/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220420.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, April 20, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 73

                            Headlines

3M CO: 6th Cir. Set to Decide on Class Certification Dispute
3M CO: Judge Tosses Motion to Compel Production of Custodial File
3M COMPANY: Davson Sues Over Complications from AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Faces Dorsey Suit Over PFAS Exposure from AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Goldberg Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products

3M COMPANY: Taylor Sues Over Injury Sustained from AFFF Products
7-ELEVEN INC: Judge Approves $98MM Franchisee Suit Settlement
ABBVIE INC: Faces Nakata Suit Over Share Price Drop
ABBVIE INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Action
ABBVIE INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of June 6 Deadline

ABBVIE INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of June 6 Deadline
ACUITY BRANDS: Term Sheet for Settlement of Class Suit Executed
ADVANCED PLUMBING: NSW Supreme Court Rules on Class Action
AFRICAN METHODIST: AARP Lawyers to Act as Class Action Co-Counsel
AFRICAN METHODIST: Class Actions Pile Up Over Pension Funds

AFRICAN METHODIST: Faces Second Class Action Over Pension Funds
AFRICAN METHODIST: Over $90M Missing From Pension Funds, Suit Says
ALMAY INC: Makeup Contains Harmful Chemicals, Lawsuit Claims
ALPHABET INC: Faces Class Suit Over Mapping APIs' Market Control
ALPHABET INC: Pair of Derivative Complaints Target Executives

AMAZON LOGISTICS: Faces Class Action in Seattle Over DSP Program
AMAZON.COM INC: Court Tosses Unjust Enrichment Claim in Hogan Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Suit From Delivery Partners
AMENTUM SERVICES: Weaver Suit Remanded to San Diego Superior Court
ANNAPOLIS, MD: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Johnson Class Suit

APPLE INC: Granato Consumer Suit Removed to N.D. California
APPLE INC: Sued for Not Paying Manual Workers on Weekly Basis
ART VAN FURNITURE: Stewart Files Appeal in Del. Dist. Ct.
ASHLEY FURNITURE: Aberl Sues Over Deceptive Discount Price Tag
ATOTECH LIMITED: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Nix PFOA/PFOS PI Suit

ATRIUM AT WAYNE: Estate of Evelyn Wells Blame Facility for Death
BEYOND MEAT: Settles Consolidated Shareholder Lawsuits
BGR INC: Henley Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA, OMFWSA, OPPA
BHP GROUP: Court Allows Foreign Residents to Register in Suit
BLACKBERRY LTD: Settles Securities Class-Action Lawsuit for $165M

BOOT BARN: Suit Claims Website Not Equally Accessible For Blind
BROWN UNIVERSITY: Walsh Files Certiorari Petition in Supreme Court
BUCK KNIVES: Settlement Approval Hearing Scheduled for August 8
BUMBLE BEE: Certification of 3 Classes of Tuna Purchasers Upheld
BUMBLE BEE: Must Face Tuna Purchasers' Antitrust Class Action

BURGER KING: Whopper's Packaging Contains PFAS, Hussain Alleges
C3.AI INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of May 3 Deadline
C3.AI: Kessler Topaz Meltzer Reminds of May 3 Deadline
CABALETTA BIO: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of April 29 Deadline
CANADA: Court Certifies Class Action Over CWB Privatization

CANADA: Farmers' CWB Class Action Lawsuit Gets Certified
CANADIAN AIR: Court Approves CAN$16MM Class Action Settlements
CARDONE TRAINING: Handelsman Sues Over Unwanted Telephone Calls
CARNAGIO ENTERPRISES: Judgment Bids in American Family Suit OK'd
CARVER FEDERAL: Improperly Charges Overdraft Fees, Bonilla Claims

CDK GLOBAL: Bragar Eagel Investigates Potential Securities Claims
CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of May 16 Deadline
CHICAGO, IL: Judge Pares Claims in Vehicle Impound Class Action
CINEFLIX MEDIA: Opts Out of Collective Agreement in Class Suit
CIRCLE K STORES: McDonald Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.

CITYWIDE SECURITY: Evans Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
CLEVELAND CLINIC: Dimascio Sues Over Event Specialists' Unpaid OT
CLEVELAND PUBLIC: Energy Class Action Trial Scheduled for July 25
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Fails to Properly Pay Laborers, Burian Suit Says
COURIER EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Sufficient Wages under FLSA & SCPWA

CREDIT UNION: Faces Lucero ERISA Class Suit Over Fiduciary Duties
CRONOS GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
CYTODYN INC: Files Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit in Wash.
DAIRY FARMERS: Dairy Farmers File Antitrust Class Action
DAIRY FARMERS: New Mexico Dairies File Antitrust Class Action

DIAGEO PLC: Settles US Class Action Over Guinness Brew Origin
DOCTOR'S BEST: Settles Glucosamine False Advertising Class Action
DRAKES: Settles Underpayment Class Action for $2 Million
ELANCO ANIMAL: Seresto Flea Collar Class Actions Pending
ELLUME USA: Faces Class Action Over Recalled COVID-19 Tests

EMBARK TECHNOLOGY: Gainey McKenna Reminds of May 31 Deadline
EMBARK TECHNOLOGY: Glancy Prongay Reminds of May 31 Deadline
EMBARK TECHNOLOGY: Robbins Geller Reminds of May 31 Deadline
EVENTIDE CREDIT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Duggan Class Suit
EVERBRIDGE INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Potential Claims

EVERBRIDGE INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of June 3 Deadline
EVERBRIDGE INC: Robbins LLP Discloses Securities Class Action
EVERBRIDGE INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of June 3 Deadline
FACEBOOK INC: Judge Won't Completely Close Out BIPA Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Miller Thomson Attorney Discusses Court Ruling

FANDANGO MEDIA: Violates Video Privacy Protection Act, Suit Says
FAT BRANDS: Rosen Law Reminds of May 17 Deadline
FCA US: Faces Gomez Suit Over Defective Chrysler Minivans
FCA US: Ramirez Sues Over Defective Electric Vehicles
GAMESTOP INC: Illegally Transmits Consumers' PII, Echevarria Says

GATOS SILVER: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of April 25 Deadline
GATOS SILVER: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of April 25 Deadline
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Chevrolet Bolt EV Class Action in Canada
GOLDMAN SACHS: Wants $7.5BB 401(k) Plan Class Action Trimmed
GRAB HOLDINGS: ClaimsFiler Reminds of May 16 Deadline

GRAB HOLDINGS: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of May 16 Deadline
GRUBHUB INC: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Contracts
HAEMONETICS CORP: Loses Bid to Dismiss Crumpton's BIPA Complaint
HAWAII: 9th Circuit Reverses Decision in Title IX Class Action
HILLSBORO CLUB: Lugo Seeks to Collect Unpaid Wages Under WARN Act

HILTON HOTELS: White Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial
HOLIDAY HAVEN: Fuerst Ittleman Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
HOMOLOGY MEDICINES: Hagens Berman Reminds of May 24 Deadline
HOMOLOGY MEDICINES: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of May 24 Deadline
HORNELL BREWING: Faces Class Action Over "All Natural" Claims

HOWARD BANK: Brasko's Bid to Certify Class and Subclasses Granted
HYATT HOTELS: Proposed Class-Action Alleges Pay, Tip Violations
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Wilson Sues Over Defect in Vehicle Engines
ILLINOIS INSTITUTE: Court Dismisses Hernandez Suit With Prejudice
INT'L BUSINESS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of June 6 Deadline

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Rosen Law Reminds of June 6 Deadline
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Vincent Wong Reminds of June 6 Deadline
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Cream Contains Toxic Chemicals, Horowitz Says
KDVH ENTERPRISES: Wins Bid to Dismiss & Arbitrate in Cooley Suit
KELLOGG CO: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Strawberry Pop-Tarts

KISLING NESTICO: Class Certification in Williams Suit Affirmed
KNOX COUNTY, TN: Law Firm Filed Motion to Get Mask Mandate Fees
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Court Dismisses Safeco & LMG From Suber Class Suit
LOUISIANA: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Giroir v. DOC Suit
LUCID GROUP: Howard G. Smith Reminds of May 31 Deadline

LUCID GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of May 31 Deadline
MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Food Products Contains PFAS, Collora Says
MCDONALD'S USA: DOJ's Request to File Statement of Interest Denied
MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION: Appeals District Court Ruling in Harris
MIDLAND CREDIT: 7th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of FDCPA Claim

MITSUI SUMITOMO: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Thermoflex Suit
MONEYLION INC: Bragar Eagel Investigates Potential Claims
MONSANTO CO: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Nod
MONTANA UNIVERSITY: Seeks Denial of Cole Class Certification Bid
MORGAN STANLEY: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $60MM

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Ex-Coaches Join Racial Discrimination Suit
NEW YORK JETS: Fans Drop NFL League Teams Relocation Bid
NEW YORK: Fired Yankees Stadium Waitress Files Vaccine Mandate Suit
NEWPORT CORP: Summary Judgment Order in Shareholder Suit Affirmed
NOVO NORDISK: June 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

OJ INSULATION: Carrillo Class Suit Sues Over Wage & Hour Violations
OREGON: Lawyer Discusses Lawsuit Over Prison COVID-19 Response
PATTERN ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Granted in Part
PEPSICO INC: Faces Class Action Following Kronos Payroll Hack
PETSMART LLC: Suit Accuses Retailer of Mishandling Employees' Data

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES: Fails to Provide Full Refunds, Flores Says
PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of June 6 Deadline
PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of June 6 Deadline
PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Robbins LLP Discloses Securities Class Action
PLAYSTUDIOS, INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of June 6 Deadline

POST ALARMS: Fails to Pay All Final Wages Due, Lopez Suit Alleges
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Court Narrows Claims in Corbitt Class Suit
QUEBEC: Claims Process in Groundwater Suit in Shannon Discussed
RCI DINING: Collier Files Suit Over Allege Tip Skimming
RED RIVER: Fails to Pay Restaurant Staff's Minimum Wage, Suit Says

REDWIRE CORPORATION: Securities Class Suit in Florida Underway
ROCKPORT HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Workers' Wages After Kronos Hack
RODAN + FIELDS: Settles Lash Boost Class Action for $38 Million
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Johnson Appeals FLSA Suit Ruling to 7th Cir.
SENTOSA NURSING: Settles Nurses' Wage Class Action for $3 Million

SEPHORA USA: Pays Manual Workers Every Other Week, Espinal Alleges
SHOPIFY INC: Faces Class Action in Delaware Over Data Breach
SOCLEAN INC: Cason Sues Over Mislabeled Sanitizing Machine
SOLARWINDS CORP: Must Face Securities Class Action
SOTHEBY'S: Averts Independent Contractor Misclassification Suit

SPRINT CORP: N.Y. Court Pares Claims in Securities Class Action
SPROUT FOODS: Faces Suit Over Nutrient Claims on Baby Food Pouches
STARBUCKS CORP: Sued for Underfilling Cold Brew Concentrate
STATE FARM: Cozen O'Connor Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Bragar Eagel Investigates Potential Claims

TACTILE SYSTEMS: Johnson Fistel Investigates Potential Claims
TAILORED BRANDS: Faces Lopez Class Suit Over Untimely Paid Wages
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Claims in Value Drug Suit Dismissed in Part
TASKUS INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of April 25 Deadline
TASKUS INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 25 Deadline

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action
TINDER INC: Final Approval of Kim Suit Settlement Appealed
TIVITY HEALTH: Juan Monteverde Probes Securities Claims Over Merger
TOYOTA MOTOR: Australian Class Action Bill Could Reach $2 Billion
TOYOTA MOTOR: To Pay Out Up to $2BB in Faulty Engine Class Suit

TRADER JOE'S: Cristia Files Suit Over Mislabeled Cold Pressed Juice
TWITER INC: Judge Affirms Securities Class Action Dismissal
TYSON FOODS: Faces Class Action Over "Product of the U.S.A." Labels
ULTA BEAUTY: Illinois Court Tosses Securities Class Action
ULTIMATE KRONOS: Settles BIPA Class Action for $3.3 Million

UNISWAP LABS: Kim & Serritella Discloses Securities Class Action
UNISWAP LABS: Launches Venture Capital Arm Amid Class Action
UNITED STATES: Clark Appeals Judgment in Civil Rights Suit
UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO: Claims in Tuition and Fees Suit Trimmed
VERTIV HOLDINGS: Vincent Wong Reminds of April 11 Deadline

VIATRIS INC: Judge Narrows Charges in EpiPen Price Hike Class Suit
VOLTA INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of May 31 Deadline
WALMART INC: Rodriguez Sues Over Sale of Lidocaine Patch Products
WELLS FARGO: CFPB Files Amicus Brief in RESPA Class Action
WELLS FARGO: Transfer of Forsburg Suit to N.D. California Denied

WHOLE FOODS: Court Dismisses Akridge's 1st Amended Class Complaint
WILLIAM OSLER: Certification of Privacy Breach Action Overturned
WITHERSPOON URBAN: Professor in Tenant Suit to Face Eviction
[*] BakerHostetler Sees Increase in Duplicative Data Breach Suits
[*] Legislation Not Required to Level Meat Packing Playing Field

[*] Price Fixing Class Action Among Food Price Inflation Factors
[*] U.S. Tech Workers Collective Actions Tripled Since 2019
[*] Use of "Costs Referees" Cut $11MM from Class Action Legal Bills
[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 2 - Register Now

                            *********

3M CO: 6th Cir. Set to Decide on Class Certification Dispute
------------------------------------------------------------
Maya Earls, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that the Sixth
Circuit will soon decide whether to weigh in on a class
certification dispute that could set off a new wave of litigation
to force chemical companies, including 3M Co. and Chemours Co., to
pay for monitoring exposures to so-called forever chemicals.

Ohio firefighter Kevin D. Hardwick wants a federal court in the
state to provide potentially millions of people with medical
monitoring for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as
PFAS, at the expense of the chemical companies. He also wants the
companies to pay for a science panel that would study the
substances under an order from a federal court in Ohio.

Hardwick's request for a science panel could cost the companies
"untold billions," business and law groups told an appeals court
March 28.

There's mixed law on whether medical monitoring is a remedy or an
independent cause of action, according to Lauren Brogdon, partner
in the Energy Litigation Practice Group at Haynes & Boone LLP. Many
states don't recognize it as either, she said. Ohio recognizes
medical monitoring, she said, but "even the law there isn't
completely settled."

Hardwick sought to certify a class of all Americans, but the
federal judge in Ohio limited it to people subject to the laws of
the state who have specific amounts of PFAS in their blood.

The class could include potentially 11 million people, or the
population of the state, according to Brogdon.

Plaintiffs will need to show exposure to PFAS at a certain level
across those 11 million, offer common proof of a significant
increased risk of developing a disease, and establish that the
monitoring requested is necessary, she said.

That is "going to be an uphill battle," she said.

If the plaintiffs are successful, there will likely be a lot of
similar lawsuits in other states, she said. This case is "certainly
the one to watch going forward," according to Brogdon.

'Regulation by Another Name'
The chemical companies want the Sixth Circuit to take up their
petition for review and undo the class certification. They have
support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of
Manufacturers, and American Tort Reform Association. The groups
told the court that the class is too large and lacks cohesion.

Hardwick's case isn't litigation but instead "regulation by another
name," Jennifer Dickey, associate counsel at the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce Litigation Center, told Bloomberg Law.

Hardwick can't "lasso" courts to force the companies to help
investigate whether he has a claim, or whether millions of class
members have any claims, according to the groups' brief.

"No federal court can order such relief, whether to one plaintiff
or to one-hundred million," the filing said.

This class is large because of the "enormous scale of the harm and
damage" caused by the companies' actions, Hardwick told the Sixth
Circuit March 31. There's nothing to support the chemical
companies' view that "the more people they injure, the higher
plaintiff's burden to certify a class of those injured" should be,
the filing says.

The court's work on class status isn't finished, and its full size
and scope are uncertain, Hardwick's filing says. Chief Judge Edmund
A. Sargus, who is presiding over the case in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, asked the companies to
show which states don't recognize medical monitoring as a claim for
relief.

