentennial Circle
          Sacramento, CA 95826
          Telephone: (916) 379-3500
          Email: cwood@dbbwc.com

               - and -

          S. Amanda Marshall, Esq.
          S. AMANDA MARSHALL LLC
          1318 NW Northup Street
          Portland, Oregon 92709
          Telephone: (503) 472-7190
          Email: amanda@maclaw.law

PRO CUSTOM: Loses Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in Niemczyk Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS NIEMCZYK, individually and on behalf of a class
of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. PRO CUSTOM SOLAR
LLC d/b/a MOMENTUM SOLAR, Defendant, Civil Action No. 19-7846 (ES)
(MAH) (D.N.J.), Judge Esther Salas of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey denied the Defendant's motion for
judgment on the pleadings and to strike the Plaintiff's "Robocall
Class" allegations.

The lawsuit is a putative class action filed by Plaintiff Niemczyk
individually and on behalf of putative class members. Before the
Court is the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) and to strike the
Plaintiff's "Robocall Class" allegations pursuant to Rule 12(f).

I. Background

The Defendant is in the business of selling and installing solar
panels. Over the years, the Plaintiff claims to have received many
autodialed telephone calls ("robocalls") on his cellular phone
number by or on behalf of the Defendant despite having no
relationship with or soliciting any business from the Defendant.
Although the Defendant advised the Plaintiff that he was placed on
its Internal Do Not Call ("IDNC") list on Nov. 28, 2017, the
Plaintiff purportedly continued to receive numerous robocalls to
his cell phone, including one on Feb. 11, 2019.

On March 5, 2019, the Plaintiff initiated the action alleging
violations of the 1991 Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

On June 10, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a two-count Second Amended
Complaint asserting class allegations on behalf of two classes:

     a. Robocall Class: All persons in the United States who
received one or more telemarketing calls to their wireless
telephone numbers by or on behalf of the Defendant, that were made
using an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded voice, from
March 5, 2015 through the date the Court certifies the class.

     b. Internal Do Not Call Class (IDNC Class): All persons in the
United States who received at least two telemarketing calls to
their residential (wireless or landline) telephone number by or on
behalf of the Defendant within any 12-month period at any time from
March 5, 2015 through the date the Court certifies the class.

In Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff claims
the Defendant placed unsolicited marketing calls to the Plaintiff
and other Robocall Class members using predictive dialers1 in
violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).

On July 14, 2019, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the SAC.
After holding a telephonic oral argument on March 27, 2020, the
Court denied the Defendant's motion. Subsequently, in Facebook,
Inc. v. Duguid, 141 S.Ct. 1163 (2021), the Supreme Court issued a
ruling interpreting the statutory term "automatic telephone dialing
system."

In the instant motion for judgment on the pleadings and to strike,
the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff fails to plead a viable
TCPA claim under Duguid and, accordingly, is precluded from
litigating claims on behalf of the Robocall Class.

II. Discussion

A. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Count I

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim for
relief under the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). It
argues that pursuant to Duguid, Count I must be dismissed because
the Plaintiff only alleges that Defendant automatically dials
numbers from a stored list rather than using a random or sequential
number generator. However, the Plaintiff also avers that the
Defendant automatically dialed cellular telephone numbers using a
predictive dialer, which is an "automatic telephone dialing system
capable of storing, producing, and dialing any telephone number"
and is "capable of storing, producing, and dialing telephone
numbers using a random or sequential number generator."

Accepting these allegations as true, as the Court must on a 12(c)
motion, Judge Salas finds that the Plaintiff has stated a plausible
claim for relief under the TCPA. Moreover, the Plaintiff is correct
that Defendant may seek to prove that its dialing technology does
not use random or sequential number generators at trial; however,
that is a factual issue to be explored in discovery, rather than an
issue to be decided as a matter of law at this stage. Accordingly,
the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Count I
of the SAC is denied.

B. Motion to Strike "Robo Class" Allegations

First, in moving to strike, the Defendant posits that the
Plaintiff's Robocall Class allegations fail to satisfy the
requirements of Rule 23 because he has not pled that it employed an
automatic telephone dialing system that uses a random or sequential
number generator and he is therefore precluded from litigating
claims on behalf of the Robocall Class.

Judge Salas disagrees. For the same reasons she discussed, the
motion to strike is not appropriate because she has determined that
Count I adequately pleads a viable claim for relief.

Second, the Defendant further argues that even if Count I remains,
the Court should strike the allegations on behalf of the Robocall
Class because the standard on a motion to strike differs from the
standard on a motion to dismiss." The Plaintiff's putative Robocall
Class is defined as those who received telemarketing calls from
Defendant using "an autodialer or an artificial or prerecorded
voice."

As Judge Salas discussed, the Plaintiff alleges that the telephone
equipment the Defendant used to place autodialed calls to Robocall
Class members has "the capacity to dial telephone numbers
automatically from a stored list or database without human
intervention, using a random or sequential number generator." Thus,
it is not evident from the face of the complaint that the Robocall
Class is not maintainable under Duguid. The Plaintiff alleges that
the autodialer employed by the Defendant has the capacity to use a
random or sequential number generator. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's
Robocall Class allegations do not provide an appropriate basis for
the motion to strike because it is clear from the pleadings that
the allegations are not facially deficient.

Third, as the Plaintiff notes, the Defendant's motion to strike
does not comply with the Court's Nov. 26, 2019 Pretrial Scheduling
Order. That Order provides that except for Rule 12(b) motions,
motions to seal, or motions to admit an attorney pro hac vice, "no
other motions are to be filed without the Court's prior written
permission"; "dispositive motions must first be subject to a
dispositive motion pre-hearing"; and that "discovery must be
completed prior to the filing of a dispositive motion."

Contrary to what the Defendant seems to suggest, Judge Salas finds
that the Supreme Court's decision in Duguid did not give the
Defendant license to disregard the Court's Pretrial Order by filing
a Rule 12(c) or Rule 12(f) motion. At minimum, notwithstanding any
change in interpretation of the TCPA, the Defendant should have
sought leave to file a motion to strike outside the parameters of
Rule 12(f), which requires that such a motion be filed within 21
days after service of the pleading. Thus, the motion to strike is
improper under both the Pretrial Scheduling Order and Rule 12(f).

Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to strike the Robocall Class
allegations is denied.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons she noted, Judge Salas denied the Defendant's
motion in its entirety.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 25, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/y64a3xbh from Leagle.com.


REKOR SYSTEMS: Miller Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rekor Systems, 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 in November 2021 a
putative shareholder class action lawsuit captioned "Miller v.
Rekor Systems, Inc. et al.," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland in June 2021, naming as
defendants Rekor Systems, Inc. and certain of its officers, was
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

It alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to its automatic
license plate recognition technology and uninsured vehicle
enforcement diversion related business and sought damages on behalf
of shareowners who acquired its stock between April 12, 2019 and
May 25, 2021. The court appointed a lead plaintiff.

In November 2021, the plaintiff filed an order of dismissal,
seeking to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice. This matter was
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

Rekor is into the development and implementation of intelligent
infrastructure focused on addressing critical challenges across
transportation management, public safety and key commercial markets
using a real-time intelligence platform driven by deep access to
data, AI-powered software and smart optical devices.


RELIASTAR LIFE: COI & Rider Classes in Advance Trust Suit Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA, as
securities intermediary for Life Partners Position Holder Trust,
and Alice Curtis, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ReliaStar Life Insurance Company,
Defendant, Civil No. 18-2863 (DWF/BRT) (D. Minn.), Judge Donovan W.
Frank issued a Memorandum Opinion & Order:

     a. denying ReliaStar's Motion for Summary Judgment; and

     b. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

I. Background

The case involves a single cause of action for breach of contract.
The Plaintiffs are Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA
("ATLES") and Alice Curtis. The Plaintiffs allege that ReliaStar
breached life insurance contracts that ReliaStar, or its
predecessors-in-interest, issued by: (1) failing to determine the
cost of insurance ("COI") rates based on expected future mortality
experience and deducting COI charges calculated using unlawful
rates; and (2) charging rider rates in excess of those specified in
the policies.

The insurance contracts at issue are flexible premium adjustable
life insurance policies (universal life ("UL") insurance). This
type of policy combines death benefits with a savings or investment
component and allows policyholders to decide how much premium to
pay into the policy on any given month, subject to contractually
specified limits. Then, after the deduction of certain charges,
including COI charges, the remaining premiums ("accumulated value")
earn interest set by the insurance company, subject to a guaranteed
minimum (in the case, 4.5%).

Subject to contractual provisions, a contract owner can borrow a
portion of their accumulated value or terminate insurance coverage
and take the accumulated value. The Plaintiffs' contracts provide
that if an insured dies while the contract is in force,
beneficiaries are entitled to a "level" death benefit but not a
death benefit plus any cash value associated with the contract.

ATLES' action is based on a contract issued in Texas to Daniel
Gutierrez in 1988. Per that contract, Gutierrez planned to make
annual premium payments of $182 in exchange for $25,000 in death
benefits protection. He paid the premium for several years and then
sold his interest in the contract to Life Partners. Life Partners
(and their successors) have continued to pay the premium. When Life
Partners purchased the contract, it was expected to remain in force
until 2025.

In 1991, Plaintiff Curtis purchased her insurance contract. She
planned to pay $2,160 per year in premiums in exchange for a
$250,000 death benefit. Curtis took a loan out against the policy's
cash value and eventually elected to terminate the contract in
2019.

The terms of the relevant policy contracts allow ReliaStar to make
monthly deductions from the policy for the COI, the monthly expense
charge, and the cost of additional benefits provided by the rider.

ReliaStar maintains that it routinely monitors how its mortality
experience emerges, and how its actual experience compares to what
it had anticipated. It also asserts that it undertakes periodic
large scale actuarial updates to its mortality assumptions.
ReliaStar further maintains that insurers cannot and do not modify
their rate scales on an annual basis or at an insured-byinsured or
contract-by-contract level. Finally, ReliaStar asserts that the
relevant contract language does not contain the promise that
ReliaStar will redetermine or reset COI rates every month or every
year to match its then current anticipated mortality experience.

Via its actuary, ReliaStar maintains that its COI rates reflect
(but are not exclusively based on) its current expected future
mortality experience ("EFME") and that its EFME is "both up and
down" as compared to previous assumptions.

The Plaintiffs dispute whether ReliaStar's COI rates "reflect
ReliaStar's current expected mortality experience" and whether
insurers cannot and do not modify their rate scales on an annual
basis. Instead, they submit evidence that ReliaStar's EFME are
quantified, documented, and have improved over the last two
decades; and further contend that annual COI determinations are
possible and not unusual. Despite the improvement of EFME, the
Plaintiffs submit that ReliaStar's COI rates have stayed the same
and, therefore, do not reflect its current EFME. Finally, the
Plaintiffs dispute ReliaStar's contention that the contract does
not promise a redetermination of COI rates, pointing to contractual
language indicating that COI rates will be based on EFME and will
be determined "from time to time."

In 1997, a nationwide class action was filed in state court in
Pennsylvania in Alten v. Security-Connecticut Life Ins. Co., Civ.
No, 97-0901761 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas). The Alten case involved
claims pertaining to the sale and administration of certain life
insurance policies issued by ReliaStar's predecessor,
Security-Connecticut Life. The case settled for $16.5 million in
class relief in exchange for a release of all alleged and
prospective claims related to the class policies.

The term "Released Transactions" is defined to include the
"administration (including the crediting of interest rates and
policy charges and expenses) of the Policies." Alten class members
released claims "that have been, could have been, may be or could
be alleged or asserted now or in the future," to the extent any
such claims would be "on the basis of, connected with, arising out
of, or related to, in whole or in part, the Policies and/or
Released Transactions." Also, the releases apply to the Defendant
insurance-company's successors and assigns, which includes
ReliaStar.

The Settlement Agreement provides that nothing in the release
alters a class member's right to assert a claim which "arises in
its entirety from facts and circumstances" occurring after the
settlement, provided that the "provision will not entitle a Class
Member to assert claims which relate to the allegations contained
in the Actions or matters described in part 7.1.2.1 above."
ReliaStar asserts that Curtis was part of the Alten class because,
at the time of the Alten settlement, Curtis owned an in-force
policy covered by the litigation, and that the Alten settlement
resolves her claims against ReliaStar.

In 1989, Security-Connecticut also increased by 15% the charge
imposed for a rider -- specifically, the waiver of monthly
deduction rider, which provides for the suspension of charges or
deductions should the insured become totally disabled. The
Gutierrez contract, on which ATLES sues, includes this rider.

The Plaintiffs now bring the present lawsuit for breach of
contract. Specifically, they argue that ReliaStar breached its
contracts with them and the proposed classes by (1) failing to
determine COI rates based on EFME and deducting COI charges
calculated based on unlawful rates, and (2) charging rider rates in
excess of the rates specified in the policies.

ReliaStar moves for summary judgment, arguing that the Plaintiffs'
claims fail as a matter of law in the face of the plain contract
language, the weight of authority, and because the COI rates
ReliaStar has charged were determined based on its anticipated
mortality experience. In addition, ReliaStar argues that Curtis'
claims are barred by the Alten settlement, that ATLES lacks
standing, and that the rider claim is barred by the statute of
limitations or laches. Also before the Court is the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

II. Discussion

A. Summary Judgment

1. Breach of Contract - COI Rates

The Plaintiffs argue that ReliaStar breached its contracts with
Plaintiffs and the proposed classes by failing to determine COI
rates based on EFME and deducting COI charges calculated based on
unlawful rates. ReliaStar moves for summary judgment on the claim.

At the heart of the claim is the meaning of the phrase "rates will
be based on." ReliaStar argues that the phrase does not require
that COI rates be based exclusively on EFME or that the rate scale
be lowered if EFME improves. The Plaintiffs argue that the phrase
"based on" can reasonably be understood to mean exclusively based
on EFME, and at a minimum, is ambiguous.

After careful review of the record, the parties' arguments, and the
relevant case law, Judge Frank finds that the parties offer
differing, albeit reasonable, interpretations of the policy
language. In particular, the Plaintiffs' interpretation of "will be
based on" as language that connotes exclusivity is reasonable, and
the Plaintiffs have raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether
the language is ambiguous.

In addition, even if the Court were to adopt ReliaStar's reading of
the "based on" language, summary judgment would still be
inappropriate. Under ReliaStar's proposed meaning--that "based on
EFME" means that consideration of EFME is nonexclusive (that
ReliaStar may consider multiple factors in addition to EFME), the
Plaintiffs submit evidence that could lead a reasonable jury to
believe that ReliaStar impermissibly ignored the EFME as one of
those factors.

Because genuine issues of fact remain, Judge Frank denies
ReliaStar's motion for summary judgment on this claim as to the
Plaintiff's breach of contract claim based on COI rates.

2. Alten Settlement and Curtis's Claims

ReliaStar argues that Curtis's Policy is part of the Alten class
action settlement and that Curtis is therefore barred from
reasserting her claims in the action. The Plaintiffs disagree and
argue that there is no preclusion because Curtis's claims arose
from a different factual predicate and accrued after the settlement
in Alten. They also argue that the Court "is left largely in the
dark" as to what exactly was asserted, and therefore released, in
the Alten litigation because ReliaStar did not produce or attach a
copy of the Alten Complaint. Further, they contest whether a
failure to determine COI rates based on EFME was alleged in the
Alten case.

Because the record is not clear as to the scope of the claims
asserted and released in the Alten case, Judge Frank holds that
summary judgment is inappropriate.

3. Standing

ReliaStar argues that ATLES lacks standing to assert a claim based
on allegedly excessive COI charges. In support, ReliaStar asserts
that ATLES does not own the policy and its interest in the policy's
cash value is only hypothetical because ATLES has not withdrawn any
of its policy's cash value and will not receive it when the insured
passes. The Court is not persuaded by ReliaStar's argument for two
reasons.