Very few courts agree that medical monitoring can be a remedy,
according to Davis & Whitlock attorney Gary Davis. Very few have
certified classes for medical monitoring in PFAS cases, he said.

If a class like this can be certified in Ohio, it presumably could
be certified in other states, said Steve C. Gold, an environmental
attorney and law professor at Rutgers Law School. If other state
laws allow medical monitoring, then there's presumably a cause of
action in those states, he said.

There's still a long way to go, but a ruling in the plaintiffs'
favor would be precedent-setting in terms of putting liability on
manufacturers, Davis said. Also, having a class that large for
medical monitoring "would be quite a precedent," he said.

"I don't know that class certification here would cause the
apocalypse," Gold said. But this case is interesting because of the
magnitude of the alleged exposure, he said. Hardwick alleges the
companies exposed "pretty much everybody to a harmful chemical," he
said.

"That's the basis for the level of concern that you see in the
defendant's and the Chamber of Commerce's brief," Gold said.

King & Spalding LLP represents the industry groups, which also
represent themselves.

Jones Day; Bricker & Eckler LLP; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP; Sidley Austin LLP; McCarter & English LLP; Carlile
Patchen & Murphy LLP; Crowell & Moring LLP; Porter Wright Morris &
Arthur LLP; Roetzel & Andress; Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP;
Organ Law LLP; Mayer Brown LLP; and Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease
LLP represent the companies.

Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Douglas & London PC, and Levin
Papantonio Rafferty represent Hardwick.

The case is In re: 3M Co., 6th Cir., No. 22-00305, 4/4/22. [GN]

3M CO: Judge Tosses Motion to Compel Production of Custodial File
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the federal
judge overseeing PFAS litigation has told plaintiff lawyers that
files they are seeking from 3M don't seem to exist.

Judge Richard Mark Gergel, on the bench in Charleston, S.C.,
rejected the Plaintiff Executive Committee's motion to compel
production of the custodial file of former 3M CEO Lewis Lehr. The
company is one of many defendants facing lawsuits over PFAS, a
group of chemicals used in firefighting foam and consumer products
like non-stick cookware.

The chemicals enter and never leave the bloodstreams of humans,
leading to their nickname "forever chemicals." The exact health
effects aren't known, as the federal government struggles to pass
official toxicity levels while states pass their own and hire
private attorneys on contingency fees to file lawsuits.

Federal cases are put in a multidistrict litigation proceeding in
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. There,
plaintiffs lawyers have already received hundreds of thousands of
documents from 3M but believed the company was holding out when it
came to Lehr's work.

Lehr was on 3M's board of directors from 1974-1991 and was its CEO
from 1979-1986. All 3M found from his personal work was a lab
notebook from 1947 relating to his work on tape.

The plaintiffs lawyer say there must be more because 3M knew about
problems with PFAS during his tenure and that 3M produced more than
29,000 documents from Lehr's tenure, some of which reference him.

It also says if Lehr's custodial file existed but has been
destroyed, 3M had a duty to preserve it. 3M has produced more than
750,000 other documents.

Judge Gergel could not order the release of files he doesn't know
to exist.

"The PEC may renew its motion to compel if or when it can
demonstrate that the Lehr custodial file exists, but is not being
produced," he wrote.

3M said it interviewed former employees, searched off-site archives
and searched Lehr's successor's documents but did not find a file
on Lehr.

PFAS lawsuits blame the chemicals for a variety of health problems,
some of which were linked by a health study that was part of a
settlement with DuPont. But others say the science on how PFAS
affect the human body is incomplete.

Meanwhile, as the government still requires PFAS in its
firefighting foam on military bases, lawyers pursue litigation like
an Ohio class action that alleges no illnesses. [GN]

3M COMPANY: Davson Sues Over Complications from AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
DEXTER DAVSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01189-RMG (D.S.C., April 12, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence/gross negligence,
strict liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violation of the Uniform
Voidable Transactions Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products.
The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products.

As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misconduct, the
Plaintiff was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis and commenced
on-going medical treatment.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

Kidde-Fenwall, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.

Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.

Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.

The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
         VETERAN LEGAL GROUP
         700 12th Street N.W., Suite 700
         Washington, DC 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: Faces Dorsey Suit Over PFAS Exposure from AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LINDA P. DORSEY, RACHEL DORSEY, MATTHEW DORSEY, REBEKAH DORSEY and
WILLIAM P. DORSEY by the proposed Executor, LINDA P. DORSEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD;
CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT
DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION
FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01200-RMG (D.S.C., April 12, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate
warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment,
breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness.

The case arises from severe personal injuries and death of the
Decedent, William Dorsey, as a result of his exposure to the
Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing
synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively
known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public
entities and civilian firefighters, including the Decedent, who
they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF
products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a
danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Decedent was
exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with pancreatic
cancer. His diagnosis caused and/or contributed to his death, says
the complaint.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.

Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
         Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
         GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         270 West Main Street
         Sayville, NY 11782
         Telephone: (631) 600-0000
         Facsimile: (631) 543-5450

                  - and –

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

                  - and –

         Frederick T. Kuykendall, III, Esq.
         THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC
         356 Morphy Ave., Suite B
         Fairhope, AL 36532
         Telephone: (205) 434-2866

3M COMPANY: Goldberg Sues Over PFAS Exposure From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES GOLDBERG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-01208-RMG (D.S.C., April 13, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence/gross negligence,
strict liability, defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent
concealment, medical monitoring trust, and violation of the Uniform
Voidable Transactions Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products.
The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products.

As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misconduct, the
Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer and commenced
on-going medical treatment inclusive of surgical intervention via a
left orchiectomy.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

Kidde-Fenwall, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.

Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.

Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.

The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
         VETERAN LEGAL GROUP
         700 12th Street N.W., Suite 700
         Washington, DC 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: Taylor Sues Over Injury Sustained from AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
MCLEWIS TAYLOR and LELA MAE TAYLOR, his wife, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50),
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01196-RMG (D.S.C., April 12, 2022) is
a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery,
inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent
concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, wantonness,
and per quod claim.

The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by
Plaintiff McLewis Taylor as a result of his exposure to the
Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing
synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively
known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn public
entities and firefighter trainees, including Mr. Taylor, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products
that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to
human health. Due to inadequate warning, Mr. Taylor was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.

Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [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

7-ELEVEN INC: Judge Approves $98MM Franchisee Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angus Thompson, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
convenience store giant 7-Eleven has agreed to pay almost $100
million in a class action settlement to franchisees who say they
were misled about the profitability of the stores.

The class action before the Federal Court alleged 7-Eleven enticed
operators into franchise agreements even though stores could only
turn a profit if they underpaid staff or worked . . . "for nothing"
or below award rates.

The claim, lodged in 2018, alleged the company misled them about
the accuracy of the labour costs in documents and records supplied
to prospective franchisees and the average wages that a franchisee
would have to pay.

The chain was forced to pay back more than $173 million to workers
after a joint investigation by The Sydney Morning Herald and The
Age, and Four Corners, found systemic wage theft and doctoring of
payroll records.

Former Australian Competition and Consumer Commission boss Allan
Fels, who previously headed a repayment panel set up by 7-Eleven,
told The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age in late 2020 the $173
million did not reflect all the unpaid wages.

Professor Fels said when the scheduled repayments to workers
reached $165 million "they decided that was enough and they
effectively closed the scheme".

"But it was clear that there was another $100 or $200 million to
come and they didn't want that," he said.

The Fair Work Ombudsman also launched multiple investigations,
suing 11 7-Eleven franchisees over pay issues, with a cumulative
total of $1.8 million in penalties awarded against them, equivalent
to about 1 per cent of the underpayments nationally.

Stewart Levitt, partner at law firm Levitt Robinson, which ran the
class action, said franchisees were led to believe employee costs
would represent about seven per cent of business costs, but were
actually about 13 per cent.

"The gap represented the difference between being profitable and
losing money for many franchisees," Mr Levitt said.

"A franchisee who bought into the 7-Eleven franchise couldn't meet
all his commitments and also survive so they either didn't pay
proper wages, or pay their mortgage or didn't feed their
children."

The franchisees also alleged 7-Eleven breached its contract with
certain class action members by only letting franchisees buy stock
from a particular supplier at a particular price.

On April 6, Federal Court judge David O'Callaghan signed off on the
$98 million settlement that had been reached between the parties in
August last year, with the money to be held in a trust.

In a statement, 7-Eleven said the settlement had been reached
without admission of fault, and the sum was inclusive of all legal
costs.

Chief executive Angus McKay said the company was pleased the matter
had come to an "acceptable resolution", adding 7-Eleven had also
invested $50 million in systems to prevent wage theft and for
training for franchisees "in relation to their responsibilities in
this regard".

"We are seeing the positive results of the significant efforts we
have made together with our franchise network," he said. [GN]

ABBVIE INC: Faces Nakata Suit Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------
CALVIN T. NAKATA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. ABBVIE INC., RICHARD A. GONZALEZ,
ROBERT A. MICHAEL, JEFFREY R. STEWART, and MICHAEL E. SEVERINO,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01773 (N.D. Ill., April 6, 2022) is a
securities class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of a
class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired AbbVie securities between April 30, 2021, through August
31, 2021, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, AbbVie is one of the world's largest
pharmaceutical companies. Its biggest drug, Humira -- an
anti-inflammatory drug used to treat illnesses such as Crohn's
disease, ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and more -- was,
in 2021 (aside from COVID-19 vaccines), the world's best-selling
prescription drug, with net revenue of more than $20 billion in
2021. Humira accounts for more than a third of AbbVie's net
revenue. Subsequently, AbbVie's future revenue and earnings depend
in large part on the Company's ability to develop new sources of
revenue to offset reduced Humira sales. Rinvoq -- an
anti-inflammatory drug manufactured by AbbVie and used to treat RA
and other diseases by inhibiting Janus kinase enzymes -- was touted
as one such drug.

After the Class Period, on December 3, 2021, AbbVie announced that
the FDA had updated Rinvoq's label in accordance with its September
1, 2021 decision. Specifically, AbbVie stated that "the U.S. label
for RINVOQ will now include additional information about the risks
of malignancy and thrombosis, and the addition of mortality and
MACE (defined as cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and
stroke) risks within the Boxed Warnings and Warnings and
Precautions sections."

On January 11, 2022, Defendants admitted that these changes to
Rinvoq's label would negatively impact sales, forcing the Company
to reduce its long-term guidance for Rinvoq's sales in 2025, from
greater than $8 billion, to greater than $7.5 billion.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts, about the Company's
business and operations. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) safety concerns about Xeljanz
extended to Rinvoq and other JAK inhibitors; (2) as a result, it
was likely that the FDA would require additional safety warnings
for Rinvoq and would delay the approval of additional treatment
indications for Rinvoq; and (3) therefore, Defendants' statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects lacked a
reasonable basis.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
significant decline in the market value of the Company's securities
when the truth was revealed, Plaintiff and other members of the
Class have suffered significant damages, the complaint adds.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sharan Nirmul, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: snirmul@ktmc.com

ABBVIE INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com)
informs investors that the firm has filed a securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against AbbVie, Inc. (AbbVie) (NYSE: ABBV) on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired AbbVie securities between April 30, 2021, and August 31,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is captioned
Calvin T. Nakata v. AbbVie, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01773.

Important Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired AbbVie securities during the Class Period may, no later
than June 6, 2022, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the class.

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

CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT YOUR ABBVIE LOSSES. YOU CAN ALSO CLICK ON THE
FOLLOWING LINK OR COPY AND PASTE IN YOUR BROWSER:
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/abbvie-inc?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=abbvie&mktm=r


LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: JUNE 6, 2022

CLASS PERIOD: APRIL 30, 2021 through AUGUST 31, 2021

CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS:
James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Email at info@ktmc.com  

ABBVIE'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
AbbVie is one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies. The
company's revenues will come under significant pressure in the
coming years when its best-selling drug, Humira, will lose patent
protection in 2023. Accordingly, AbbVie's future revenue and
earnings depend in large part on its ability to develop new sources
of revenue to offset Humira's lost sales. Rinvoq—an
anti-inflammatory drug manufactured by AbbVie and used to treat
rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and other diseases by inhibiting Janus
kinase (JAK) enzymes—was touted as one such drug. Rinvoq was
initially approved in the United States to treat only moderate to
severe RA. However, AbbVie was actively pursuing additional
treatment indications and, in 2020, asked the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) to approve Rinvoq for the treatment of several
other diseases.

As is relevant here, Rinvoq is similar to other JAK inhibitor
drugs, including Xeljanz, manufactured by Pfizer Inc. When the FDA
approved Xeljanz in 2012 for the treatment of RA, it required an
additional safety trial to evaluate Xeljanz's risk of triggering
certain serious side effects. Beginning in February 2019, the FDA
repeatedly warned the public that the safety trial indicated that
Xeljanz's use could lead to serious heart-related issue, cancer,
and other adverse events. Notwithstanding the similarities between
Rinvoq and Xeljanz, during the Class Period, Defendants assured
investors that Rinvoq was far safer than Xeljanz and not subject to
the same regulatory risks.

However, investors began to learn the truth about Rinvoq's
significant risks on June 25, 2021, when AbbVie revealed that the
FDA was delaying its review of expanded treatment applications for
Rinvoq due to the safety concerns associated with Xeljanz. On this
news, the price of AbbVie common stock declined $1.76 per share, or
approximately 1.5%, from a close of $114.74 per share on June 24,
2021, to close at $112.98 per share on June 25, 2021.

Then, on September 1, 2021, the FDA announced that final results
from the Xeljanz safety trial established an increased risk of
serious adverse events, even with low doses of Xeljanz. As a
result, the FDA determined that it would require new and updated
warnings for Xeljanz and Rinvoq because Rinvoq "share[s] similar
mechanisms of action with Xeljanz" and "may have similar risks as
seen in the Xeljanz safety trial." The FDA also indicated that it
would further limit approved indications for Rinvoq as a result of
these safety concerns. On this news, the price of AbbVie common
stock declined $8.51 per share, or more than 7%, from a close of
$120.78 per share on August 31, 2021, to close at $112.27 per share
on September 1, 2021.

After the Class Period, on December 3, 2021, AbbVie announced that
the FDA had updated Rinvoq's label to require additional safety
warnings and limit marketing of Rinvoq to only its use after
treatment with other drugs has failed. On January 11, 2022,
Defendants admitted that these changes to Rinvoq's label would
negatively impact sales, forcing the Company to reduce its
long-term guidance for Rinvoq's sales in 2025.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements,
about the company's business and operations. Specifically,
Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
safety concerns about Xeljanz extended to Rinvoq and other JAK
inhibitors; (2) as a result, it was likely that the FDA would
require additional safety warnings for Rinvoq and would delay the
approval of additional treatment indications for Rinvoq; and (3)
therefore, Defendants' statements about the company's business,
operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis, As a result of
the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the significant
decline in the market value of AbbVie's securities, AbbVie
investors have suffered significant damages.

WHAT CAN I DO?
AbbVie investors may, no later than June 6, 2022, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages AbbVie investors who have suffered
significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more
information.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE CASE

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

ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP  
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. [GN]

ABBVIE INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of June 6 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on April 6
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of AbbVie Inc. (NYSE: ABBV) between
April 30, 2021 and August 31, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 6,
2022.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the AbbVie class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5119 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 6, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) safety concerns about Xeljanz
and Xeljanz XR extended to Rinvoq and other Janus kinase (JAK)
inhibitors; (2) as a result, it was likely that the FDA would
require additional safety warnings for Rinvoq and would delay the
approval of additional treatment indications for Rinvoq; and (3)
therefore, defendants' statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

To join the AbbVie class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5119 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

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

ABBVIE INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of June 6 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Attention AbbVie Inc. ("AbbVie") (NYSE: ABBV) shareholders:

The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on April 11 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased
between April 30, 2021 and August 31, 2021.

If you suffered a loss on your investment in AbbVie, contact us
about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost
or obligation to you.

https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/abbvie-inc-loss-submission-form-2?prid=25751&wire=4

ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against AbbVie includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) safety
concerns about Pfizer Inc.'s drug Xeljanz extended to Abbvie's drug
Rinvoq and to other Janus kinase enzyme inhibitor drugs; (2) as a
result, it was likely that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
would require additional safety warnings for Rinvoq and would delay
the approval of additional treatment indications for Rinvoq; and
(3) therefore, defendants' statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.

DEADLINE: June 6, 2022

Aggrieved AbbVie investors only have until June 6, 2022 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required
to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]

ACUITY BRANDS: Term Sheet for Settlement of Class Suit Executed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Acuity Brands, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
fiscal year ended September 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 4, 2022, that on October 5, 2021, the
parties to a shareholder class action litigation executed a term
sheet for settlement of the litigation, subject to documentation of
the settlement and approval of the District Court after notice to
class members.

Case was originally filed on January 3, 2018 in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware against the company and
certain of its officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired its stock between June 29, 2016 and April 3,
2017. It was then transferred on April 30, 2018, to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and
subsequently were consolidated as "In re Acuity Brands, Inc.
Securities Litigation," Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-02140-MHC (N.D.
Ga.)

On October 5, 2018, the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint.  On December 2, 2021,
the lead plaintiff in the case filed an unopposed motion seeking
preliminary approval of the settlement.

Acuity Brands, Inc. is an industrial technology company solving
problems in spaces and light through the development of lighting,
lighting controls, building management systems and location-aware
applications.


ADVANCED PLUMBING: NSW Supreme Court Rules on Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt McDonald, Esq., and Natasha Curry, Esq., of Hall & Wilcox,
report that the NSW Supreme Court has delivered judgment in Ritchie
v Advanced Plumbing and Drains Pty Ltd, a class action brought by
Maddens Lawyers on behalf of victims of the Carwoola bushfire,
which occurred on 17 February 2017.

The bushfire occurred on a total fire ban day, when a power cutter
used by Advanced Plumbing to cut steel reinforcement for use in
slab footings caused sparks that ignited dry grass in an adjacent
paddock.

Advanced Plumbing was placed in liquidation and the trial proceeded
against its liability insurer, CGU Insurance, which denied
indemnity on several grounds and was joined under section 5 of the
Civil Liability (Third Party Claims Against Insurers) Act 2017
(NSW).

Justice Davies rejected CGU's argument that the construction of
footings for a concrete slab fell outside the definition of
Advanced Plumbing's business, which was described as 'Principally
Plumbing and any other activities incidental thereto'. It was held
that the relevant activities, which were incidental to the plumbing
business, fell within this broad business description.

The Court also rejected CGU's argument that Advanced Plumbing
breached the reasonable precautions policy condition by recklessly
conducting hot works on a day of total fire ban. In the context of
a public liability policy, it was held that CGU was required to
establish that Advanced Plumbing's workers acted recklessly and
subjectively courted the risk of a known danger. While the evidence
clearly established negligence on the part of the workers, there
was no evidence that they had an actual, subjective awareness of a
risk of bushfire from the sparks, which they disregarded.

CGU also relied on a welding endorsement that excludes cover in the
event that the relevant Australian Standard for hot works is not
strictly complied with. The plaintiff argued the endorsement was
not engaged because the power cutter did not fall within its
definition of 'electric cutting' or 'spark producing equipment'.
However, the consensus between the two welding experts was that the
power cutter emitted sparks when used on metal and the Court
therefore found that the welding endorsement was engaged.

Noting the expert consensus that Advanced Plumbing did not comply
with AS 1674, Part 1 -- 1997 'Safety in Welding and Allied
Processes -- Fire Precautions', Justice Davies had no hesitation in
finding that CGU was entitled to rely on the exclusion to decline
cover.

The upshot, subject to any appeal, is that the Carwoola bushfire
class action has failed.

Interestingly, the judgment contained no analysis on whether the
welding endorsement requiring strict compliance with AS1674 should
be read down as a 'reasonable precautions' condition, such that CGU
would need to establish recklessness. In a somewhat analogous case
decided last year by the Victorian Supreme Court it was held that a
policy condition requiring compliance with the Australian Standard
for scaffolding works should be read down so that the insurer
needed to prove recklessness.

It remains to be seen whether the class action will appeal the
judgment.

Ritchie v Advanced Plumbing and Drains Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 330
[GN]

AFRICAN METHODIST: AARP Lawyers to Act as Class Action Co-Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Stych, writing for Religion Unplugged, reports that AARP
Foundation attorneys will act as co-counsel in a class-action
lawsuit alleging the African Methodist Episcopal Church mishandled
nearly $90 million in retirement funds, the organization said.

The AME stopped making payments to retired ministers covered by its
pension plan earlier this year after a 2021 audit found that
two-thirds of the denomination's retirement funds had been lost in
risky investments in a venture capital company and a real estate
deal.

The lawsuit was filed March 22 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland by the law firm Kantor and Kantor on behalf of
about 5,000 former and current clergy and other employees of the
AME Church who were allegedly led to falsely believe through
financial statements that their investments were growing, per
PlanAdviser.

The suit names the AME Church's Department of Retirement Services
as well as financial advisers Newport Group Inc. and Symetra
Financial Corp. as defendants, saying they should have known the
information provided to participants was inaccurate.

The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit is the Rev. Cedric Alexander, a
recently retired AME minister and presiding elder of the California
Conference.

The AME Church is the oldest Black church in the United States and
one of the largest Protestant denominations in the country, with
more than 2.5 million members. Ministers and other employees were
required to contribute a portion of their salaries into the
retirement plan and could choose to invest more.

The suit said AME retirement plan participants had been told all
along that their money was being conservatively invested in a life
insurance company, and that they were covered for losses under the
federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

But when the loss was disclosed to plan participants in February,
they also were informed that because of its church affiliation, the
retirement plan was in fact excluded from ERISA coverage.

Alexander said he was among participants who believed that his AME
retirement account, which held approximately $90,000, was protected
by ERISA.

"As a result of gross financial mishandling, nearly 5,000 pastors,
church elders and other employees find themselves contemplating a
future without the retirement funds they were depending on," said
William Alvarado Rivera, senior vice president of litigation at
AARP Foundation. "These employees and retirees served their
community for years, some even decades, and justice requires they
receive their deserved earnings they were promised." [GN]

AFRICAN METHODIST: Class Actions Pile Up Over Pension Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bob Smietana, writing for Religion News Service, reports that
Retired African Methodist Episcopal Church pastors have filed at
least three federal class-action lawsuits alleging the church
mishandled tens of millions of dollars in pension funds.

Last month, AME leaders stopped making payments to retirees after
discovering alleged financial irregularities in the church's
pension fund.

According to a lawsuit filed in the Southern Division of the United
States District Court of Maryland, the former leader of the
church's Department of Retirement Services "invested Plan assets in
imprudent, extraordinarily risky investments that ultimately lost
nearly $100 million of Plan participants' retirement savings."

Church officials allegedly gave sole authority over the pension
fund to the former head of retirement services for the AME with
little or no oversight, according to the lawsuit. That led to
investments in the purchase of Florida land, a loan to a solar
panel installer and investment "in a now non-existent capital
venture outlet."

The lawsuit alleges church officials have admitted the pension plan
-- which was valued at $126 million in June 2021 -- has lost at
least $90 million and that "no one connected with the Church" knew
where the money had gone, except for the former head of retirement
services.

The suit was filed on behalf of the Rev. Cedric Alexander, a
retired pastor from Maryland, and names the former head of
retirement services, the trustees of the retirement fund, the AME
and its bishops, among others. Alexander is one of thousands of
retired clergy and church workers affected by the pension plan
crisis.

"As a result of the African Methodist Episcopal Church's gross
financial mishandling, nearly 5,000 pastors, church elders, and
other employees find themselves contemplating a future without the
retirement funds they were depending on," said William Alvarado
Rivera, senior vice president of litigation at AARP Foundation,
which is helping represent Alexander, in a statement.

In an interview, Rivera said the AARP Foundation has long been
concerned about church pension plans, as many of them are not
covered by federal legislation known as the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, which covers most pension plans in the
United States. The foundation is currently suing a Catholic diocese
in New York over its pension plan.

Rivera said the focus of the lawsuit is the well-being of AME
church retirees, many of whom rely on their church pension to pay
their bills.

"Our focus is very much on making sure that the pension and
retirement plan beneficiaries are made whole," he said.

Similar lawsuits have been filed in Tennessee and Virginia.

In an update published in late March, AME church officials said
they became aware of problems with the church pension plan after a
leadership transition in 2021 revealed "possible financial
irregularities."

"Out of an abundance of caution, we immediately engaged outside
legal counsel and forensics experts to conduct an independent and
comprehensive investigation," church leaders said in the update.
"We continue to actively work with federal authorities who are
investigating this matter and recover any misappropriated funds. "

Church leaders have also said they are cooperating with federal
officials who are investigating the pension fund. They have also
set up a task force to look into the pension plan crisis and to
develop "a plan of reorganization, recovery, and restoration for
fund participants."

"The AME Church is committed to making every fund participant whole
by restoring their full investment plus interest," church leaders
said in the Frequently Asked Questions section of their March
update.

Rivera said he hopes the lawsuit can proceed quickly, in part
because church leaders have admitted there are problems.

"So having a case like this drag out, unnecessarily, really only
harms the people who really dedicated their careers and many years
of their lives to the church," he said. "And we hope that they will
work to resolve this as quickly as possible."

Founded in the late 1700s by former slaves who had been part of
Methodist churches, the African Methodist Episcopal Church is one
of the nation's most prominent Black Protestant denominations. The
denomination, which was claimed as many as 2.5 million members in
the past, is a hierarchical church led primarily by its bishops.
[GN]

AFRICAN METHODIST: Faces Second Class Action Over Pension Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Meara, writing for BET, reports that a second lawsuit has been
filed against AME Church and it alleges that the global
denomination's retirement fund was mishandled, which led to an
alleged $90 million loss in retirement fund investments meant to
support thousands of pastors and others.

According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the AARP Foundation
has joined as co-counsels in a Maryland-based suit against the AME
Church, filed on March 22 in U.S. District Court in the state by
the firm Kantor & Kantor. Both plaintiffs are seeking class action
status due to the number of potential victims who may consider
legal action.

Both lawsuits claim millions of dollars were mismanaged, leaving
clergy of the church and other retirees holding the bag when it
comes to their portion of the investment, which was intended to
help people retire.

The AJC reports that the suit claims people "dedicated themselves
for years working for the church and were promised that the savings
were invested conservatively and then it turns out that was not
true," according to William Alvarado Rivera, senior vice president
of litigation at AARP Foundation. "It's a real tragedy."

The defendants named in the lawsuit include the former executive
director of the AME's Department of Retirement Services and several
others.

The Nashville-based AME Church said it was investigating "possible
financial irregularities" in retirement fund investments the church
currently holds.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the African Methodist
Episcopal Church, which has reported as many as 2.5 million
members, suspended the pension payments to retirees after it found
possible financial irregularities in the denomination's pension
fund last month.

The church stated via a press release that an outside regulation
agency is investigating "a doable monetary crime."

It's unknown how much money is being investigated but the funds
include contributions from 5,000 people, including ministers and
bishops.

The press release read, "The AME Church takes this crime severely.
We're additionally dedicated to creating each fund participant
complete by restoring their full funding plus curiosity."

The WSJ reports that, as of 2017, the church had approximately $120
million in retirement assets. Church pensions are exempt from
federal regulation laws and are not covered by federal insurance,
according to the Pension Rights Center.

Back in February, Bishop Jeffrey N. Leath of the AME's 13th
Episcopal District in Tennessee, wrote on his blog that the pension
fund was "overvalued by as much as 70%" and added, "The fix will be
large, painful, and not loved by anyone. Let's gird up our loins
and DO IT."

Leath has not spoken out about the recent suspension of retirement
benefits. [GN]

AFRICAN METHODIST: Over $90M Missing From Pension Funds, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Major at blackenterprise.com reports that at least three
lawsuits have been filed against the African Methodist Episcopal
(AME) Church, claiming that it mishandled its retirement fund,
leading to a $90 million loss.

The Post and Courier (SC) reported that a class action suit was
filed in the Southern Division of the United States District Court
of Maryland on behalf of more than 5,000 eligible retirees.
According to the suit, the AME Church lost at least $90 million, or
about 70 percent, of its retirement fund due to irresponsible
investments.

The suit adds that church officials gave sole authority of the
pension fund to AME's head of retirement services with no
oversight. As a result, the fund invested in the purchase of
Florida land, a loan to a solar panel installer, and investment "in
a now non-existent capital venture outlet."

At least three lawsuits have been filed against the African
Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church, claiming that it mishandled its
retirement fund, leading to a $90 million loss.

The Post and Courier (SC) reported that a class action suit was
filed in the Southern Division of the United States District Court
of Maryland on behalf of more than 5,000 eligible retirees.
According to the suit, the AME Church lost at least $90 million, or
about 70 percent, of its retirement fund due to irresponsible
investments.

The suit adds that church officials gave sole authority of the
pension fund to AME's head of retirement services with no
oversight. As a result, the fund invested in the purchase of
Florida land, a loan to a solar panel installer, and investment "in
a now non-existent capital venture outlet."

Russell Wilson, Ciara Cozy Up In Their Newly Purchased $25 Million
Mansion In Colorado
The class-action suit also claims church officials admitted the
pension, which was valued at $126 million last year, has lost more
than $90 million. Additionally, "no one connected with the Church"
knows what happened to the money except the former head of
retirement services.

"As a result of the African Methodist Episcopal Church's gross
financial mishandling, nearly 5,000 pastors, church elders, and
other employees find themselves contemplating a future without the
retirement funds they were depending on," William Alvarado Rivera,
senior vice president of litigation at AARP Foundation said
according to Religion News Service.

Defendants include Jerome Harris, the former executive director of
AME's Department of Retirement Services and South Carolina Bishop
Samuel L. Green. AME's general board and council of bishops have
also been named.

Harris was sued in 2006 by Dorsey McCullough for mismanagement of
annuity, but the case was dismissed due to a technicality.

AME Church officials acknowledged in an update published last month
that it became aware of problems with its pension plan after a
leadership change last year revealed "financial irregularities."

"Out of an abundance of caution, we immediately engaged outside
legal counsel and forensics experts to conduct an independent and
comprehensive investigation," AME Church leaders said in the
update. "We continue to actively work with federal authorities who
are investigating this matter and recover any misappropriated
funds."

AME leaders are also cooperating with federal officials who are
also investigating what happened to the pension fund. [GN]

ALMAY INC: Makeup Contains Harmful Chemicals, Lawsuit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that three
Almay makeup customers are suing the brand and its parent company,
Revlon, saying the makeup purports to be clean and healthy, but
actually contains harmful chemicals.

Plaintiffs Kelly Anderson, Audrey McCauley, and Tania Pokorski
filed the class action complaint April 1 against Almay Inc. and
Revlon, Inc. in a New York federal court, alleging violations of
state and federal consumer laws.

The plaintiffs want to represent anyone who purchased Almay
products, which are marketed as clean, healthy, and non-toxic
cosmetic products but which the lawsuit alleges actually contain
harmful per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

According to the lawsuit, Almay has cultivated an image of being a
clean and affordable brand since the 1930s, and its products are
now widely available at grocery stores, drug stores, and mass
market retailers across the United States.

In 1987, the company was bought by Revlon.

Almay was the first brand to create a hypoallergenic makeup that
eliminated ingredients known to cause irritation to the skin.
Today, Almay specifically markets itself as a clean makeup brand,
which it defines, in part, as being "extremely selective" about
what ingredients are included in its products, the lawsuit states.


Despite this, the Almay products now contain potentially harmful
chemicals that are in no way clean or healthy, the lawsuit states.
The plaintiffs say they know this through independent testing.

Exposure to high levels of PFAS may impact the immune system and
reduce antibody responses to vaccines, and may impact pregnant
women and their babies.

"Defendants do not disclose that the Products contain PFAS, a
chemical which is entirely inconsistent with Defendants' marketing
and advertising, and the disclosure of which would inevitably
impact their sales and standing in the clean beauty market," the
lawsuit states.

"No reasonable consumer would deem the Products clean if they knew
that they contained harmful PFAS."

The plaintiffs allege that not only do the PFAs make the products
harmful to skin, they also make them less valuable or even
worthless.