First, the record demonstrates that ATLES owns the policy at issue.
As the securities intermediary, ATLES has standing to assert claims
on the policies on Life Partner's behalf. Second, Judge Frank finds
that ATLES's alleged injury is not hypothetical, as it has alleged
a "legal injury -- breach of contract" and it has a judicially
cognizable interest for standing purposes.

4. Breach of Contract - Rider Charge

ATLES alleges that ReliaStar breached its contracts by charging
rider rates in excess of those specified in the policies. In
particular, ATLES alleges that ReliaStar has been overcharging
policyholders who purchased a rider that provides for the waiver of
monthly charges in the event that the insured suffers total
disability ("Waiver Rider"). ReliaStar deducts a separate monthly
charge for the Waiver Rider, which is referred to as the rider
charge. ATLES asserts that the policies provide that this rider
charge is to be calculated using rates specified in the policies
and that there is no discretion to charge rider rates that diverge
from the contractually specified rate. It maintains that ReliaStar
ignored the contractual rider rates and imposed an overcharge of at
least 15%, in breach of the terms of the policies.

ReliaStar moves for summary judgment on this claim on the grounds
that it is barred by the statute of limitations or laches. In
support, it points to evidence that the change to the rate tables
to increase rider rates by 15% was done by ReliaStar's predecessor
in 1989, and that the change was first applied to the Gutierrez
policy (on which ATLES bases its rider claim) in February 1990.
ReliaStar further asserts that the rider claim, therefore, accrued
in February 1990 for the purpose of applying the statute of
limitations and is time-barred or, in the alternative, is barred by
laches.

Judge Frank holds that ReliaStar has not demonstrated that ATLES's
rider claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The
Plaintiffs' rider charge claim breach is based on the theory of an
ongoing breach. Such a theory is allowed under Levin v. C.O.M.B.
Co., 441 N.W.2d 801, 803 (Minn. 1989) (finding that a series of
breaches constituted separate causes of action with different
accrual dates).

Moreover, based on the record before him, Judge Frank further holds
that ReliaStar has failed to demonstrate that the rider claim is
barred by laches. ATLES points out that "laches should not bar an
action on which limitations has not run unless allowing the action
'would work a grave injustice.'" In addition, it underscores that
this is not a case in equity and disputed fact issues remain as to
whether ReliaStar concealed the existence of the breach because, as
ATLES claims, ReliaStar did not know about it until the Plaintiffs
requested specific discovery on the issue.

B. Class Certification

The Plaintiffs move the Court for an order certifying the case as a
class action under Rule 23(b)(3) on behalf of the following
classes:

      COI Class: All current and former owners of UL (including
variable UL) policies insured by ReliaStar written on policy forms
listed in Exhibit A who were assessed COI charges during the Class
Period, excluding policies issued in Alaska, Arkansas, New Mexico,
New York, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming, policies listed in
Exhibit B, and ReliaStar, its officers and directors, members of
their immediate families, and their heirs, successors or assigns.

The "Class Period" starts on the following dates through final
judgment: Oct. 5, 2003 - Kentucky; Oct. 5, 2008 - Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Rhode Island, West Virginia; Oct. 5, 2010
- Montana, Ohio; Oct. 5, 2012 - Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut,
Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin; Oct. 5, 2013 -
Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma; Oct. 5, 2014
- California, Pennsylvania, Texas; and Oct. 5, 2015 Colorado,
Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Washington D.C.

Alternatively, the Plaintiffs move for certification of one of the
following classes (the "Alternative Classes"):

     a. Modified Four Corners and Four Corners COI Class: All
members of the COI Class, excluding owners whose policies were
issued in Arizona and California.

     b. Texas and Tennessee COI Class: All members of the COI Class
whose policies were issued in Texas and Tennessee.

In addition, the Plaintiffs move for certification of the following
Rider Class: "All current and former owners of universal life
policies insured by ReliaStar written on policy forms 10830 and
10910, excluding policies issued in Alaska, Arkansas, New Mexico,
New York, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming, who were assessed
Waiver Rider charges during the Class Period."

Further, the Plaintiffs request that they be appointed the class
representatives for the COI Class (and any Alternative Classes);
ATLES be appointed the class representative for the Rider Class;
and Susman Godfrey be appointed as the Class Counsel.

ReliaStar opposes certification and argues that the Plaintiffs'
breach of contract theories are not suitable for class treatment
because the Court will have to address conflicting law on the
issues of contract interpretation and that any resort to extrinsic
evidence to interpret the contracts will create individual issues
of interpretation. Further, ReliaStar argues that ATLES' rider
claim creates individualized issues of law, including whether
applicable state law would countenance an "installment contract"
breach theory, when the claim accrued, and the applicability of the
discovery rule. Further, it maintains that many class members lack
standing and that there are serious intra-class conflicts. Finally,
ReliaStar asserts that neither ATLES nor Curtis can adequately
represent the putative class.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs class certification. A
party seeking class certification must meet the requirements of
Rule 23(a) by establishing that: (1) the class is so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of
law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims of the class; and
(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class.

In addition, plaintiffs must satisfy one of the three subsections
of Rule 23(b). Under Rule 23(b)(3), a court must find that
"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."

Judge Frank considers whether the Plaintiffs meet the requirements
for class certification in the context of ReliaStar's arguments. He
finds that (i) there are over 36,000 policies in the COI Class and
854 policies in the Rider Class and ReliaStar does not appear to
contest that the numerosity requirement is met; (ii) there are
several common questions with common answers arising from the
breach of contract claims so as to satisfy the commonality
requirement; (iii) a common legal theory applies to all class
members -- that they were injured when ReliaStar engaged in a
common course of conduct and breached the policies by imposing
excess charges; (iv) the fact that ReliaStar may assert a defense
against the claims of some class members on the basis of the Alten
release does not defeat adequacy; and (v) the adequacy requirement
has been met, both as to the class representatives and the class
counsel.

Moreover, Judge Frank finds that (i) ReliaStar has not demonstrated
that differences in state-law treatment of COI provisions and
statutes of limitation defeat the predominance of the common
questions; and (ii) a class action is the superior method of
adjudication. In light of the relevant considerations, he concludes
that a class action is the superior method for adjudicating these
claims pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3).

III. Order

Based upon the foregoing, and the files, records, and proceedings,
Judge Frank denied the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. He
granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification consistent
with his Order.

The following classes are certified pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

     a. COI Class: All current and former owners of UL (including
variable UL) policies insured by ReliaStar written on policy forms
listed in Exhibit A who were assessed COI charges during the Class
Period, excluding policies issued in Alaska, Arkansas, New Mexico,
New York, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming, policies listed in
Exhibit B, and ReliaStar, its officers and directors, members of
their immediate families, and their heirs, successors or assigns.

The "Class Period" starts on the following dates through final
judgment: Oct. 5, 2003 - Kentucky; Oct. 5, 2008 - Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Rhode Island, West Virginia; Oct. 5, 2010
- Montana, Ohio; Oct.5, 2012 - Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut,
Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin; Oct. 5, 2013 -
Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma; Oct. 5, 2014
- California, Pennsylvania, Texas; and Oct. 5, 2015 Colorado,
Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Washington D.C.

     b. Rider Class: All current and former owners of universal
life policies insured by ReliaStar written on policy forms 10830
and 10910, excluding policies issued in Alaska, Arkansas, New
Mexico, New York, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming, who were
assessed Waiver Rider charges during the Class Period.

The parties are directed to meet and confer and within 30 days of
the date of the Order to submit a joint proposed procedure for
providing notice of the Class Action.

Judge Frank appointed ATLES and Curtis as the class
representatives, and Susman Godfrey as the class counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8dec3j from
Leagle.com.

Glenn Charles Bridgman, Esq. -- gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com --
Krisina J. Zuniga, Esq., Rohit D. Nath, Esq., Ryan C. Kirkpatrick,
Esq. -- rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com -- Ryan Thomas Weiss, Esq.,
Seth D. Ard, Esq. -- sard@susmangodfrey.com -- and Steven G.
Sklaver, Esq. -- ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP;
and Michael A. Erbele, Esq. -- merbele@merchantgould.com -- Peter
A. Gergely, Esq. -- pgergely@merchantgould.com -- and Thomas J.
Leach, III, Esq. -- tleach@merchantgould.com -- Merchant & Gould,
counsel for the Plaintiffs.