They're looking to represent anyone who bought an Almay product for
personal use. The plaintiffs are suing for breach of warranty,
negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and under state consumer law.

The lawsuit is seeking certification of the class action, fees,
costs, damages, interest and a jury trial.

Meanwhile, the Clorox Company and The Burt's Bees Products Company
are facing a class action lawsuit alleging Burt's Bees cosmetic
products contain unsafe "forever chemicals" that pose a risk to
human health.

The ingredients cosmetics contain have also led to a number of
class action lawsuits. Check out our list of the worst makeup
brands in the United States according to lawsuits and customer
complaints.

The plaintiffs are represented by Andrei Rado, Rachel Soffin,
Harper T. Segui and Erin Ruben of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips
Grossman PLLC and Melissa S. Weiner of Pearson, Simon & Warshaw,
LLP.

The Almay and Revlon Class Action Lawsuit is Kelly Anderson et al,
v. Almay, Inc and Revlon, Inc, Case No. 1:22-cv-02722 in the U.S.
District Court Southern District of New York [GN]

ALPHABET INC: Faces Class Suit Over Mapping APIs' Market Control
----------------------------------------------------------------
DREAM BIG MEDIA, INC., GETIFY SOLUTIONS, INC., and SPRINTER
SUPPLIER LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ALPHABET INC. and GOOGLE LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 3:22-cv-02314 (N.D. Cal., April 13, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Sherman
Antitrust Act, Clayton Act, and California's Unfair Competition
Law.

The case arises from Google's alleged anticompetitive practices in
the relevant product markets for digital-mapping application
programming interfaces (APIs). Google's terms of service prohibit
users from using any Google Maps API or component with any API or
component of any other digital-mapping provider or service, which
constitute separate and distinct products. Google goes so far as to
prohibit display of non-Google digital maps near their own maps on
an application or web page. Google has forced users of its
digital-mapping products and once locked in, Google ratchets up the
cost on its mapping products. The Plaintiffs and Class members have
been harmed by Google's improper tying of its mapping products
together to restrain competition.

Dream Big Media, Inc. is a digital-advertising business based in
California.

Getify Solutions, Inc. is a software developer based in Texas.

Sprinter Supplier LLC is an e-commerce automotive parts shop owner
based in Pennsylvania.

Alphabet Inc. is an American multinational technology conglomerate
holding company, with its principal place of business at 1600
Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California.

Google LLC is a technology company, with its principal place of
business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Mario Simonyan, Esq.
         ESQGo, PC
         303 North Glenoaks Boulevard, Suite 200
         Burbank, CA 91502
         Telephone: (424) 363-6233
         E-mail: mario@esqgo.com

                 - and –

         Justin S. Nematzadeh, Esq.
         NEMATZADEH PLLC
         101 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 909
         New York, NY 10013
         Telephone: (646) 799-6729
         E-mail: jsn@nematlawyers.com

                 - and –

         John G. Balestriere, Esq.
         Matthew W. Schmidt, Esq.
         BALESTRIERE FARIELLO
         225 Broadway, 29th Floor
         New York, NY 10007
         Telephone: (212) 374-5401
         Facsimile: (212) 208-2613
         E-mail: john.balestriere@balestrierefariello.com
                 matthew.schmidt@balestrierefariello.com

ALPHABET INC: Pair of Derivative Complaints Target Executives
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett at topclassactions.com reports that executive
mismanagement by Alphabet Inc. could cost Google's parent company
billions of dollars in damages, harming investors, a pair of new
derivative complaints allege.

Plaintiffs Bucks County Employee' Retirement System and the Police
and Fire Department System of the City of Detroit separately claim
Alphabet executives have long-engaged in antitrust and monopolistic
activities.

"Alphabet and Google have suffered reputational harm that is
difficult to value," states Bucks County's complaint. "In addition,
they could be liable for billions of dollars in damages when the
antitrust actions conclude."

Plaintiffs argue that ongoing litigation into Alphabet's
anticompetitive practices is costing the company millions of
dollars while also interrupting business operations.

The claims center around Google's alleged use of its search engine,
navigation and digital advertising dominance to gain an advantage
on its competitors.

Plaintiffs also point to the fact that Google is facing
Congressional scrutiny and that its Google Play Store is currently
involved in a number of private antitrust complaints.

"These lawsuits have become so numerous that many lawsuits relating
to advertising and the Google Play Store have been consolidated
into MDLs in California and New York," the plaintiffs say.

Lawsuits Name Specific Alphabet Executives As Defendants
Both lawsuits name specific Alphabet executives as defendants,
including Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Google's co-founders and
Alphabet's previous CEO and president, respectively.

The Police and Fire Department System of the City of Detroit claims
Brin and Page have "not been shy to directly implicate himself in
violations of antitrust laws," pointing to anti-poaching practices
Brin was allegedly "intimately involved in."

The Alphabet Executives Antitrust Lawsuits are Police and Fire
Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. Page, et al., Case No.
5:21-cv-09388, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California; and Bucks County Employees' Retirement System v.
Page, et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-09389, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California. [GN]

AMAZON LOGISTICS: Faces Class Action in Seattle Over DSP Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Tabacco, writing for Law Street, reports that Fli-Lo
Falcon LLC, a transportation and logistics company which entered
into a contract to deliver packages for Amazon Logistics Inc.
(ALI), has filed suit against the company over broken promises
related to Amazon's "Delivery Service Partners" (DSP) program and
contract. The Seattle, Washington-filed complaint asserts that
Amazon falsely offers DSPs much more revenue and autonomy than they
actually receive in violation of Washington's Franchise Investment
Protection Act (FIPA).

The filing explains that DSPs contract with Amazon as small package
deliverers, typically with a fleet of 20 to 40 Amazon-branded vans,
and pursuant to a DSP agreement. According to the complaint, the
purpose of the DSP Program "is to shield Amazon from its
responsibilities to delivery drivers and the public."

Fli-Lo argues that Amazon misrepresents two key aspects of its
business agreements with DSPs. First, the complaint says that
Amazon exaggerates the earnings DSPs can achieve. It allegedly
advertises profits between $75,000 and $300,000 annually, yet as of
February 2022, the average annual pay for an Amazon DSP was $63,874
per year.

Second, the lawsuit accuses Amazon of misrepresenting the degree of
control DSPs exercise over their businesses, stating that their
operations are "dictated and run by Amazon through ALI." The filing
also urges that DSPs must make capital investments and use certain
vendors under Amazon's terms.

Further, DSPs are restricted from making material adjustments to
increase their profits though they retain liability for acts of
their drivers, who are pressed to meet the delivery schedules
prescribed by ALI. Finally, the complaint says, DSPs are assessed
exit costs by ALI if they try to end their participation in the DSP
program.

The complaint contends Amazon engaged in fraud and fraudulent
inducement, breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and violated the state of Washington's Consumer Protection
Act based on violations of its FIPA. It seeks certification of a
class of DSPs, of which there were approximately 2,500 as of
December 2021, and damages on their behalf.

Fli-Lo and the putative class are represented by Breskin Johnson
Townsend PLLC and Kirby McInerney LLP. [GN]

AMAZON.COM INC: Court Tosses Unjust Enrichment Claim in Hogan Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANGELA HOGAN and B.H., a minor, by and through his
guardian ANGELA HOGAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 21 C 3169 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Harry D. Leinenweber of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, granted in part and denied in part Amazon's Motion to
Dismiss the Complaint.

I. Background

Plaintiffs Hogan and B.H., a minor, bring the putative class action
individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals
against Defendant Amazon. The Plaintiffs allege that Amazon
violated Section 15(a)-(c) of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act ("BIPA"). They also bring a claim for unjust
enrichment.

The Plaintiffs are citizens of Illinois who are filing suit against
Amazon based on Amazon's collection of biometric data through its
Amazon Photos service. Amazon launched Amazon photos in November
2014 to provide users with unlimited photo storage. Amazon Prime
subscribers have automatic access to Amazon photos. Prime
subscribers may also grant access to up to five people access to
Amazon Photos through a service called Family Vault. A person who
joins a family vault receives a free Amazon Photos account, even if
they are not a Prime member.

Amazon Photos includes Amazon's image recognition technology. Any
time a user uploads a photograph containing a person's face, Amazon
scans the person's face and obtains their biometric identifiers.
Amazon's image recognition technology scans the face of every
person appearing in a photo uploaded to Amazon Photos, regardless
of whether that person is a user of the service or not. This
feature is automatically enabled when a user signs up for Amazon
Photos, unless the user is an Illinois resident. If the user is an
Illinois resident, image recognition is disabled and must be
manually enabled by the user. When a user enables image recognition
they are provided with a link to "important legal information,"
including that "Illinois state law may require the informed written
consent from an Illinois resident before performing image
recognition on photos that include his or her face." Amazon Prime
users can disable Amazon Photos' image recognition feature at any
time. However, a Family Vault user cannot disable image recognition
if the Amazon Prime user who invited them has not disabled the
feature.

In January 2017, Amazon launched Rekognition, a technology that
analyzed photos and provided object and scene detection, facial
analysis, face comparison, and facial recognition. Rekognition was
"trained" by analyzing the images users uploaded to Amazon Photos.
Rekognition would store and analyze the biometric identifiers
collected through Amazon Photos to make the service more accurate
and marketable. Amazon sells its Rekognition technology to
business, governments, and other organizations. Amazon Photos'
users were not specifically informed that their images were being
processed through Rekognition.

Plaintiff Hogan began using Amazon Photos in January 2021. The
application was linked to Hogan's Amazon Prime account. Hogan used
Amazon Photos to store numerous images of Hogan and B.H. Because
the image recognition feature was enabled, Amazon scanned the
Plaintiffs' faces, collecting and storing their biometric
information. The Plaintiffs state that they never received any
information about how long their biometric information would be
stored, used, or when it would be destroyed. They state that they
were not notified that Amazon would use their biometric data to
improve its Rekognition technology.

As a result, the Plaintiffs filed suit against Amazon, alleging
violations of Section 15(a)-(c) of BIPA. They originally filed
their case in Cook County Circuit Court, but it was removed to the
Court.

Amazon moved to dismiss the Complaint, making two main arguments.
Amazon's first argument is that the Plaintiffs agreed to the Amazon
Photos Terms of Use ("TOUs") and Amazon's Conditions of Use
("COUs"), which specify that disputes are governed by Washington
law. Its second argument is that the Plaintiffs do not state claims
in which relief can be granted under BIPA. Amazon also argues that
the Plaintiffs cannot state a claim for unjust enrichment because
it is based on the same conduct as the BIPA claims.
II. Discussion

Before ruling on the motion to dismiss, Judge Leinenweber must deal
with two predicate issues. First, he must first decide which
documents can fairly be considered in his analysis. Second, he must
determine what state law governs the Plaintiffs' claims.

A. Incorporation-by-Reference

Amazon attaches seven documents to its motion to dismiss. They are
as follows: Amazon Photos' TOUs; Amazon's COUs; Amazon's privacy
notice; Amazon's file retention policy; a brief filed in a separate
case in the Northern District of California; Amazon's notice to
Illinois Residents; and a transcript of proceedings from the
Illinois House of Representatives session from May 30, 2008, when
the House passed BIPA.

Judge Leinenweber finds that the incorporation-by-reference
doctrine applies to some, but not all, of the attached documents.
He considers the TOUs and the notice to Illinois residents because
both are quoted in the Complaint and are central to the Plaintiffs'
claims. He will also exercise discretion to consider the COUs. He
will consider the COUs, as well as the TOUs, and the notice to
Illinois residents when ruling on Amazon's Motion to Dismiss.

Judge Leinenweber declines to consider the other attached
documents, which consist of Amazon's privacy notice, Amazon's file
retention policy, the brief in the California case, and the
transcript of the Illinois House of Representatives session. He
says none of these documents are referred to in the Plaintiffs'
Complaint. A brief in an entirely separate case and the legislative
history behind BIPA are not central to the Plaintiffs' claims. Both
Amazon's privacy notice and its file retention policy are linked in
the TOUs. However, neither document specifically mentions how
Amazon treats biometric information or identifiers, so they are not
central to the Plaintiffs' claims.

B. The Choice-of-Law Provision

The law treats minors differently in contract law, and as a result
the parties agree in the first instance that B.H. was not party to
the contract, and the Court will analyze his position separately.
In the case, both parties agree that the parties entered a valid
contract and Illinois law applies Amazon's choice-of-law provision.
The parties' dispute whether Illinois law requires the suit to be
governed by Washington law. Because the choice-of-law provision
applies to both Plaintiffs' BIPA claims and the unjust enrichment
claim, Judge Leinenweber analyzes the choice-of-law decision for
both claims in turn.

First, he opines that the line of cases that Amazon cites is
evidence that courts do not consider the Consumer Fraud Act to be
fundamental Illinois public policy, but it sheds no light on the
status of BIPA. Every state has a consumer protection law, most of
which allows individuals to file suit on their own behalf. That is
not the case at hand. Thus, Judge Leinenweber finds that the
choice-of-law provision is contrary to Illinois' fundamental public
policy in the case. Because he finds that the choice-of-law
provision violates fundamental Illinois' public policy, he does not
reach the Plaintiffs' additional arguments.

Judge Leinenweber next turns to the issue of whether Washington or
Illinois has a materially greater interest in this dispute. He
finds that Illinois has the greater material interest in this
dispute. The fact that Amazon is headquartered in Washington and
employs workers there does not give Washington a greater interest.
Illinois has the greater material interest in this dispute and he
will not enforce the choice-of-law provision. Hogan's claims will
be evaluated using Illinois law under BIPA. Lastly, since the Court
is not enforcing the choice-of-law provision for Hogan, it cannot
be binding on B.H. either. B.H.'s claims will also be evaluated
using Illinois law under BIPA.

Second, Judge Leinenweber finds that the choice-of-law analysis for
the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim is much simpler. The
decision in what law to apply will make no difference in the
ultimate outcome of the claim. The elements of unjust enrichment
are largely similar in both states. As the choice of law will make
no difference in outcome, Judge Leinenweber applies Illinois law to
the unjust enrichment claim as well.

C. Plaintiffs' BIPA Claims

The Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges that Amazon violated BIPA Section
15, subsections (a), (b), and (c).

1. Plaintiffs' 15(a) Claim

When asserting claims under Section 15(a), a plaintiff has standing
to assert a claim of unlawful retention of biometric data beyond
the time limits set within that section. However, when a
plaintiff's 15(a) claim only alleges that a defendant did not
create a publicly available written policy governing the retention
of biometric identifiers and information, they lack standing.

The Plaintiffs claim that Amazon violated Section 15(a) of BIPA by
failing to create a publicly available written policy governing the
retention of biometric identifiers and information. Importantly,
when pleading its 15(a) claim, the Plaintiffs' Complaint does not
allege that Amazon unlawfully retained biometric data beyond the
legal time limit. The Complaint simply alleges that Amazon failed
to create a retention policy. As such, the Plaintiffs lack standing
to bring this claim in federal court. Because the action began in
state court, and because the standing requirements in Illinois
state court differ, Judge Leinenweber remands, rather than
dismisses the Plaintiffs' Section 15(a) claims.

2. Plaintiffs' Section 15(b) Claims

BIPA Section 15(b) prohibits a private entity from obtaining a
person's biometric identifier or biometric information unless it
satisfies three conditions. First, the entity must inform the
subject in writing that it is collecting or storing biometric
information. Second, it must inform the subject in writing of the
specific purpose and length of term that the information is being
collected, stored, and used. Third, it must receive a written
release from the subject. A biometric identifier is defined as a
retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or
face geometry.

Judge Leinenweber finds that the Plaintiffs have standing to bring
their 15(b) claim. In essence, they allege that they lacked the
information necessary to give informed consent to use of Amazon
Photos. He also finds that the Plaintiffs have stated a 15(b) claim
upon which relief can be granted. The Plaintiffs argue that Amazon
did not comply with its statutory notice and informed consent
requirements. As such, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled claims
for violations of 15(b).

3. Section 15(c)

Section 15(c) of BIPA states that no private entity in possession
of a biometric identifier or biometric information may sell, lease,
trade, or otherwise profit from a person's or a customer's
biometric identifier or biometric information.

Judge Leinenweber finds that the Plaintiffs do not have standing to
bring their 15(c) claim. The Plaintiffs allege that Amazon violated
15(c) because it used the images uploaded to Amazon Photos to train
Rekognition, which it then sold to third parties. However, the
Plaintiffs do not allege that they were specifically harmed. They
do not plead facts to show that their images were specifically used
to better the Rekognition technology or make it more marketable. As
the Plaintiffs fail to plead facts showing how they were affected
by Amazon's profiting from Rekognition, they cannot show a
particularized injury-in-fact. As a result, the Plaintiffs do not
have standing to maintain their claim in the Court. Judge
Leinenweber remands the Plaintiffs' Section 15(c) claims.

D. Plaintiffs' Unjust Enrichment Claim

Judge Leinenweber opines that the Plaintiffs' claims in this case
are too attenuated to state an unjust enrichment claim. The
Plaintiffs do not allege which images are being used unjustly.
Further, they do not allege facts to show exactly how Amazon is
profiting from Plaintiffs' images. Even if Amazon was using the
Plaintiffs' images to train Rekognition, they fail to allege how
their specific images made Rekognition more valuable or profitable
to Amazon. As a result, the Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled a
claim of unjust enrichment. Judge Leinenweber dismisses the claim.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons he stated, Judge Leinenweber denied in part
Amazon's Motion to Dismiss as to the Plaintiff's BIPA Section 15(b)
claim and granted as to the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim.
The Plaintiff's BIPA Section 15(a) and 15(c) claims are remanded to
Cook County Circuit Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/449njcej from
Leagle.com.


AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Suit From Delivery Partners
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Rosenblatt at Seattle Times reports that Wyoming company is
escalating the fight between Amazon and its network of delivery
company partners that help get packages around the country from
warehouse to doorstep.

Amazon and Amazon Logistics, its transportation and logistics
service, launched the Delivery Services Partners program in 2018,
and billed it as a way for entrepreneurs to get a cut of the
profits from the seemingly endless stream of online orders by
setting up their own company and employing their own drivers.

Since then, several delivery partners have accused Amazon Logistics
of setting unrealistic -- and unsafe -- expectations for drivers,
controlling most aspects of the independently owned companies'
operations and overstating potential profits for each business
owner. Two delivery partners operating in Oregon and one in North
Carolina have sued Amazon over the allegations.

Now, Wyoming-based Fli-Lo Falcon and owner Max Whitfield are going
one step further with a class-action lawsuit filed in U.S. District
Court in Seattle on behalf of Amazon's estimated 2,500 delivery
service partners in the U.S.

"The purpose of the DSP program is to shield Amazon from its
responsibility to delivery drivers and the public," the lawsuit
read. "Amazon, by and through [Amazon Logistics], exercises near
complete control over the DSPs but fails to provide the required
safeguards" under Washington law. [GN]

AMENTUM SERVICES: Weaver Suit Remanded to San Diego Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHEN V. WEAVER, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMENTUM SERVICES, INC.;
AECOM.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
22-cv-00108-AJB-NLS (S.D. Cal.), Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California:

    (i) granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand; and
   (ii) denied as moot the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

I. Background

The Plaintiff is a former nonexempt employee of Defendant Amentum
within the State of California and brings the suit on behalf of
himself and all class members. The Plaintiff originally filed the
action in San Diego Superior Court on Nov. 24, 2021. The lawsuit
was brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and "a putative class of
California citizens who are and were employed by the Defendants as
non-exempt employees throughout California."

The Plaintiff asserts eight causes of action against the Defendant:
(1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime
wages; (3) unpaid meal period premiums; (4) unpaid rest period
premiums; (5) failure to reimburse business expenses; (6) itemized
wage statement penalties; (7) failure to pay all wages due upon
separation of employment; and (8) violation of California Business
and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. ("UCL").

On Jan. 6, 2022, Defendant Amentum timely removed the action. The
Plaintiff thereafter filed the instant motion alleging the
Complaint fails to meet the minimum amount-in-controversy necessary
for jurisdiction under CAFA. The Defendant also filed a motion to
dismiss the Complaint.

II. Discussion

The parties dispute the "amount in controversy" element of CAFA
jurisdiction. Judge Battaglia first addresses the motion to remand.
Because the issue is dispositive, he need not reach the merits of
the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

A. Meal and Rest Break Claims

Judge Battaglia first considers the amount in controversy
calculations concerning the Plaintiff's meal and rest break claims.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant "engaged in a systematic
pattern of wage and hour violations" and that he and the purported
class "did not receive all meal or rest breaks or payment of one
(1) additional hour of pay at the Plaintiff's and the Class
Members' regular rate of pay when a rest or meal break was missed,
late, or interrupted."

The Defendant focuses on the Plaintiff's use of the phrase
"systematic pattern of wage and hour violations" to characterize
the consistency of the Defendant's alleged violations. It makes the
following assumptions regarding the amount-in-controversy
calculations for Plaintiff's meal and rest break claims: The
"Defendant employed over 1,500 non-exempt full-time employees
during the putative Class Period." These non-exempt employees
"generally worked full-time, eight-hour shifts, five days a week."

The Defendant further states the "average hourly rate of pay is
$28.81" and that the "putative class worked over 100,000 workweeks"
during the class period. It assumes "one violation per work week is
reasonable and conservative." One missed meal and one missed rest
break per week is, effectively, a 20% violation rate. It previously
calculated the amount in controversy for CAFA jurisdiction was at
least $5,762,000, based on just two of the Plaintiff's claims
alone.

However, in the Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's motion to
remand, it newly calculates the amount in controversy for the
Plaintiff's meal and rest break claims to be $28,810,000 (100,000
workweeks x 5 shifts per week x $28.81 premium penalty at 1 hour of
class members' average rate of pay x 2 [one meal break and one rest
period premium per shift]). The Defendant submits the Declaration
of May Sebastian, Manager of Human Resources Management Systems for
Defendant, for the above figures. The Plaintiff maintains the
Defendant's violation rate is not supported by the evidence.

Upon review of the pleadings and evidence submitted, Judge
Battgalia finds that the Defendant offers no reason "grounded in
real evidence" as to why a 20% violation rate is appropriate. Ms.
Sebastian's declaration does not include any information relevant
to the frequency of meal and rest break violations. While Ms.
Sebastian's declaration does include useful data regarding the
potential class size and hourly wages, there is no evidence that
would lead the Court to believe that the Defendant's assumptions
were not "pulled from thin air." Because use of either a 25%
violation rate or a 50% violation rate would at a minimum be
equally reasonable (or equally unreasonable), it is impossible for
the Court to decide that the Defendant has satisfied its burden.
Accordingly, Judge Battaglia finds the Defendant's meal and rest
break violation rates to be unreasonable.

B. Unpaid Minimum Wages and Overtime

The Plaintiff further alleges the Defendant failed to pay minimum
and overtime wages during the period in question. The Defendant
argues that because the Plaintiff alleges a systematic pattern of
violations without including facts regarding the frequency of the
violations, it can assume one hour of unpaid overtime a week. Based
on this violation rate, the Defendant asserts the amount in
controversy for these two claims is $4,321,000.

Judge Battalia holds that the Defendant offers no evidence
supporting that a one-hour-per-workweek violation rate is suitable
for calculation purposes. Without evidentiary support, he says, its
violation rate is merely an assumption, seemingly plucked from thin
air. Accordingly, he finds the Defendant's overtime and minimum
wage violation rate to be unreasonable.

C. Waiting Time Penalties

The Defendant states that between May 30, 2018 and Nov. 24, 2021
(the Waiting Time Subclass period), over 650 non-exempt employees'
employment was terminated and their average hourly rate of pay was
approximately $28.74. It next asserts it failed to pay each Waiting
Time Penalties Subclass member their outstanding wages for the full
30-day statutory period -- a 100% violation rate.

However, the Defendant submits no proof that would enable the Court
to probe this assumption, Judge Battaglia finds. Moreover, the
nexus between the allegations in the Complaint and the Defendant's
assumption that all former employees are still owed outstanding
wages is too attenuated. As such, the Defendant's waiting time
penalties violation rate to be unreasonable.

D. Wage Statement Violations

Judge Battaglia finds that the Plaintiff's wage-statement violation
claims are derivative of his meal and rest period claims. The
Plaintiff contends employees received inaccurate wage statements in
part because the Defendant did not include the pay due to the
employees for missed meal and rest periods. If the Defendant's
calculations for missed meal and rest periods are faulty, then the
wage statement violation calculations are also inherently flawed.
Accordingly, the calculations for wage statement violations are
unreasonable for amount in controversy purposes as well.

E. Attorneys' Fees

First, the Defendant asserts Plaintiff would seek to recover
roughly $355,000, "in addition to $100,000 in costs."

Judge Battaglia concludes the Defendant has not carried its burden
of "proving that the amount in controversy (including attorneys'
fees) exceeds the jurisdictional threshold by a preponderance of
the evidence with summary-judgment-type evidence." While the
Plaintiff has not offered an estimate of attorneys' fees, the
Defendant has offered no evidence in support of its claim that
attorneys' fees will amount to $355,000 "in addition to $100,000 in
costs." Moreover, because the Court previously rejected the
Defendant's calculations for the amount in controversy, the
Defendant has failed "to prove that the amount in controversy
(including attorneys' fees) exceeds the jurisdictional threshold by
a preponderance of the evidence."

The Defendant alternatively argues removal is proper for the
Plaintiff's individual Labor Code claims pursuant to diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a). It assets that the
Plaintiff's claims, before accounting for attorney's fees and
costs, amount to $16,698.80 in controversy.

Judge Battaglia holds that the Plaintiff would be entitled to
attorneys' fees upon a favorable disposition of the matter.
However, the relevant sections of the California Labor Code do not
authorize awards of attorneys' fees "solely to the named plaintiffs
in a class action," but rather to "an employee" or "any employee"
who prevails on his or her claim. Therefore, attorneys' fees
"cannot be allocated solely to the Plaintiff for purposes of amount
in controversy," but rather must be divided by the number of
putative class members. Thus, the Defendant has not established
that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

III. Discussion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Battaglia granted the Plaintiff's
motion to remand and denied as moot the Defendant's motion to
dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4av6vmbb from Leagle.com.


ANNAPOLIS, MD: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Johnson Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAMARA JOHNSON, et al. v. CITY OF ANNAPOLIS, Civil
Action No. CCB-21-1120 (D. Md.), Judge Catherine C. Blake of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied the City's
motion to dismiss.

I. Introduction

Now pending is a motion to dismiss (or, in the alternative, for
summary judgment) in a class action against the City of Annapolis.
The case concerns a longstanding City policy of not inspecting and
licensing public housing in Annapolis. It is a putative class
action brought by Annapolis public housing residents who argue that
the City's non-inspection policy violated their civil rights and
had a disparate impact on African Americans: They allege violations
of the Fair Housing Act, federal civil rights laws, and state
constitutional rights.

The City moved to dismiss or for summary judgment in Johnson. The
matter has been fully briefed, and no oral argument is necessary.

II. Background

The lawsuit follows the events of White v. City of Annapolis, No.
CCB-19-1442, a 2019 case before the Court in which 52 Annapolis
public housing residents sued the City and the Housing Authority of
the City of Annapolis (HACA) under a variety of federal and state
causes of action. The White plaintiffs alleged that the City's
decision not to enforce inspection and licensing requirements on
public housing disparately impacted African Americans and was
discriminatory. At the case's conclusion, the parties entered into
a consent decree enacting a number of prospective equitable
remedies intended to improve public housing, as well as paying
monetary damages for the plaintiffs.

The Annapolis City Code requires rental units to have operating
licenses. To obtain an operating license, the rental units must be
inspected and in compliance with the City's Residential Property
and Maintenance Code. Landlords must pay a fee to obtain a license
or a license renewal. For many years, however, the City did not
require inspections and licensing of HACA properties; such
properties were the only rental properties in Annapolis that are
neither licensed nor inspected. This apparently was a longstanding
arrangement, as although rental licenses have been required of
landlords since approximately 1985, HACA housing units had "have
never all been fully, finally, or properly inspected and licensed
in accordance with the City Code."

According to the Plaintiffs, Annapolis has a troubled history of
racism against African Americans and people of African descent,
including through discriminatory residential housing policies. The
Johnson Plaintiffs allege that the City's policies around licensing
and inspecting Annapolis public housing is an instance of that
discrimination and has a disparate impact on African Americans.
HACA manages about 790 units housing about 1,600 residents, spread
over six public housing developments. Named Plaintiff Johnson lived
in Harbor House, and fellow named Plaintiff Tyonna Holliday lived
in Eastport Terrace. Census data suggest that these developments
(except for one designated for seniors and people with
disabilities) house a significant-majority African-American
population.

The Johnson suit is a putative class action suit defining the class
as "all individuals now living or who are or previously were
tenants in Housing Authority properties within the two years" after
May 7, 2019, excluding the White Plaintiffs and a few other
categories.

The first named Plaintiff, Johnson, is an African American woman
who lives in Harbour House with her children: Her home had never
been inspected between her 2017 move-in and the 2021 filing of the
lawsuit. The Johnsons deal with sewage leaks, wooden plywood floors
in the bathroom after the tile cracked, rodent infestations, and
mold growth; Johnson's daughter suffers from respiratory issues.

The second named Plaintiff, Holliday, is an African American woman
who lives in Eastport Terrace with her children. Her unit has never
been inspected during her residence there, from 2016 until at least
the filing of the lawsuit. The Holliday unit likewise sutlers with
mold growth, which HACA dealt with by wiping it with a rag and
painting over it. Holliday and one of her children suffer from
asthma and breathing issues worsened by the mold. HACA officials
also told Holliday that her apartment contains unsafe levels of
lead.

The suit brings the following counts against the City: Count I -
Violation of Fair Housing Act; Count II - Violation of Civil Rights
Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. Section 1982; Count III - Violation of Civil
Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States; Count IV - Violation of the Civil Rights Act
of 1871, 42 U.S.C. Section 1985 Section 3 and the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States; Count V - Violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1871,
42 U.S.C. Section 1986, and the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment; and Count VI - Violation of the Maryland
State Constitution - Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of
Rights.

III. Discussion

The City makes three arguments in its motion to dismiss Johnson.
First, the City argues that the Johnson class' claims are precluded
as res judicata. Second, the City argues that the Johnson suit
fails to include indispensable parties, including the White
plaintiffs, plaintiffs' counsel, HACA, and the federal housing
department. Finally, the City argues that these suits are
impermissible collateral attacks on the White consent decree. In
addition to these three main arguments, the City accuses the
Plaintiffs' counsel of unethical conduct, accusations the Court
declines to entertain because they are meritless.

Judge Blake holds that all these arguments fail.

A. Res Judicata

Among other things, the City looks to the text of the consent
decree, arguing that it covers "the Plaintiffs, past and present
residents of public housing" and therefore that the Johnson
Plaintiffs have no standing to bring their own claims but instead
may only seek enforcement of the Consent Decree.

Judge Blake finds that the Johnson Plaintiffs were not parties to
the White suit, nor were they and the White plaintiffs in privity.
The City has offered no convincing legal theory under which the
White plaintiffs could have released the City from the claims of
non-parties without safeguards like those offered by class actions.
The Johnson claims are not precluded as res judicata.

B. Indispensable parties

The City next contends that under Rule 12(b)(7) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the Johnson Plaintiffs have failed to
join as indispensable parties the White plaintiffs, White
plaintiffs' counsel, HACA, and the federal housing department.

Judge Blake holds that the White plaintiffs are not necessary to
the action, and the City's arguments are wholly without merit.
White plaintiffs' counsel, P. Joseph Donahue, is also the
Plaintiffs' counsel in the Johnson suit. Mr. Donahue was not a
party to the White lawsuit or consent decree, and he is not a
necessary party in either of these lawsuits. Nor are HUD and HACA
necessary parties.

The White plaintiffs dropped HACA as a defendant with their amended
complaint, but they were still able to litigate the suit to
resolution. And HUD never was a party to the White suit. If the
City wishes to join HACA and HUD as cross-defendants, the City
remains free to file appropriate motions. But the Plaintiffs --
especially against the backdrop of the successful White consent
decree -- could quite plausibly achieve complete relief in the form
of monetary damages even in HACA's absence. The suits need not be
dismissed as violating Rule 19.