Casey L. Hinkle, Esq. -- chinkle@kaplanjohnsonlaw.com -- Clark C.
Johnson, Esq. -- Michael T. Leigh, Esq. -- Michael T. Leigh, Esq.
-- mleigh@kaplanjohnsonlaw.com -- Kaplan Johnson Abate & Bird LLP;
and Douglas L. Elsass, Esq. -- delsass@nilanjohnson.com -- Nilan
Johnson Lewis PA, counsel for the Defendant.


REVMD PARTNERS: Faces Zambrano Suit Over Collection of Biometrics
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DALIA ZAMBRANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. REVMD PARTNERS, LLC, Case No. 2022LA000313 (Ill. Cir.,
Dupage Cty., April 4, 2022) is a class action complaint for damages
and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal
actions of Defendant in collecting, storing, and using her and
other similarly situated individuals' biometric identifiers and
biometric information ("biometrics") without obtaining informed
written consent or providing the requisite data retention and
destruction policies, in direct violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act ("BIPA").

According to the complaint, the Defendant collected, stored, and
used—without first providing notice, obtaining informed written
consent, or publishing data retention policies -- the fingerprints
and associated personally identifying information of hundreds or
thousands of its employees (and former employees), who are being
required to "clock in" with their fingerprints.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant at its Illinois facility
from approximately April 2015 through approximately April 2017. The
Plaintiff then returned to working for Defendant from December 2018
through approximately December 2019.

During the course of her employment, the Defendant required her to
place her fingers on a fingerprint scanner, at which point
Defendant scanned and collected, and stored in an electronic
database, digital copies of her fingerprints each time she
"clocked" in and out as part of the timekeeping system, the
Plaintiff says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000
          Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
          E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com

               - and -

          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          Max S. Roberts, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
                  pfraietta@bursor.com
                  mroberts@bursor.com

S&A SOLUTIONS INC: Faces Messina Suit Over FCRA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY MESSINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. S&A SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:22-cv-10706-JEL-JJCG (E.D., Mich., April 4, 2022) alleges
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

SA SOLUTIONS INC. was founded in 2012. The company's line of
business includes providing accounting, bookkeeping, and related
auditing services. [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
          Telephone: (844) 487-9489
          Email: Noah@hurwitzlaw.com
                 Grant@hurwitzlaw.com

SAINT-GOBAIN: Brown Class Status Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brown, et al., v.
Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-00242 (D.N.H.), the Hon. Judge Joseph N. Laplante entered
an endorsed order denying without prejudice motion to certify
class.

The Court said, "The pending motion for class certification is
denied without prejudice until after the NH Supreme Court has
responded to the Certification of Question submitted on March 9,
2022, and the related expert witness issues are resolved. This
denial is solely a matter of case administration and court
management and the motion may be renewed by simple notice at the
parties' request after the order from NH Supreme Court has issued.
The court stresses that this order in no way modifies or impacts
the ongoing status or progress of this litigation, but rather
serves only to facilitate the court's docket and case management
and stewardship of judicial resources."

The nature of suit Real Property -- Torts to Land.

Saint-Gobain produces engineered high performance polymer
products.[CC]

SHUTTERFLY LLC: Advertises False "Original" Price, Rivali Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROSE RIVALI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHUTTERFLY, LLC and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02175 (C.D. Cal., April 1, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of California's
Unfair Competition Laws, California's False Advertising Laws, and
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's deceptive business practice of
advertising fictitious "original" prices and corresponding phantom
discounts on its e-commerce website, shutterfly.com, where it sells
a wide variety of customizable items from coffee mugs and puzzles
to greeting cards, invitations, and photo books to personalized
home decor. The Defendant allegedly fabricates a false "original"
price for a product and then offers that product at a substantially
lower price under the guise of a sale. The resulting artificial
price disparity misleads consumers into believing the product they
are buying has a higher market value, and it induces them into
purchasing the product.

Shutterfly, LLC is an American photography, photography products,
and image sharing company, with its principal executive offices in
Redwood City, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
         Scott G. Braden, Esq.
         LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
         1350 Columbia Street, Ste. 603
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 762-1910
         Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
         E-mail: todd@lcllp.com
                 scott@lcllp.com

SOHO MASONS: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, Rios Class Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
GUSTAVO RIOS individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. SOHO MASONS CORP. and JOHN NEVLA, and VICTOR
ROTTENBERG, Case No. 1:22-cv-01913 (E.D.N.Y., April 5, 2022) seeks
to recover damages for alleged violations of state and federal wage
and hour laws arising out of Plaintiffs' employment by the
Defendants.

As a result of the alleged violations of Federal and New York State
labor laws, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and liquidated
damage. Plaintiffs also seek interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and
all other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems
appropriate.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around
April 2019 until March 4, 2022. The Plaintiff was hired to lay
Brick for Defendant's construction company. Plaintiff worked
approximately 52 hours or more per week during his employment by
Defendants.

The Plaintiff bring this action on behalf of himself, and other
employees similarly situated as authorized under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The employees
similarly situated are the "Collective Class:"

"All persons who are or have been employed by the Defendants as
carpenters, brick layers, construction workers, concrete pourers,
general laborers, or other similarly titled personnel with
substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, who were
performing the same sort of functions for Defendants, other than
the executive and management positions, who have been subject to
Defendants' common practices, policies, programs, procedures,
protocols and plans including willfully failing and refusing to pay
required overtime wages."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
          42 Broadway, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 203-2417

STAR PROTECTION: Faces Sharpe Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE SHARPE, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STAR PROTECTION AND PATROL LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00188-wmc (W.D. Wis., April 4, 2022) arises from
the Defendant's  violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Wisconsin wage-and-hour law due to its willful failure to pay
overtime wages earned and due to Plaintiff and members of the
putative class.

Mr. Sharpe was employed as a security officer by Defendant during
the three years preceding this complaint until January 2022.

Star Protection and Patrol LLC is a security service provider based
in Oshkosh, Wisconsin.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Zoeller, Esq.
          Aaron J. Bibb, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          409 East Main Street  
          Post Office Box 2155
          Madison, WI 53701-2155
          Telephone: (608) 257-0040
          Facsimile: (608) 256-0236
          E-mail: dzoeller@hq-law.com
                  abibb@hq-law.com

STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Telesco Sues Over Coffee's Servings Label
----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH TELESCO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
7:22-cv-02687 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty, deceptive practices, and false advertising.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
misleading, and deceptive advertising, labeling and marketing of
Starbucks Cold Brew Concentrate coffee products. The packaging and
labeling of the coffee products prominently advertise that they
will produce a certain number of servings when, in fact, they do
not. Had the Defendant not made the false, misleading, and
deceptive representations and/or omissions, the Plaintiff and Class
members would not have purchased the coffee products or would not
have paid as much as they did for such products.

Starbucks Corporation is a manufacturer of coffee products based in
Seattle, Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         888 Seventh Avenue
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (646) 837-7150
         Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
         E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com

                  - and –

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

TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Must Produce Sales Data, Value Drug Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuit styled VALUE DRUG COMPANY, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC., PAR PHARMACEUTICAL INC.,
WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., and AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00180, the Plaintiff filed a motion
with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on
April 4, 2022 to compel nonparty Prasco Laboratories to produce
within 14 days its transaction-by-transaction sales data in the
form requested in the subpoena served on September 13, 2021.

The underlying action, Value Drug Co. v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals,
U.S.A., Inc., et al., No. 21-cv-3500 (E.D. Pa.), involves an
alleged multi-defendant corporate antitrust conspiracy regarding
the drug Colcrys (colchicine). Value Drug brings claims under
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act on behalf of a class of direct
purchasers of brand and generic Colcrys, including AG Colcrys.

On March 30, 2022, Judge Kearney denied Defendants' motions to
dismiss the amended complaint as to Value Drug's claims for an
overarching conspiracy to restrain trade, monopolization, and
conspiracy to monopolize.