C. Impermissible collateral attack

The City argues that the suit is an impermissible collateral attack
on the White Consent Decree, which would need to be reassessed to
provide relief (for example, monetary damages) to the Johnson
Plaintiffs. Judge Blake finds this incorrect, and Johnson is not an
attempt to appeal from or appeal the consent decree. The City does
not point to any plausible language in the consent decree that
binds nonparties from suing for damages.

Further, the City argues that the Johnson Plaintiffs were obligated
to intervene in White. Once again, the Johnson Plaintiffs were not
privy to the While record and were under no obligation to
intervene, even if that intervention would have been by right.
White was not a class action; the White monetary payments went only
to the White plaintiffs, and that settlement is not under attack in
Johnson. Johnson need not be thrown out as impermissible collateral
attacks.

D. Statute of Limitations

The City's reply raises the issue of statutes of limitations to
argue that claims in Johnson cannot be based on the City's actions
before the White Consent Decree. These claims will not be dismissed
as untimely at this stage of litigation, Judge Blake finds.

She holds that the City has raised no arguments challenging the
effects of the original non-inspection policy or the Shadow Policy
on the named Plaintiffs, instead arguing that the only violation
possible was in 2017, when Johnson moved into Harbor House. The
original non-inspection policy also continued until June 2019, less
than two years before the May 2021 filing of the instant suit.

E. Local Government Tort Claims Act

Finally, the City's reply (ECF 12) argues that because the White
Consent Decree's damages payouts exceeded the Local Government Tort
Claims Act's (LGTCA's) damages cap, "there can be no further
damages arising out of the City or HACA's tortious conduct related
to the same operative facts as White under Maryland law." The
Plaintiffs, meanwhile, argue that the LGTCA does not apply to
federal civil rights claims, particularly because a state tort
damages cap operates via sovereign immunity, which it cannot assert
against federal claims.

Judge Blake explains that local governments lack immunity from tort
liability for violations of federal constitutional or statutory
rights. The LGTCA cap will therefore apply only to the Johnson
class's state law claim (count VI) but not to the federal claims
(counts I-V). The interaction of the White Consent Decree and the
LGTCA's damages cap need not be determined at this time.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons she discussed, Judge Blake denied the City's motion
to dismiss. A separate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2022 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4rtt63uf from Leagle.com.


APPLE INC: Granato Consumer Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JESSE GRANATO, STEPHANIE LANDRUM, SELESTIA ORDWAY,
and JANICE ZARAD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. APPLE INC., Case No. 22CV395280, was removed from the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of Santa Clara,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on April 13, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:22-cv-02316 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act, and California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act by marketing and
selling iPhones that purportedly required repairs that were not
covered by Apple's One Year Limited Warranty.

Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company,
headquartered in Cupertino, California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Melanie M. Blunschi, Esq.
         Nicole C. Valco, Esq.
         LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
         505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
         San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
         Telephone: (415) 391-0600
         E-mail: melanie.blunschi@lw.com
                 nicole.valco@lw.com

APPLE INC: Sued for Not Paying Manual Workers on Weekly Basis
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allison McDaniel, writing for 9to5Mac, reports that Apple is facing
a class action lawsuit for not paying New York State employees
weekly. A former Apple Store employee, Raven Ramos, who worked at
the Fifth Avenue location, is suing on behalf of herself and
current employees in New York.

In the state of New York, law requires companies to pay manual
workers on a weekly basis. This counts for employees that "engaged
or have engaged in manual work in the course of their employment."
However, a company can receive authorization from New York's
Department of Labor Commissioner to pay its workers semi-monthly.

According to the class action complaint, at least 25% of Ramos's
job duties at the Apple Store involved manual labor. This includes
"working the sales floor, unboxing products, emptied cash
registers, and assisted customers." Apple's failure to pay timely
wages also caused Ramos to lose "the time value of that money."

The document states that Apple has no authorization to pay on a
semi-monthly basis. The Cupertino-based company owns multiple
stores in New York and employs upwards of thousands of employees in
the state. Ramos, a resident of Port Chester, New York, worked for
Apple from October 2010 to January 2018 and was paid semi-monthly
the entire time.

The class action lawsuit includes at least 100 employees and
alleges that total claims of each member is "in excess of $5
million."

The participants involved are looking to receive "the amount of
their untimely paid wages as liquidated damages" from Apple. It's
also seeking "reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest." [GN]

ART VAN FURNITURE: Stewart Files Appeal in Del. Dist. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Todd Stewart, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in its bankruptcy case titled In re: Art Van Furniture, LLC,
et al., Case No. 20-50548, in the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint is brought
on behalf of former employees, who worked for the Defendants and
who were terminated without cause as part of, or as the result of,
mass layoffs or plant closings ordered by the Defendants beginning
on March 4, 2020, and who were not provided 60 days advance written
notice of their terminations by the Defendants, as required by the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

The Plaintiffs were terminated along with approximately 700 other
similarly situated employees as part of, or as the foreseeable
result of a mass layoffs or plant shutdowns ordered by the
Defendants. These terminations failed to give the Plaintiffs at
least 60 days' advance notice of termination, as required by the
WARN Act, says the complaint. As a consequence of the violation,
the Plaintiffs seek their statutory remedies.  

A Chapter 7 Trustee's motion for summary judgment was filed
asserting three defenses to the complaint: (i) notice was not
required because the relevant Debtors were "liquidating
fiduciaries" and not "employers" under the WARN Act; (ii) notice
was not required because an "unforeseeable business circumstance"
caused the mass layoffs; and (iii) notice was not required because
a natural disaster caused the mass layoffs.

On March 21, 2022, the Court concluded that both the unforeseeable
business circumstance and natural disaster exceptions apply here
and, therefore, the Debtors were not required to provide the
60-days WARN Act notice to employees before the March 20, 2020
layoff, thus the Court granted Trustee's summary judgment motion.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of this ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as In Re: Art Van Furniture, LLC,
et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00450-UNA, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware (Wilmington), filed on April 5, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Todd Stewart and Jennifer Sawle, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Michael Joseph Joyce, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOYCE LLC
          1225 King Street, Suite 800
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 388-1944
          E-mail: mjoyce@mjlawoffices.com

ASHLEY FURNITURE: Aberl Sues Over Deceptive Discount Price Tag
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE ABERL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, LLC; and DOES
1- 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00505-JLS-NLS (S.D.
Cal., April 13, 2022) is an action by the Plaintiff and the Class
who have purchased one or more products through ashleyfurniture.com
that were deceptively represented as discounted from a false
reference price.

According to the complaint, the Defendant consistently advertises
its products on its e-commerce website alongside an "original"
price and the corresponding sale price. Defendant advertises a
seemingly original price, in truth a false reference price, with a
strikethrough. The false reference price operates as a baseline
consumers rely on to assess a product's value.

The discount percentage is often shown alongside the "original"
price to communicate to consumers that Defendant is selling a
product at a substantial discount, even though the product is not
in fact discounted. The sale price displayed directly next to the
false reference price conveys a "deep discount" at which Defendant
presently offers a product, ostensibly for a limited time.

The Plaintiff seeks to halt the dissemination of this false,
misleading, and deceptive pricing scheme, to correct the false and
misleading perception it has created in the minds of consumers, and
to obtain redress for those who have purchased products tainted by
this deceptive pricing scheme.

ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC. provides home furnishing
products. The Company designs and produces chairs, entertainment
centers, recliners, sectionals, sofas, beds, dressers, mattresses,
lamps, rugs, buffets, tables, and desks. [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           
          Email: todd@lcllp.com
                 scott@lcllp.com

ATOTECH LIMITED: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Nix PFOA/PFOS PI Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Atotech Limited awaits a ruling on its motion to dismiss the
lawsuit filed by five residents of the town of Blades, Delaware,
seeking recovery for injuries sustained from the town's
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
(PFOS)-contaminated water, the company disclosed in its Form 20-F
Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 8, 2022.

On February 7, 2020, Atotech USA, LLC received service of process
of a lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs who claim that products
containing PFOA, PFOS, and potentially other perfluorinated
chemicals had been used in chrome plating and non-stick cookware
manufacturing processes by local operators who allegedly discharged
these substances into the environment, contaminating the water
supply of the town of Blades.

The plaintiffs seek recovery for alleged injuries and seek to
certify a class composed of approximately 1,600 residents of
Blades. Other defendants include E.I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company, the 3M Company, MacDermid, Inc., Procino Plating, Inc.,
and Blades Development LLC.

On March 23, 2020, Atotech filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
in its entirety. On February 3, 2021, the court requested that the
parties brief the question of whether the court has subject matter
jurisdiction over the action under the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005. On December 2, 2021, the court decided that it has subject
matter jurisdiction over the action under the Class Action Fairness
Act of 2005.

On December 23, 2021, Atotech refiled its motion to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety. All parties have fully briefed the
issues and now await a ruling from the court.

Atotech Limited, a chemicals technology company, provides specialty
electroplating and surface finishing solutions worldwide. The
company operates through two segments, Electronics (EL) and General
Metal Finishing (GMF). Its products and technologies serve the
primary surface finishing end-markets comprising the automotive,
consumer electronics, construction, sanitary, white goods, and oil
and gas industries. The company also offers on-site support and
training services. Atotech Limited was founded in 1851 and is
headquartered in Berlin, Germany.

ATRIUM AT WAYNE: Estate of Evelyn Wells Blame Facility for Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
ESTATE OF EVELYN WELLS and DIANE L. BRUNDA, as Administratrix Ad
Prosequendum, Plaintiffs v. THE ATRIUM AT WAYNE SUBACUTE AND
REHABILITATION, ATRIUM AT WAYNE, LLC, BKZ CORP., JOHN AND JANE DOES
1-10 (DOCTORS, NURSES, PHYSICIAN'S ASSISTANTS, NURSE PRACTITIONERS,
ETC.); and ABC AND XYZ CORPORATIONS 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
PAS-L-000892-22 (N.J. Super., Passaic Cty., April 6, 2022) is
brought by the Plaintiffs, who are representing all "others
similarly situated" such as those residents and/or patients that
died as a result of the Defendants' failures in protecting them
from the Covid-19 virus during and throughout the outbreak and
pandemic, and their heirs, survivors and next of kin.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to take the
proper steps to protect the residents and/or patients at their
facility from the Covid-19 virus, despite being made aware of the
said virus spreading world-wide and nationally, that caused severe
medical distress and death in individuals who caught the disease,
especially the elderly.

As a consequence of Defendants' alleged failures in this regard,
Evelyn Wells, a resident/patient, died on April 7, 2020, with her
cause of death confirmed from a Covid-19 infection. In the wake of
the outbreak and the failures, other patients were infected and
died at Defendants' facility from Covid-19 infections, and there
may be more deaths, says the complaint.

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, adds the
complaint.

The 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 Atrium at Wayne Subacute and Rehabilitation is located in
Wayne, New Jersey and is owned by Defendants Atrium at Wayne, LLC,
and BKZ Corp.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel 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
          E-mail: dan@marchesefirm.com

BEYOND MEAT: Settles Consolidated Shareholder Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------
Megan Poinski, writing for FoodDive, reports that Beyond Meat
agreed to pay $515,000 in attorneys' fees and make changes to its
corporate governance to settle consolidated lawsuits filed by
shareholders about an ongoing court battle the company is fighting
with former co-manufacturer Don Lee Farms. The underlying dispute
between Beyond Meat and Don Lee Farms is still pending in
California Superior Court.

As part of the settlement, Beyond Meat will add a Risk Committee to
its board that will examine all legal, ethical, operational and
strategic risks before the company. Two-thirds of Beyond Meat's
board will now be made up of people who are independent of the
company. Information on the company's corporate whistleblower
program and corporate governance will be posted on its website as
well.

This sprawling legal battle kicked off in 2017, when Don Lee Farms
accused Beyond Meat of stealing its trade secrets, providing
unusable and unsafe raw materials for manufacturing, failing to
compensate Don Lee for products it had made, and not ensuring it
had operational equipment and personnel to make its products.
Beyond Meat filed a counter suit against Don Lee in 2020. A trial
is set for next month.

Dive Insight:
A side chapter of Beyond Meat's battle with Don Lee Farms appears
like it is about to end with a relatively small financial impact on
the company. In documents posted to its investor relations website
after business hours on April 8, Beyond Meat stressed this is not a
class-action style settlement, so individual shareholders will not
be able to get money from it. (Named plaintiffs, however, may apply
for $2,000 awards.) Paying for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
making some board changes is a relatively easy way to end this
litigation. All parties agreed to the settlement -- which ends the
litigation and is not an admission of wrongdoing -- in January. The
court gave it preliminary approval last month, and a hearing for
final approval is scheduled for July.

Adding risk management committees to corporate boards has become a
popular strategy to help companies realize and mitigate the
challenges before them. In light of the tumultuous business climate
of the past two years, punctuated by the COVID-19 pandemic, the
need for specialized risk committees has become apparent, business
strategy consultants have said.

Although a Beyond Meat risk committee likely would not have
prevented this lawsuit from taking place -- it was filed two years
before the company went public in 2019 and involved a contract
dispute from its early years as a business -- having it in place
could prove invaluable. Plant-based food is an inherently risky
space. While it's getting to be more accepted in the mainstream
with wide availability and a variety of brands at grocery stores
and foodservice, its former meteoric growth is slowing. Companies,
including Beyond Meat, are facing the new challenge of expanding
market share and converting new consumers. For Beyond Meat's part,
Founder and CEO Ethan Brown has said that slowing sales are the
result of several supply chain and pandemic consumer behavior
factors, but it could be comforting to investors to have a more
independent panel of board members also weigh in on the company's
strategy.

It's unclear if the requirement of independent board members would
make much of a change in the current operating structure of Beyond
Meat. Currently, Brown -- who is also the board chairman
-- is the only member who has a direct role in the company's
operations. However, the requirement can ensure investors that the
company will be governed more independently in the future.

But this settlement is just a small step. There still may be a lot
of bitter -- and potentially expensive -- fighting to come between
Beyond Meat and Don Lee Farms. A hearing was scheduled on a motion
dealing with the claim that Beyond Meat stole Don Lee's trade
secrets, and the trial is set to begin next month. In its annual
report filed in March, Beyond Meat said it would "vigorously
defend" the company and its current and former employees implicated
in the dispute. However, in the case that Beyond Meat is not
victorious, the company could be required to pay steep damages.
Beyond Meat couldn't estimate how much that might be in its annual
report, but it could be significant -- making right now a very good
time to settle the investor litigation. [GN]

BGR INC: Henley Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA, OMFWSA, OPPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
DONNIE HENLEY, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. B.G.R., INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00198-TSB (S.D. Ohio, April 11,
2022) is a collective and class action complaint against B.G.R.,
Inc. for its failure to pay employees overtime wages and seeking
all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay
Act.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees worked 40 or
more hours in one (1) or more workweek(s) during the three years
immediately preceding the filing of this Complaint.

According to the complaint, the Defendant maintains a policy and/or
practice of requiring Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees to clock in and out of work for a daily, 30-minute meal
break; however, Named Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees did not receive a bona fide meal period for several
reasons.

The Defendant is a packaging supply distributor serving a wide
variety of industries with their packaging supply chain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite No. 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
                  khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com

BHP GROUP: Court Allows Foreign Residents to Register in Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
This is a shareholder class action in relation to BHP Group Ltd's
(BHP Ltd) alleged failure to inform the market of the risk that a
dam at its Germano mine joint venture in Brazil might collapse. The
catastrophic collapse of the dam in November 2015 resulted in
substantial property damage, several fatalities, the closure of the
mining operation, and a significant fall in BHP Ltd's share price.