The Defendants are pharmaceutical companies in the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Emily E. St. Cyr, Esq.
          VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
          301 East Fourth Street, Suite 3500
          Great American Tower
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 723-4674
          Facsimile: (513) 852-7851
          E-mail: eestcyr@vorys.com

               - and -

          Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103  
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: ccoslett@bm.net

TAYLOR-MADE FLOORS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Remmen Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA REMMEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TAYLOR-MADE FLOORS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:22-cv-00409-JPS (E.D. Wis., April 1, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff
and similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.

Ms. Remmen worked for the Defendant as a claims specialist from
August 2019 until March 25, 2022.

Taylor-Made Floors, Inc., is a flooring company, with a principal
office address of 3485 State Road 60, Jackson, Wisconsin. [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

TOM OLIVER: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Betras Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
DEANNA BETRAS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. TOM OLIVER, FRANK CAROLLA, Case No. 2:22-cv-00527-AJS
(W.D. Pa., April 5, 2022) is a class action complaint seeking to
recover for Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.

According to the complaint, under applicable federal and state
employment laws, all employees are entitled to fair compensation,
overtime compensation, and the retention of tips/gratuities
received from customers, unless statutorily exempt. Because they
are plainly "employees" under the applicable laws, the Plaintiff
and the class members should have been paid fair wages, given
overtime compensation, and allowed to retain all tips/gratuities
provided by customers.

To avoid complying with these laws designed to protect employees
from employer abuse, the Defendants improperly classified Plaintiff
and other exotic entertainers as "independent contractors." As a
result of this improper classification, Defendants: (1) avoided
paying Plaintiff and class members at least the applicable minimum
wage; (2) regularly required Plaintiff and class members to work in
excess of forty hours per week, then failed to pay them premium
overtime compensation; and (3) improperly collected a portion of
the tips Plaintiff and other Dancers received from customers, the
lawsuit adds.

Accordingly, adult entertainment clubs, such as those owned and
operated by the Defendants, are well-positioned to take advantage
of Dancers and routinely deny them basic workplace rights.

Over the past two decades, the Department of Labor (DOL) and courts
across the country have recognized that Dancers are employees, not
independent contractors, and, accordingly, are entitled to
protection under various state and federal wage and hour laws.

Despite these significant strides, the owners and operators of
adult night clubs in Pennsylvania and across the country routinely
deny Dancers the basic protections they are accorded under state
and federal law. Defendants are no exception. As set forth herein,
Defendants regularly deprive Dancers of their rights under federal
law, as well as the laws of Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth Pollock Avery, Esq.
          Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
          Kenneth A. Held, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: ekilpela@lcllp.com
                  elizabeth@lcllp.com
                  ken@lcllp.com

TR CHICAGO: Sanders Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT for Hotel Staff
---------------------------------------------------------------
DARREN SANDERS, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class v. TR CHICAGO MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a CHICAGO ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION HOTEL, JOIE DE VIVRE HOSPITALITY, LLC d/b/a CHICAGO
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION HOTEL HYATT HOTEL CORPORATIONS, and JOHN DOE
CORPORATIONS 1-100, Case No. 1:22-cv-01752 (N.D. Ill., April 5,
2022) seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime, due to
time shaving; reimbursement for tools of the trade maintenance;
illegally retained gratuities; liquidated damages; and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and the Illinois Human
Rights Act.

The Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action
pursuant to FLSA Section 16(b), 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), on behalf
of all non-exempt employees, including but not limited to front
desk agents, engineers, housekeepers, bellman, porters, bartenders,
and servers among others, employed by Defendants throughout
Chicago, Illinois in hotels owned and operated by Defendants on or
after the date that is six years before the filing of the Complaint
in this case as defined herein ("FLSA Collective Plaintiffs").

Mr. Sanders is a resident of Cook County, Illinois.

The Defendants jointly operate a chain of Hyatt branded hotels
throughout Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181


TRINITY HEALTH: Doe Suit Remanded to Fresno County Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANE DOE, Plaintiff v. TRINITY HEALTH CORPORATION, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00994-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Jennifer L. Thurston of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California issued an order:

   a. granting the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, and remanding
      the lawsuit to the Superior Court of the State of
      California for the County of Fresno;

   b. denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct
      jurisdictional discovery;

   c. denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend
      the Complaint; and

   d. denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees.

I. Introduction

Jane Doe brings the class action lawsuit alleging injuries stemming
from a data breach. She contends the Court must abstain from
exercising jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)
and seeks remand to state court. Defendant Trinity Health opposes
remand, arguing that the Court may properly exercise jurisdiction
under CAFA. Judge Thurston finds the matter is suitable for
decision without oral argument, and no hearing will be held
pursuant to Local Rule 230(g).

II. Background

The dispute involves a putative class action filed May 20, 2021, by
Jane Doe in the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno
(Case No. 21CECG01454) against Trinity Health and a number of
unnamed defendants. The Plaintiff's allegations centered on a data
breach the Defendants' third-party vendor suffered in May 2020 that
permitted unauthorized access to the Plaintiffs' medical and
personal identifying information.

Based on this incident, the Plaintiff alleged a violation of the
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (Cal. Civil Code
Sections 56, et seq.), a breach of California Security Notification
Laws (Cal. Civil Code Section 1798.82), and unlawful and unfair
business acts and practices (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200,
et seq.).

Trinity Health removed the action to the Court on June 23, 2021,
asserting jurisdiction under CAFA. On the same day, the Plaintiff
filed three "Amendments to Complaint" in state court, identifying
the names of three Doe Defendants: Daniel Evan Swartz, MD; Valley
Surgical Specialists Medical Group, Inc.; and Rame Deme Iberdemaj,
MD.

The Plaintiff also filed a motion to remand the case to state court
on July 23, 2021. Trinity Health filed an opposition on Aug. 6,
2021, and the Plaintiff filed a reply on Aug. 13, 2021.

III. Discussion

A. CAFA Jurisdiction

CAFA sets forth three prerequisites for establishing jurisdiction.
First, all proposed classes must number at least 100 members in the
aggregate. Second, the parties must be minimally diverse, meaning
that at least one plaintiff is from a different state than at least
one defendant. Third, CAFA jurisdiction arises only when the amount
in controversy exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs.
A removing party bears the burden of establishing CAFA
jurisdiction.

The parties seem to agree that the suit meets the first two
prerequisites. The parties disagree as to whether the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million. In the Notice of Removal, Trinity
Health states that the amount in controversy across all class
members exceeds $5 million based on the Plaintiff's request for
actual damages, restitution, attorney's fees, injunctive relief,
and statutory damages. In her Motion to Remand, the Plaintiff notes
that the Complaint states that "the exact number of the Class
members is unknown," and states that "Trinity Health's failure to
submit summary judgment-type evidence demonstrating the correct
number of Class members does not satisfactorily demonstrate that
the aggregate claim exceeds $5 million."

Judge Thurston finds that Trinity Health has fallen short of its
burden in establishing that the amount in controversy exceeds
CAFA's jurisdictional minimum. In its opposition, it simply
surmises that "potential statutory damages alone may aggregate to
exceed $5 million" because the California Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act permits awards of nominal damages of $1,000
per individual harmed, which would mean "the class need only
include 5,000 persons to meet this threshold." Trinity Health
leaves unstated and unsupported assumptions necessary to
demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. It
has failed entirely to submit affidavits, declarations, or other
"summary-judgment type evidence relevant to the amount in
controversy at the time of removal." Judge Thruston therefore holds
that it has failed to establish that CAFA confers jurisdiction over
the suit.

B. Whether an Exception to CAFA Jurisdiction Applies

Because she concludes that CAFA jurisdiction does not exist in the
case, Judge Thurston does not reach the question of whether an
exception to CAFA jurisdiction applies.

C. Request for Jurisdictional Discovery and Leave to Amend

In her Motion to Remand, the Plaintiff states that, if the Motion
to Remand is denied, she should be granted "an order from the Court
to conduct jurisdictional discovery, and leave to amend her
complaint to clarify certain jurisdictional facts."

Judge Thurston denies each request as moot.