This decision concerned an application for leave to appeal by BHP
Ltd from the decision of Moshinsky J in Impiombato v BHP Group Ltd
(No 2) [2020] FCA 1720, in which his Honour refused BHP Ltd's
application for:

-- a declaration that Pt IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act
1976 (Cth) (FCAA) does not permit the bringing of claims on behalf
of persons who are not residents of Australia (non-residents)
(Issue 1);

-- alternatively, a discretionary order excluding non-residents
from the class definition (Issue 2); and

an order striking out the claims of class members who acquired
shares in BHP Group plc (BHP Plc) on the London and Johannesburg
stock exchanges (Issue 3). Claims are brought on behalf of such
class members because, at all material times, BHP Ltd and BHP Plc
had a dual listed company structure and operated as a single
entity. Any contraventions by BHP Ltd of its continuous disclosure
obligations are alleged to have had an equivalent effect on the
share price of BHP Plc, and thus caused shareholders of BHP Plc
equivalent losses. BHP Plc, however, is not a party to the
proceeding and is not alleged to have contravened any relevant
obligations.

The Full Court dismissed BHP Ltd's appeal on all three issues.
While the Court granted leave to appeal in relation to Issue 1, it
rejected BHP Ltd's arguments for several reasons, including the
following:

The Court rejected BHP Ltd's submission that Pt IVA confers
jurisdiction on the Court over the claims of persons who are
non-parties (i.e. class members). Rather, it said that Pt IVA
"establishes powers and procedures by which the Court can exercise
jurisdiction over matters otherwise conferred upon it provided the
"gateway" provisions are surmounted" (at [32]). The Court also
observed that Pt IVA allows for the grouping of claims that exist
separately from the proceeding. As such, Pt IVA is about the
exercise (and not the conferral) of jurisdiction.

The Court also rejected BHP Ltd's related submission that upon a
proper construction of Pt IVA, there is nothing which rebuts the
common law presumption that the legislature of a country does not
normally intend to deal with persons or matters over which
jurisdiction properly belongs to some other sovereign or state.
Because Pt IVA concerns the exercise (and not the conferral) of
jurisdiction, the Court held that the presumption did not assist
BHP Ltd. It observed that "[t]he manner of exercise of a
jurisdiction conferred on an Australian court is not, obviously
enough, a matter where it might be thought jurisdiction properly
belongs to a foreign sovereign or state" (at [43]).

The Court said that there was nothing in the text or context of Pt
IVA which evinced an intention to exclude non-residents from being
class members. To the contrary, the Court found that when
Parliament enacted Pt IVA it had made a legislative choice not to
exclude non-residents. Furthermore, while BHP Ltd contended that a
non-resident cannot be a class member under Pt IVA, it accepted
that a non-resident with a claim under federal jurisdiction may
nonetheless advance their claim by: (i) being named as a party in a
Pt IVA representative proceeding, (ii) commencing an ordinary inter
partes proceeding in their own name, (iii) being a represented
party in a Chancery rule representative proceeding under r 9.21 of
the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), or (iv) being a class member in
a class action commenced in the Supreme Court of Victoria (with
that Court exercising federal jurisdiction). The Court observed
that "[t]o say that this would be a surprising outcome is somewhat
of an understatement" (at [50]).

The Court found that BHP Ltd's focus on the role of non-residents
as class members for the purpose of the jurisdictional question was
misplaced, and inverted the usual inquiry, which is to the Court's
ability to exercise power over the defendant. After reviewing
relevant authority, including in particular the High Court's
decision in Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Victoria (2002) 211 CLR
1; [2002] HCA 27, the Court concluded that "[o]n the state of the
law in this country, where jurisdiction is attracted by service on
the respondent within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, it
is not necessary to show any other connexion with the jurisdiction"
(at [63]).

In relation to Issue 2, the Court refused leave to appeal. Although
the Court acknowledged that the presence of non-resident class
members gave rise to some risk of re-agitation of the same issues
in subsequent foreign proceedings, it identified that there are
other, less drastic, options available to deal with this potential
prejudice than the exclusion of non-residents from the class
definition. For example, the Court indicated that a class closure
order may be made at a future stage of the proceeding. In relation
to the power to make such an order, the Court acknowledged that
recent decisions of the New South Wales Court of Appeal stand for
the proposition that class closure orders that give rise to a
contingent extinguishment of class members' rights of action are
beyond power (Haselhurst v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Ltd
(2020) 101 NSWLR 890; [2020] NSWCA 66 and Wigmans v AMP Ltd (2020)
102 NSWLR 199; [2020] NSWCA 104). However, the Court also drew
attention to Beach J's recent decision in Wetdal Pty Ltd as Trustee
for the BlueCo Two Superannuation Fund v Estia Health Ltd [2021]
FCA 475, in which his Honour queried the correctness of those
decisions, and said (at [95]):

Although there is, with respect, much to be said for Beach J's
observations in Wetdal (at [81]-[95]) as to Wigmans and Haselhurst,
in our view, on any view of the law, an order could be fashioned if
and when it did become necessary or appropriate to ensure that
justice was done to ensure that BHP was not vexed with the prospect
of non-resident group members, who do not take a step to prosecute
their claim in this class action, having the ability to commence
another proceeding in another jurisdiction.

Finally, the Court also refused leave to appeal in relation to
Issue 3. It held that there was no arguable error in the primary
judge's finding that the question of whether s 674 (read together
with ss 1317HA or 1325) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
accommodates the claims of BHP Plc shareholders should be
determined at trial. [GN]


BLACKBERRY LTD: Settles Securities Class-Action Lawsuit for $165M
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BlackBerry Limited BB recently reached a settlement regarding a
securities class action lawsuit filed against the company and some
former officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Pearlstein v. Blackberry Limited, et al., Case No. 13 Civ. 7060
(CM) (KHP) was settled following a mediation process involving a
total cash payment of $165 million by BlackBerry to settle the
plaintiffs' claims who purchased or otherwise bought BlackBerry
shares between Mar 28, 2013, and Sep 20, 2013 on the Nasdaq.

The court has allowed the parties' appeal to suspend any further
proceedings, pending approval of the final settlement. BlackBerry
added that the allegations were without merit, but the company is
in favor of settling the long-drawn litigation as it is in the
company's best interests.

Per a Reuters report, the lawsuit alleged that BlackBerry tricked
shareholders by over-hyping BlackBerry 10's success and
profitability. The lawsuit was filed in October 2013.

BlackBerry also added that the settlement amount of $165 million
would be absorbed into its results of operations for the fiscal
quarter ending May 31, 2022. The company does not anticipate
recovering any portion of this settlement amount from insurance.

Headquartered in Waterloo, Canada, BlackBerry provides intelligent
security software and services to enterprises and governments
worldwide. It offers devices and software platforms for managing
security, mobility and communications among hardware, programs,
mobile apps and the Internet of Things.

BlackBerry Limited Price and Consensus

At present, BlackBerry carries a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold). Shares of BB
have lost 25.8% against the industry's gain of 7.6% in the past
year.

Key Picks
Some better-ranked stocks from the broader technology sector are
Broadcom AVGO, Apple AAPL and Arrow Electronics ARW. All stocks
carry a Zacks Rank of 2 (Buy) at present. You can see the complete
list of today's Zacks #1 (Strong Buy) Rank stocks here.

The Zacks Consensus Estimate for Broadcom's fiscal 2022 earnings is
pegged at $35.49 per share, up 7.4% in the past 60 days. AVGO's
long-term earnings growth rate is pegged at 14.5%.

Broadcom's earnings beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate in all the
preceding four quarters, with the average being 1.9%. Shares of
AVGO have increased 24.3% in the past year.

The Zacks Consensus Estimate for Apple's fiscal 2022 earnings is
pegged at $6.16 per share, up 0.2% in the past 60 days. The
long-term earnings growth rate is pegged at 12.5%.

Apple's earnings beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate in each of the
last four quarters, with the average being 20.3%. Shares of AAPL
have rallied 29.4% in the past year.

The Zacks Consensus Estimate for Arrow Electronics 2022 earnings is
pegged at $18.48 per share, up 4.5% in the past 60 days. The
long-term earnings growth rate is 3.1%.

Arrow Electronics' earnings beat the Zacks Consensus Estimate in
each of the last four quarters, with the average being 19.1%.
Shares of ARW have lost 3.6% in the past year.

             Infrastructure Stock Boom to Sweep America

A massive push to rebuild the crumbling U.S. infrastructure will
soon be underway. It's bipartisan, urgent, and inevitable.
Trillions will be spent. Fortunes will be made.

The only question is "Will you get into the right stocks early when
their growth potential is greatest?"

Zacks has released a Special Report to help you do just that, and
it's free. Discover 5 special companies that look to gain the most
from construction and repair to roads, bridges, and buildings, plus
cargo hauling and energy transformation on an almost unimaginable
scale. [GN]

BOOT BARN: Suit Claims Website Not Equally Accessible For Blind
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett at topclassactions.com reports that Boot Barn fails
to make its website fully accessible to individuals who are blind
or visually impaired, a new class action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Christopher Loadholt claims Boot Barns violates the
Americans with Disabilities Act by not making its website fully
compatible with screen-reading software used by blind and visually
impaired individuals.

Loadholt, a blind man, says he was unable to make a purchase on
Boot Barn's website due to it not being compatible with his
screen-reading software, NonVisual Desktop Access.

He argues Boot Barn's website has "multiple barriers" in place to
prevent blind and visually impaired individuals like himself from
"enjoying access to the website's content equally to that of a
sighted user."

Loadholt claims Boot Barn's website fails to, among other things,
label titles correctly, describe graphical image contents and
distinguish separate pages from each other.

Boot Barn Website Contains Broken Links, Other Access Barriers
Boot Barn's website also contains broken links and unhelpful
headings and has an inadequate keyboard user interface, the class
action lawsuit alleges.

"These access barriers effectively denied Plaintiff the ability to
use and enjoy Defendant's website the same way sighted individuals
do," the class action lawsuit states.

Loadholt claims Boot Barn also does not have adequate policies in
place to ensure that its website is equally accessible, and that
its "failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its website"
denies equal access to this day.

"The access barriers Plaintiff encountered have caused a denial of
Plaintiff's full and equal access in the past and have caused the
Plaintiff real harm," the class action lawsuit states.

Further, Loadholt argues that, had Boot Barn followed "simple" Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines, he could have navigated the
website and completed a transaction just as a sighted individual
could.

Loadholt wants to represent a nationwide class and New York
subclass of legally blind individuals who were denied full and
equal access to Boot Barn's website.

In addition to violating the ADA, Loadholt claims Boot Barn is in
violation of the New York City Human Rights Law. He is demanding a
jury trial and requesting injunctive and declaratory relief along
with compensatory, statutory and punitive damages for himself and
all class members.

A similar class action lawsuit was filed this month against
Synchrony Financial by a legally blind woman accusing it of not
having a website that is accessible to blind individuals.

Have you been denied equal access to Boot Barn's website? Let us
know in the comments!

The plaintiff is represented by Yitzchak Zelman of Marcus & Zelman,
LLC.

The Boot Barn Website Access Class Action Lawsuit is Loadholt v.
Boot Barn, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-02876, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York. [GN]


BROWN UNIVERSITY: Walsh Files Certiorari Petition in Supreme Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs ABIGAIL WALSH, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of
United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled ABIGAIL WALSH; LAUREN LAZARO; ROSE DOMONOSKE; MEI LI COSTA;
ELLA POLEY; ALYSSA GARDNER; LAUREN MCKEOWN; ALLISON LOWE; TINA
PAOLILLO; EVA DURANDEAU; MADELINE STOCKFISH; SONJA BJORNSON,
Petitioners v. AMY COHEN ET AL., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Respondents, Case No. 21-1303.

Response is due on April 28, 2022.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of the judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in the case titled AMY COHEN
ET AL., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, Appellees v. BROWN UNIVERSITY ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees, ABIGAIL WALSH; LAUREN LAZARO; ROSE
DOMONOSKE; MEI LI COSTA; ELLA POLEY; ALYSSA GARDNER; LAUREN
MCKEOWN; ALLISON LOWE; TINA PAOLILLO; EVA DURANDEAU; MADELINE
STOCKFISH; SONJA BJORNSON, Objectors, Appellants, Case No.
21-1032.

This petition arises within the landmark class action case
regarding gender equity in collegiate athletics under Title IX of
the Education Amendments Act of 1972, and its implementing
regulations. Originally instituted in 1992, this action was brought
by female then-members of university-funded varsity sports at Brown
University to challenge gender inequities and disparities in
funding and opportunities for participation in Brown’s varsity
sports. After years of litigation, including multiple appeals, a
settlement agreement was reached in 1998.

The class representatives were then current student athletes who
had a concrete, actual stake in the action. The class
representatives had interests that were coincident with the absent
class members.

A so-called "Joint Agreement" that secured critical rights for the
class, was formally approved, adopted by the Court, and docketed,
granting preliminary approval as a class action settlement on June
23, 1998, and the compliance plan was entered as a final class
action judgement ("1998 Brown Class Action Settlement") on October
16, 1998. The instant litigation was "closed" by the District Court
on October 16, 1998.

A so-called "Amended Settlement" substantively changing and
reducing the rights and protections afforded female Brown students
was entered into between Brown and attorneys for the plaintiff
class, but the class representatives remained same, and no current
female students were added as representatives, nor was any person
who suffered current injury by the Amended Settlement agreement.

According to the complaint, the designated Class Representatives
graduated about the time the case was closed by the District Court
in 1998 and so the designated class representatives for the
so-called 2020 "Amended Settlement" (a) had no actual, concrete
stake in the action because they would not suffer harm or gain a
benefit from the abandonment of the benefits provided by the terms
of the 1998 Brown Class Action Settlement; (b) no longer shared a
commonality of interests with the current absent class of female
athletes, which included active members of Brown's varsity teams
and women entering Brown who were subjected to Brown's adverse
changes or the entire removal of the athletic programs upon which
they based their decision to attend Brown; (c) had no interests in
the class action 2020 Amended Settlement that were coincident with
the 2020 absent class members; and (d) were not current student
athletes impacted by the abandonment of material terms.

During the intervening years, Brown violated the terms of the
agreement multiple times, says the complaint.

In May 2020, Brown announced that it was eliminating multiple
varsity sports, consisting of both female and male teams, and
publicly blamed the Joint Agreement for the need to eliminate,
specifically, three male sports with high minority athlete
participation. Three days later, Brown reinstated those three men's
teams after public outcry.

The adequacy requirements of class representatives and the
standards by which the review of the adequacy of the class
representatives that must be carried out by Court are at the core
of this petition.  Without the adequate class representees mandated
by FRCP Rule 23 and the Constitution, the absent class members were
denied due process.

Moreover, both the District Court and the Appellate Court shifted
the burden of proof from the Appellees who acted to unearth and
replace a nearly 25-year-old finally-approved class action
settlement to absent class members who were not given notice that
the terms of a settlement, of which they were beneficiaries, was
being revoked.

The new settlement proposed to and approved by the court is a new
and substantively very different settlement from that approved
nearly 25 years ago. And, the specific injuries suffered by the
group of former class members is different than the injuries
suffered by the current class members -- who were entitled to rely
upon the existing Joint Agreement and all of its benefits and
rights.

Adequate representation of absent class members by named
representatives with alighted interests and claims is an inviolate
cornerstone of due process. Multiple current female Brown varsity
athletes (the Appellant Objectors) negatively impacted by the
changes objected on various grounds, challenging as inadequate the
former class members' qualifications as class representatives, and
the Class Settlement as unfair and unreasonable, all in violation
of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23.  Nevertheless, the District
Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit gave its
final approval to the Class Settlement over those objections.

Given that thousands of class action lawsuits are filed every year,
and a large amount of those cases rely on class representatives
that adequately serve the rest of the class, the impact of the
First Circuit's interpretation of what kind of class representative
qualifies as adequately serving the class is obvious. By allowing
thirty-year-old class representatives with no current, active
interest to be considered adequate, the First Circuit clearly
violated the rights of class members in this case by denying them
due process. Given the breadth and importance of class action
lawsuits and constitutional rights, the Supreme Court's immediate
intervention is necessary to correct the First Circuit's approach
before it undermines proper participation by class members on
multiple lawsuits, asserts the complaint.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Abigail Walsh, et al., are represented by:

          Robert I. Bonsignore, Esq.
          BONSIGNORE TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
          23 Forest St.
          Medford, MA 02155
          Telephone: (781) 150-0000
          Facsimile: (702) 983-8673
          E-mail: rbonsignore@classactions.us

Defendants-Respondents Brown University, Christina Paxson, as
successor to Vartan Gregorian, and Jack Hayes, as successor to
David Roach, are represented by:

          Roberta A. Kaplan, Esq.
          KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP
          350 Fifth Avenue, 63rd Floor
          New York, NY 10118
          E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com

BUCK KNIVES: Settlement Approval Hearing Scheduled for August 8
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Buck Knives agreed to pay $200,000
to resolve claims that its products were falsely marketed as "Made
in USA."