D. Request for Fees and Costs

The Plaintiff moved the Court for an award of "just costs and
actual expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred as a result of
the removal" on the basis that "Trinity Health's removal appears to
have been motivated to merely cause delay."

Judge Thurston finds that the Plaintiff has not established that
Trinity Health's basis for removal was motivated to cause delay, or
was entirely frivolous. While it is true that Trinity Health's
failure to present significant evidence as to the amount of
controversy is inadequate to establish jurisdiction, Trinity Health
has not presented arguments that are outright frivolous or
foreclosed by existing precedent. Judge Thurston therefore declines
to award attorney's fees and costs.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the reasons she set forth, Judge Thurston granted the
Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to Superior Court of
California, County of Fresno; (ii) denied as moot the Plaintiff's
motion for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery and her motion
for leave to amend the Complaint; and (iii) denied the Plaintiff's
motion for attorney's fees and costs.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the action.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 25, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2xt6w2tn from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: FBOP Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Hallinan Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARLES HALLINAN, JOSEAN KINARD, GEORGE RIDDICK, JORGE
LUIS MALDONADO, WILLIAM BROWN, TERRANCE FREEMAN, ANTHONY BUTLER,
DARYL WILLIAMS, QUAMAIN JACKSON, and LASALLE WALDRIP, Plaintiffs v.
WARDEN THOMAS SCARANTINO, Complex Warden Federal Correctional
Complex Butner, in his official capacity; MICHAEL CARVAJAL, Federal
Bureau of Prisons Director, in his official capacity; JEFFREY
ALLEN, Federal Bureau of Prisons Medical Director, in his official
capacity; and FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendants, Case No.
5:20-CT-3333-FL (E.D.N.C.), Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western
Division, issued an order:

   a. granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment; and

   b. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

I. Background

The Plaintiffs, federal inmates represented by counsel, filed Oct.
26, 2020, class action complaint for injunctive and declaratory
relief and petition for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated. The Defendants, sued
in their official capacities only, are the Federal Bureau of
Prisons ("FBOP"); Thomas Scarantino, the warden of the Federal
Correctional Complex in Butner, North Carolina ("FCC-Butner");
Michael Carvajal, the FBOP director; and Jeffrey Allen, the FBOP
medical director.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to implement
adequate safeguards to protect the Plaintiffs from COVID-19, in
violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution
and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.
Section 794, et seq. According to the Plaintiffs, FCC-Butner has
not established or implemented: proper requirements for social
distancing, adequate medical isolation and quarantine, screening
and testing protocols, procedures for wearing masks and other
personal protective equipment, restrictions governing movement of
inmates and staff among FCC-Butner facilities, and proper
sanitation.

In addition, the Defendants allegedly have failed to reduce the
FCC-Butner population by transferring eligible inmates to home
confinement, denying all requests for compassionate release, and
declining to transfer medically vulnerable inmates out of
FCC-Butner, which compounds the overcrowding and difficulties
implementing proper social distancing.

The Plaintiffs assert three claims: 1) discrimination on the basis
of disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act; 2)
unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the
Eighth Amendment; and 3) a habeas corpus claim pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 2241, also premised on alleged violations of the
Eighth Amendment.

As relief, the Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment that the
Defendants violated the Plaintiffs' rights under the Eighth
Amendment or, with respect to the disability subclass described,
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. They further seek permanent
injunction directing the Defendants to create and implement a
mitigation plan for prevention of COVID-19, provide all necessary
and appropriate healthcare at FCC-Butner, and establish a procedure
for transferring appropriate inmates to home confinement or safer
facilities.

The Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to certify class on Nov. 9,
2020, seeking certification of a class of persons currently or in
the future incarcerated at FCC-Butner while anyone on the premises
is infected with COVID-19.

Plaintiffs Hallinan, Riddick, Maldonado, Brown, Freeman, Butler,
Williams, and Waldrip also seek certification of a disability
subclass consisting of: "Current and future people incarcerated at
FCC-Butner who are medically vulnerable and at high risk of severe
illness or death from COVID-19 due to disabilities protected under
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, including those with the
following conditions: cancer; chronic kidney disease; chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or moderate or severe asthma;
immunocompromised state from solid organ transplant, blood or bone
marrow transplant, immune deficiencies, HIV, use of corticosteroids
or other immune weakening medicines; serious heart conditions, such
as heart failure, coronary artery disease, or cardiomyopathies;
sickle cell disease; diabetes; cerebrovascular disease; cystic
fibrosis; hypertension; neurologic conditions such as dementia;
liver disease; pulmonary fibrosis; and thalassemia.

In support of the certification motion, the Plaintiffs rely upon
memorandum of law, and the following exhibits: 1) declaration of
Jeff Wilkerson, the counsel for the Plaintiffs, 2) declarations of
the named Plaintiffs, 3) declarations of Antonio Ross and Lee
Ayers, federal inmates housed at FCC-Butner; 4) screenshots of the
FBOP's COVID-19 website, and 5) declarations of Emily Seawell,
Maria Morris, and Jacqueline Kutnick-Bauder, the counsel for
Plaintiffs. The Defendants responded in opposition to the motion
for class certification and the Plaintiffs replied. The Plaintiffs'
reply is supported by supplemental declaration of Morris,
additional screenshots of the FBOP's COVID-19 website, and FBOP
press releases regarding the deaths of FBOP inmates from COVID-19.
With leave of court, the Defendants filed surreply in further
opposition to the motion for class certification.

The Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss or in the
alternative for summary judgment on Dec. 18, 2020. They argue that
the Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed based on failure to
exhaust administrative remedies, various deficiencies in the
pleadings and the Plaintiffs' legal theories, and where the
undisputed factual evidence establishes defendants were not
deliberately indifferent to the Plaintiffs' risk of contracting
COVID-19.

In support, the Defendants rely upon a memorandum of law, statement
of material facts, and appendix of exhibits thereto, comprising the
following: 1) declaration of Phillip Clark, FCC-Butner case
management coordinator, with attachments thereto; 2) declaration of
Andrew Stock, M.D., clinical director of the Federal Medical Center
at FCC-Butner; 3) declaration of Mary Strassel, assistant
supervisor of education and team leader of the FCC-Butner planning
section, with attachments thereto; 4) declaration of Kellie Harden,
registered nurse, director of quality management, and supervisory
health systems specialist at FCC-Butner; 5) declaration of Luis
Martinez, former acting environmental and safety compliance
administrator at FCC-Butner, with attachments thereto; 6)
declaration of Christina Kelley, FBOP senior attorney, with
attachments thereto; and 7) declaration of Nihar Vora, FBOP
supervisory attorney.

In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the Plaintiffs
rely upon response, responsive statement of facts, and the
following exhibits in addition to those already relied upon by the
Defendants: 1) declaration of Wilkerson; 2) supplemental
declarations of Plaintiffs Hallinan and Riddick; 3) FBOP
Administrative Remedy Program Statement; 4) FCC-Butner inmate
handbook for the low security correctional institution; 5) FBOP
press releases documenting the deaths of two inmates from COVID-19;
6) declaration of Patrick Doerr, the Plaintiffs' counsel, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d); and 7) DOJ Office of
Inspector General's Pandemic Response Report 21-031 regarding
remote inspection of FCC-Butner, dated January 2021.

The Defendants replied, relying upon reply statement of material
facts and the following exhibits in addition to those identified:
1) declaration of Ian Connors, FBOP inmate appeals administrator,
with attachments thereto; and 2) second declaration of Stock, with
attachments thereto. With leave of court, the Plaintiffs filed
surreply in further opposition to the motion.

II. Discussion

A. The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for
Summary Judgment

1. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies - Legal Standard

The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") states that "no action
will be brought with respect to prison conditions under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner until such
administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." Exhaustion
is mandatory. A prisoner must exhaust his administrative remedies
even if the relief requested is not available under the
administrative process. Administrative grievances must contain
sufficient detail to "alert the prison to the nature of the wrong
for which redress is sought" and "give prison officials a fair
opportunity to address the alleged mistreatment."

The FBOP provides a four-step administrative remedy procedure. The
first step in the process requires an inmate to present his issue
to staff in an attempt at informal resolution. If informal
resolution is unsuccessful, an inmate may submit a formal written
administrative remedy request to the warden using a BP-9 form
within 20 calendar days from the date on which the incident
occurred. If an inmate is dissatisfied with the warden's response,
he may appeal to an FBOP regional director within 20 calendar days
of the date the warden signed the response, using a BP-10 form.

The regional director has 30 days to respond to the BP-10, although
the response time can be extended for an additional 30 days at the
director's discretion. The final administrative appeal is made to
the FBOP's general counsel, using a BP-11 form, within 30 days of
the date the regional director signed the response. The general
counsel's office has 40 days to respond and has discretion to
extend the response time for an additional 20 days. In the event
the inmate does not receive a response within the foregoing
deadlines, including any extension, he may treat the absence of a
response as a denial at that level.

Judge Flanagan concludes that the Plaintiffs did not exhaust
available administrative remedies prior to filing the action.
First, she finds that the Plaintiffs have not established that they
were denied the "opportunity to discover information that is
essential to their opposition." Second, she finds that Plaintiff
Hallinan's grievances are insufficient to "alert the prison to the
nature of the wrong for which redress is sought" and "give prison
officials a fair opportunity to address the alleged mistreatment."

Third, Judge Flanagan holds that the Defendants' failure to explain
the requirement for filing a receipt showing a lack of response at
the BP-10 level along with the BP-11 appeal did not render the
BP-11 appeal unavailable to Plaintiff Williams. The record is
unclear as to whether Plaintiff Williams filed one or two
administrative grievances related to COVID-19. Plaintiff Williams
cannot refute the Defendants' evidence showing they would not have
rejected the BP-11 appeal if he provided evidence that he did not
receive the BP-10 response.

Fourth, the Plaintiffs cite no authority, and the Court has found
none, holding that vicarious exhaustion precludes dismissal of
putative class action where the class has not been certified and
the named plaintiffs have not exhausted administrative remedies.
Finally, the Plaintiffs also cannot achieve class certification in
the absence of viable claims for relief. In the absence of class
representatives, the motion for class certification must be denied
and the Plaintiffs cannot rely on vicarious exhaustion to save
their unexhausted claims.

As a result, the Eighth Amendment and Rehabilitation Act claims
must be dismissed without prejudice.

2. Habeas Corpus Claim

The Plaintiffs also bring the action as a petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2241. Although Section
2241 does not require administrative exhaustion and the PLRA's
exhaustion provisions do not apply to habeas actions, courts
require inmates challenging the execution of their sentences to
exhaust administrative remedies before seeking review in federal
court pursuant to Section 2241. The Plaintiffs acknowledge that if
they have not exhausted administrative remedies with respect to
their Eighth Amendment or Rehabilitation Act claims, they also have
not exhausted alternative remedies for their Section 2241 claim.
They also have not established grounds for excusing their failure
to exhaust. Accordingly, the habeas corpus claim is dismissed
without prejudice.

B. Motion for Class Certification

As Judge Flanagan discussed, the Plaintiffs cannot represent the
class because they do not have viable legal claims. In the absence
of class representatives with valid claims, the Court cannot
certify a class. Accordingly, the motion for class certification is
denied.

IV. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Judge Flanagan granted the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment, and denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. The Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed without
prejudice to refiling after exhausting administrative remedies or
finding alternative class representatives. The Clerk is directed to
close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 29, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/bddw8bhx from Leagle.com.


UNIVERSAL NAVIGATION: Risley Sues Over Fraud at Uniswap Protocol
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NESSA RISLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL NAVIGATION INC. dba UNISWAP LABS,
HAYDEN Z. ADAMS, PARADIGM OPERATIONS LP, AH CAPITAL MANAGEMENT,
L.L.C. dba ANDREESSEN HOROWITZ, and UNION SQUARE VENTURES, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02780 (S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2022) arises
from the Defendants' alleged unlawful promotion, offer, and sale of
unregistered securities on their "Uniswap Protocol," a crypto-asset
exchange, in the form of crypto "tokens."

According to the complaint, Uniswap has no barriers to entry for
users looking to trade -- or "swap" -- crypto tokens on the
exchange. Uniswap requires no verification of an individual's
identity, nor does it conduct any "know-your-customer" process.
This combination has led to rampant fraud on the Exchange, says the
suit.

Allegedly, the Defendants are well aware of the fraud perpetrated
on the exchange, but have done nothing to stop these activities,
even though they could easily do so. Instead, Defendants encourage
fraudulent conduct by guaranteeing fees on all trades to issuers of
tokens on the exchange. To date, Uniswap has siphoned over $1
billion in fees from its users so that issuers of tokens may
continue to profit from their conduct -- no matter how fraudulent,
says the suit.

Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, asserts that she is entitled to damages for the
amounts paid for the tokens, including all fees and charges
collected by Uniswap, together with interest and attorneys' fees
and costs.

Ms. Risley purchased tokens on the exchange beginning in May 2021.

The Defendants created, own, and manage what they refer to as the
"Uniswap Protocol," one of the largest crypto-asset exchanges in
the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Serritella, Esq.
          KIM & SERRITELLA LLP
          3 Columbus Circle, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 960-8345
          E-mail: jserritella@kandslaw.com

               - and -

          Roger E. Barton, Esq.
          Christopher J. McNamara, Esq.
          Michael C. Ward, Esq.
          BARTON LLP
          711 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687-6262
          E-mail: rbarton@bartonesq.com
                  cmcnamara@bartonesq.com
                  mward@bartonesq.com

URBAN OUTFITTERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Krueger Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARISSA KRUEGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. URBAN OUTFITTERS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-02765 (S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2022) seeks to recover from the
Defendant unpaid wages, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as staff.

URBAN OUTFITTERS, INC. operates retail stores and direct response,
including a catalog and Web sites. The Company's Urban Outfitters
and Anthropologie retail concepts sell fashion apparel,
accessories, and household and gift merchandise. Urban also designs
and markets young women's casual wear which it provides to the
Company's retail operations and sells to retailers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          Email: ykopel@bursor.com
                 aleslie@bursor.com

V.F. CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Arasa Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY ARASA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. V.F. CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-01945 (E.D.N.Y., April 5, 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 Arasa was employed by the Defendant staff.

VF CORPORATION is an international apparel company. The Company
owns a broad portfolio of brands in the jeanswear, outerwear,
packs, footwear, sportswear, and occupational apparel categories.
VF products are marketed to consumers shopping in specialty stores,
upscale, traditional department stores, national chains, and mass
merchants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
         Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A
         888 Seventh Avenue
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (646) 837-7150
         Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
         Email: ykopel@bursor.com
                aleslie@bursor.com

VICTORIA'S SECRET: Appeal in Lizama Suit Pending in 8th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC, et al., obtained permission to
appeal a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled ABRAHAM LIZAMA,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES, LLC, and VICTORIA'S SECRET DIRECT, LLC,
Case No. 4:21-cv-00763-HEA, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis.

The lawsuit is a putative class action filed by the Plaintiff in
the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri against the
Defendants on behalf of himself and all persons and entities who
purchased a product from Victoria's Secret through remote sales
channels, including its internet website, that was delivered from
an out-of-state facility to a Missouri delivery address and who
were allegedly charged tax monies at a higher tax rate than the
correct applicable use tax rate. According to the Petition,
Missouri law requires retailers to charge sales or use tax on the
sales of their products to Missouri purchasers.

The lawsuit was subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri on June 24, 2021.

On January 11, 2022, Judge Henry Edward Autrey granted the
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, and the action was remanded to the
Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri.

On January 7, 2022, the Defendants sought permission to appeal the
order entered by Judge Autrey, and brought an appellate case
captioned Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC, et al. v. Abraham Lizama,
Case No. 22-8001, to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit.

On April 4, 2022, the Defendants were granted permission to appeal.
Pursuant to the order, the Court transferred Case No. 22-8001 from
the miscellaneous docket to the regular docket with the new caption
and case number styled Abraham Lizama v. Victoria's Secret Stores,
LLC, et al., Case No. 22-1702, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the New Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appendix is due on April 18, 2022;

   -- BRIEF OF APPELLANT Victoria's Secret Direct, LLC and
Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC is due on April 18, 2022;

   -- Appellee brief is due 10 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant; and

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 5 days from the date the court
issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellee
brief.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC and Victoria's
Secret Direct, LLC are represented by:

          Jonathan Barton Potts, Esq.
          BRYAN & CAVE
          3600 One Metropolitan Square
          211 N. Broadway
          Saint Louis, MO 63102-2186
          Telephone: (314) 259-2000
          E-mail: jonathan.potts@bclplaw.com

Plaintiff-Respondent Abraham Lizama, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Adam M. Goffstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF A.M. GOFFSTEIN
          7777 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 1910
          Saint Louis, MO 63105-0000
          Telephone: (314) 725-5151
          E-mail: adam@goffsteinlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel J. Orlowsky, Esq.
          ORLOWSKY LAW LLC
          7777 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 1910
          Saint Louis, MO 63105-000
          Telephone: (314) 725-5151
          E-mail: dan@orlowskylaw.com


VISCIANO BROTHERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Esposito Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN ESPOSITO individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VISCIANO BROTHERS AUTO PARTS, INC. (dba
MORNING STAR AUTO PARTS); ROBERT VISCIANO; JASON VISCIANO; and
MARIA VISCIANO, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01930 (E.D.N.Y., April
5, 2022) is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay
minimum wages, overtime compensation, and provide accurate wage
statements.

Plaintiff Esposito was employed by the Defendants as delivery
driver.

VISCIANO BROTHERS AUTO PARTS, INC. sells motor vehicle supplies,
accessories, tools and equipment. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lina Stillman, Esq.
          STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
          42 Broadway, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 203-2417

VONS COMPANIES: Faces Germaine Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
MIRIAM ST. GERMAINE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. THE VONS COMPANIES, INC., a Michigan corporation, and
DOES 1 through 50, Case No. 37-2022-00012251-CU-OE-CTL (Cal.
Super., San Diego Cty.,  April 4, 2022) alleges that Defendants
failed to pay at least the minimum wage for all hours worked by the
Plaintiff and the class.

VCI operates the "Vons" retail grocery stores, of which there are
approximately 197. Approximately 189 of the Vons stores are
situated within the State of California; approximately nine are
situated within the State of Nevada. VCI also operates "Pavilions"
retail grocery stores, of which there are 26. All 26 of the
Pavilions stores are situated within the State of California.

The Plaintiff anticipates that evidence obtained on discovery will
confirm that the number of "Hours Worked" for which Plaintiff and
members of the Plaintiff Class defined, infra, have not been
compensated is substantial.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, as a class action pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure section 382. The sub-classes which
Plaintiff seeks to represent are composed of and defined as
follows:

  -- Damages Sub-Class Definition:

     "All citizens of the State of California who have operated a
     customer-operated checkout stand at any Vons or Pavilions
     store within the State of California at any time after 4 April

     2019, limited to those whose identities are ascertainable
     (whether from point-of-sale system transactional records of
     debit or credit card payments, or by some other reasonably-
     available means).

  -- Sub-Class Definition:

     "All citizens of the State of California who have operated a
     customer-operated checkout stand at any Vons or Pavilions
     store within the State of California at any time during the
     period between April 4, 2018, and April 22, 2019 (inclusive),

     limited to those whose identities are ascertainable (whether
     from point-of-sale system transactional records of debit or
     credit card payments, or by some other reasonably-available
     means).

     Exclusions from Both Sub-Classes:

     Excluded from membership in each sub-class defined herein
     shall be:(a) any 27 judicial officer of the State of
     California who exercises any authority over the 28 above-
     captioned civil action; (b) any employee of any court which
     exercises any authority over the above-captioned civil action;

     and (c) Plaintiff's undersigned counsel and any employee of
     same.

This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a
class action pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure
section 382 because there is a well-defined community of interest
in the litigation and the proposed class is ascertainable.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Gallo, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. GALLO
          12702 Via Cortina, Suite 500
          Del Mar, CA 92014
          Telephone: (858) 509-3652

WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Fails to Pay OT Wages After Kronos Hack
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICAYL RODGERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-00330 (W.D.
Mich., April 5, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages owed by Whirlpool to the Plaintiff and the
non-overtime-exempt workers like him, who were the ultimate victims
of not just the Kronos hack, but also Whirlpool's decision to make
its front line workers bear the economic burden for the hack, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Massachusetts
Minimum Fair Wage Law.

Like many other companies across the United States, Whirlpool's
timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by the hack of Kronos
in 2021. That hack led to problems in timekeeping and payroll
throughout Whirlpool's organization. As a result, Whirlpool's
workers who were not exempt from overtime requirements under
federal and state law were not paid for all hours worked or were
not paid their proper overtime premium after the onset of the
Kronos hack, says the suit.

Micayl Rodgers is one such Whirlpool worker. Whirlpool could have
easily implemented a system for recording hours and paying wages to
non-exempt employees until issues related to the hack were
resolved. But it didn't. Instead, Whirlpool used prior pay periods
or reduced payroll estimates to avoid paying wages and proper
overtime to these non-exempt hourly and salaried employees, the
suit added.

Whirlpool pushed the cost of the Kronos hack onto the most
economically vulnerable people in its workforce. The burden of the
Kronos hack was made to fall on front-line workers -- average
Americans -- who rely on the full and timely payment of their wages
to make ends meet.

Whirlpool employs many workers, including Rodgers, who are engaged
in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce and/or who
handle, sell, or otherwise work on goods or materials that have
been moved in or produced for commerce by any person. The goods and
materials handled, sold, or otherwise worked on by Rodgers, and
other Whirlpool employees and that have been moved in interstate
commerce include, but are not limited to, kitchen supplies and
equipment.

Whirlpool is a kitchen and laundry company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

WILLIAMS & FUDGE: Faces Meccia Suit Over Illegal Collection Letter
------------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC MECCIA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. WILLIAMS & FUDGE INC., Case No. 0:22-cv-60676-KMW (S.D.
Fla., April 5, 2022) is a class action lawsuit alleging violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Defendant allegedly began attempting to collect a debt (the
Consumer Debt) from Plaintiff. The Consumer Debt is an obligation
allegedly had by Plaintiff to pay money arising from a transaction
between the creditor of the Consumer Debt, Colorado State
University, and the Plaintiff.

The Subject Service was primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes. The Defendant is a business entity engaged in
the business of soliciting consumer debts for collection.

The Defendant is a business entity engaged in the business of
collecting consumer. The Defendant regularly collects or attempts
to collect, directly or indirectly, debts debts.

The Defendant is registered with the Florida Office of Financial
Regulation as a "Consumer Collection Agency." The Defendant's
"Consumer Collection Agency" license number is CCA0900715.

The Defendant identifies March 2, 2022 as the itemization date of
the Consumer Debt in the Collection Letter. The Represented
Itemization Date is not the Last Statement Date associated with the
Consumer Debt. The Represented Itemization Date is not the Charge
Off Date associated with the Consumer Debt.

The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of
Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons as a class action."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  tom@jibraellaw.com

[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 2 - Register Now
------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Showcase your firm's expertise on a panel in front of class action
attorneys, general counsel, litigation financiers, consultants,
claims administrators, reporters and academics.

Speakers include:

     Eduard Korsinsky, Managing Partner, Co-Founder of Levi &
Korsinsky LLP / CORE Monitoring Systems LLC

     Kevin Laukaitis, Partner, ​Shub Law Firm LLC

     Thomas Rohback, Partner Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP

     Angelo A. Stio III, Partner, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders
LLP

Moderators are:

     Deborah E. Jennings, Former Senior Partner, DLA Piper

     Chase T. Brockstedt, Partner, Baird Mandalas Brockstedt, LLC

     Philip C. Federico, Founding and Senior Partner, Schochor,
Federico and Staton, P.A

     The Honorable Benson E. Legg, Former Chief Judge, United
States District Court for the District of Maryland

     The Honorable Irma S. Raker, Former Judge, Court of Appeals of
Maryland

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 ***