The settlement benefits consumers who purchased one or more Buck
Knives knife-sheath combinations between March 1, 2008, and Feb.
17, 2022. The following knife-sheath combination model numbers
are:

0102BKS
0103BKS
0105BKS
0110BKSLT
0110BKSLT1WM
0110BKSNS1
0110BRS
0110BRSFG
0110BRSWM2
0112BKS5
0112BRS
0112BRSFG
0113BRS
0119BKS
0119BKSWM1
0120BKS
0191BRG
0192BRS
0500RWS
0501RWS
0616BKS
0656GRS
0657GRG
0658GRS
0659GRS
0660GRG
0661GRS
0684BKS
0685BKG
0685BKS
0691BKG
0692BKS
0808BKX
0808BRX2
0891BKS
0891BRS1
0893BKS
0893BRS1

Buck Knives offers numerous types of knives, including hunting
knives, pocket knives, fishing knives, cutlery, and even custom
knives. According to the company, its knives are the best due to
the company's use of quality materials, thoughtful designs, and
refined processes.

Although the company's knives may be high quality, legal action
against Buck Knives says the company falsely advertised its
products in order to charge a higher price.

According to the Buck Knives class action lawsuit, the company
marketed its knife-sheath as "Made in USA." Although the knives
were manufactured in America, the sheaths were allegedly imported.
As a result, consumers contend Buck Knives couldn't legally market
the combination products as "Made in USA."

Plaintiffs in the case say they were misled by this marketing and
paid a higher price for the knife-sheath combinations than they
would have if they knew the truth about the products' origins.

Buck Knives hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to resolve
the plaintiffs' allegations with a $200,000 settlement.

Under the terms of the deal, Class Members can collect a cash
payment for every knife purchased.

The settlement allows up to $10 per eligible knife purchased.
Individuals can claim up to three knives for a maximum payment of
$30, while households can collect up to $60 for six eligible
knives.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 1, 2022.

The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Aug.
8, 2022.

In order to receive a payment from the settlement, Class Members
must submit a valid claim form by June 1, 2022.

Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits consumers who purchased one or more
Buck Knives knife-sheath combinations between March 1, 2008, and
Feb. 17, 2022. Models are listed in above article.

Potential Award
Up to $60

Proof of Purchase
You are required to submit: (a) proof of purchase; OR (b) a
photograph of each knife-sheath combination claimed that exhibits
the stamp on the right side of the blade of the knife and depicts
any form of photo identification of the claimant.

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

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

Claim Form Deadline
06/01/2022

Case Name
Houriani v Buck Knives Inc, Case No. 2:21-cv-01908-DSF, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California

Final Hearing
08/08/2022

Settlement Website
BuckKnivesClassAction.com

Claims Administrator
Buck Knives Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 26170
Santa Ana, CA 92799
888-251-1607

Class Counsel
David R Greifinger
Calvin A Marshall
John A Marshall
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID R GREIFINGER

Defense Counsel
Stephen J Tully Esq
Trang T Tran Esq
Nicholas D Lauber Esq
GARRETT & TULLY PC [GN]


BUMBLE BEE: Certification of 3 Classes of Tuna Purchasers Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals cannot agree on whether it has created a
circuit split on a critical class action issue.

The court's new en banc decision, as my Reuters colleague Mike
Scarcella reported on April 8, upheld the certification of three
classes of packaged tuna purchasers who have accused tuna suppliers
of engaging in a price-fixing cartel. The 9th Circuit majority in
Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative Inc v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC
refused to establish a categorical rule that classes cannot be
certified if they contain more than a handful of plaintiffs who
have not actually been injured.

Defendants StarKist Co and Dongwon Industries Co Ltd had urged the
en banc 9th Circuit to block certification of a class of buyers who
purchased tuna directly from suppliers because a defense expert
concluded that nearly 30% of the class could not demonstrate an
antitrust injury.

StarKist counsel from Latham & Watkins argued that individual
issues will inevitably predominate when so many class members may
not actually have overpaid. StarKist highlighted rulings from the
1st Circuit, in 2018's In re: Asacol Antitrust Litigation, and the
D.C. Circuit, in 2019's In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge
Antitrust Litigation, in which appellate courts have held that
classes cannot be certified if they contain more than a minimal
number of uninjured class members.

The 9th Circuit was unswayed. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
wrote Judge Sandra Ikuta in a majority opinion joined by eight
other judges on the en banc panel, contain no explicit prohibition
on certifying a class that contains uninjured class members. Rule
23's predominance provision, she said, "requires only that the
district court determine after rigorous analysis whether the common
question predominates over any individual questions."

Was that holding a split from other circuit precedent? Judge
Kenneth Lee said it was, in a dissent joined by Judge Andrew
Kleinfeld. The majority, Lee wrote, had "needlessly" parted ways
with the 1st and D.C. Circuits, both of which "have endorsed a de
minimis rule." The dissenting judges insisted that by requiring
plaintiffs only to offer credible evidence of classwide injury, the
majority was more or less inviting the class action bar "to concoct
oversized classes stuffed with uninjured class members -- with
little fear of having their class certification bids being denied
for lack of 'predominance' or 'commonality.'"

Ikuta pushed back on Lee's assertion in a tart footnote in the
majority opinion. The court's call for case-by-case analysis of
plaintiffs' evidence of a classwide injury, she said, "is
consistent with the approach taken by our sister circuits." Neither
the 1st Circuit in Asacol nor the D.C. Circuit in Rail Freight
adopted a per se rule specifying an acceptable percentage of
uninjured class members, Ikuta wrote. Those courts, she said,
simply held that classes cannot be certified if the need to
identify uninjured class members would predominate over classwide
issues - which, Ikuta said, is the same analysis the 9th Circuit
majority called for in the tuna cases.

This might seem like mere semantics. As Ikuta said, all three
circuits agree that trial judges must engage in rigorous analysis
of plaintiffs' evidence of classwide injury and that courts must
reject certification of classes in which questions about individual
injury would predominate.

So why does it matter if the 1st and D.C. Circuits have said the
number of uninjured class members must be minimal and the 9th
Circuit focused instead on the process of predominance analysis?
Because there's a good chance that StarKist will ask the U.S.
Supreme Court to review the 9th Circuit's ruling -- and one of the
best ways to persuade the justices to take a case is to call on the
court to resolve a circuit split.

Defense counsel Gregory Garre of Latham said in a statement on
April 8 that the company is considering a Supreme Court petition.
In a follow-up email statement to me on April 11, Garre was more
declarative: "The undeniable importance of the issue coupled with
the acknowledged circuit conflict makes this case a compelling
candidate for Supreme Court review."

Tuna plaintiffs lawyers Christopher Lebsock of Hausfeld, Thomas
Burt of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz and Jonathan Cuneo of
Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca didn't respond to my email about the en banc
court's purported split with the 1st and D.C. Circuits.

If StarKist does file a petition for certiorari, I'm expecting the
company to argue that the 9th Circuit has removed a fundamental
class certification gateway that plaintiffs in the 1st and D.C.
Circuits can't pass through. In those circuits, StarKist will
likely assert, trial courts must decide before certifying classes
whether more than a handful of class members are uninjured, but in
the 9th Circuit, trial judges can leave it to juries to decide if
expert evidence of classwide injury holds up or to individualized
post-trial damages proceedings to weed out uninjured class
members.

I should point out that the tuna plaintiffs and their amici argued
for precisely that outcome. In their view, trial judges weighing
class certification are supposed to determine only if the case can
be decided on common evidence, not whether plaintiffs will
ultimately prevail.

I also want to point out one other note from the 9th Circuit's tuna
ruling. I've told you that StarKist and some of its amici pushed
the en banc 9th Circuit to address whether classes can be certified
if every class member does not meet Article III standing
requirements. The majority in the April 8 ruling said it need not
address that freighted question because the plaintiffs' evidence of
classwide antitrust impact was sufficient to establish standing for
every class member.

But that wasn't all: The en banc court also formally overruled a
precedential statement that has long given hope to class action
critics. The 9th Circuit said back in 2012's Mazza v. American
Honda that "no class may be certified that contains members lacking
Article III standing." That statement is no longer good law after
the April 8 ruling in the tuna case.

That's more good news for class action lawyers. For now. [GN]

BUMBLE BEE: Must Face Tuna Purchasers' Antitrust Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Tabacco, writing for Law Street, reports that nine months
after the appellate court vacated an initial decision by a panel of
its judges, an en banc majority voted 9-2 to confirm the district
court's class certification ruling in the antitrust case against
three of the nation's largest tuna packagers. The decision is the
latest in the price-fixing conspiracy suit that dovetailed on
federal investigations, a criminal conviction, and numerous plea
deals on part of defendants Bumble Bee, StarKist, and Chicken of
the Sea and their executives.

The court summarized facts material to the case, including that the
tuna packager defendants produced over 80% of all canned tuna sold
domestically. The plaintiffs, grouped into a direct purchaser
class, an indirect purchaser class, and an end purchaser class,
alleged that the trio conspired from November 2010 through at least
the end of 2016 to fix prices of tuna, causing them to overpay for
the fish product.

The purchasers eventually moved to certify the three subclasses. In
July 2019, Judge Janis Sammartino granted that request. The
defendants appealed, and in April 2021, the Ninth Circuit vacated
the district court's order and remanded. Several months later, the
appellate court reversed course and decided to rehear the case.  

In the 79-page opinion, the court chiefly considered "whether the
purchasers' statistical regression model, along with other expert
evidence, is capable of showing that a price-fixing conspiracy
caused class-wide antitrust impact, thus satisfying one of the
prerequisites for bringing a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

The majority held in the affirmative. In so finding, the court
overrode arguments that Rule 23(b)'s commonality requirement was
defeated because the class "potentially includes more than a de
minimis number of uninjured class members." Instead, the court was
satisfied that a common question was capable of class-wide
resolution, declining the more stringent requirement that common
evidence "in fact establishes that plaintiffs would win at trial."

In dissent, Judge Kenneth K. Lee, joined by Judge Andrew J.
Kleinfeld, argued that the majority was wrong to certify a class in
view of the possibility that about one of every three class members
suffered no injury. He said that "[p]unting this key question until
later amounts to handing victory to plaintiffs because this case
will likely settle without the court ever deciding that issue," and
further called the practice "neither fair nor true to the rule."

The plaintiff classes are represented by Hausfeld, Cuneo Gilbert &
Laduca LLP, and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP. Starkist
is represented by Latham & Watkins. [GN]

BURGER KING: Whopper's Packaging Contains PFAS, Hussain Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
AZMAN HUSSAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BURGER KING CORPORATION, Case No. 4:22-cv-02258 (N.D.
Cal., April 11, 2022) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers who purchased for
personal, family, or household use, the Defendant's Whopper, which
is unfit for human consumption because the packaging in which it is
contained -- and is essential and integral to delivering the
Product to the consuming public -- contains unsafe per- and
polyfluoralkyl substances (PFAS).

PFAS are a group of synthetic chemicals known to be harmful to both
the environment and humans. Because PFAS persist and accumulate
over time, they are harmful even at very low levels. Indeed, "PFAS
have been shown to have a number of toxicological effects in
laboratory studies and have been associated with thyroid disorders,
immunotoxic effects, and various cancers in epidemiology studies."


In fact, scientists are studying -- and are extremely concerned
about -- how PFAS affect human health. Consequently, the CDC
outlined "a host of health effects associated with PFAS exposure,
including cancer, liver damage, decreased fertility, and increased
risk of asthma and thyroid disease."

Despite Defendant's alleged representations to consumers that its
products are "safe," and "sustainable," including in its website
and the Product packaging -- which is an essential and integral
part of delivering the Product to consumers -- independent research
conducted by Consumer Reports 5 determined that the Product
packaging contains 249.7 parts per million (ppm) of total organic
fluorine."

Plaintiff Hussain has purchased the Product from Defendant for
several years, including as recently as March 2022 from a Burger
King located in Fremont, California. Prior to his purchase, Mr.
Hussain reviewed the labeling, packaging, and marketing materials
of his Product, including those set out herein, including that the
Product was safe and sustainable. Mr. Hussain understood that based
on Defendant's claims, that Product was safe for consumption, and
otherwise a sustainable product.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class were
injured by the full purchase price of the Product because the
Product is worthless, as it is marketed as safe and sustainable
when it is not in fact safe and sustainable.

Burger King is an American multinational chain of hamburger fast
food restaurants. Headquartered in Miami-Dade County, Florida, the
company was founded in 1953 as Insta-Burger King, a Jacksonville,
Florida-based restaurant chain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

C3.AI INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of May 3 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on April 11 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided. There is no cost or obligation to you.

AI Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/c3-ai-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=25822&wire=1
LCID Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/lucid-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=25822&wire=1
ABBV Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/abbvie-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=25822&wire=1

This lawsuit is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise
acquired: (a) C3.ai Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable
to the documents issued in connection with the Company's initial
public offering conducted on or about December 9, 2020; and/or (b)
C3.ai securities between December 9, 2020 and February 15, 2022,
both dates inclusive.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2022
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/c3-ai-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=25822&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, (i) C3.ai's partnership with
Baker Hughes was deteriorating; (ii) C3.ai was employing a flawed
accounting methodology to conceal the deterioration of its Baker
Hughes partnership; (iii) C3.ai faced challenges in product
adoption and significant salesforce turnover; (iv) the Company
overstated, inter alia, the extent of its investment in technology,
description of its customers, its total addressable market, the
pace of its market growth, and the scale of alliances with its
major business partners; and (v) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

This lawsuit is on behalf of a class of all persons and entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired Lucid common stock between
November 15, 2021, and February 28, 2022, inclusive.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 31, 2022
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/lucid-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=25822&wire=1

The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about Lucid's business and operations. Specifically,
the Company overstated its production capabilities while concealing
that "extraordinary supply chain and logistics challenges" were
hampering Lucid's operations. As a result of the defendants'
wrongful acts and omissions, and the significant decline in the
market value of Lucid's common stock, Lucid investors have suffered
significant damages.

AbbVie Inc.

ABBV Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 30, 2021 -
August 31, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 6, 2022
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/abbvie-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=25822&wire=1

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, AbbVie
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) safety concerns about Pfizer Inc.'s
drug Xeljanz extended to Abbvie's drug Rinvoq and to other Janus
kinase enzyme inhibitor drugs; (2) as a result, it was likely that
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration would require additional
safety warnings for Rinvoq and would delay the approval of
additional treatment indications for Rinvoq; and (3) therefore,
defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.

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

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

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

C3.AI: Kessler Topaz Meltzer Reminds of May 3 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com)
informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California against C3.ai, Inc. ("C3") (NYSE: AI). The action
charges C3 with violations of the federal securities laws,
including omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations relating to
the company's business, operations, and prospects. As a result of
C3's materially misleading statements to the public, C3's investors
have suffered significant losses.

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

CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT YOUR C3 LOSSES. YOU CAN ALSO CLICK ON THE
FOLLOWING LINK OR COPY AND PASTE IN YOUR BROWSER:
https://www.ktmc.com/ai-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=ai

LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: MAY 3, 2022

CLASS PERIOD: DECEMBER 9, 2020 THROUGH FEBRUARY 15, 2022

CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS:
James Maro, Esq. at (484) 270-1453 or via email at info@ktmc.com

C3'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
C3 is an artificial intelligence software company that offers
software-as-a-service applications for enterprises in North
America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia Pacific, and
internationally.

On February 16, 2022, Spruce Point Capital Management, LLC ("Spruce
Point Capital") published a short-seller report on C3. In the
report, Spruce Point Capital revealed that it found "multiple
instances of claims made by C3 that appear to be exaggerated, or
don't reconcile with our research findings." Specifically, the
report indicates, among other things, that given shifty customer
definition disclosures, there is a high probability that C3 is
overstating its paying and active customer Inflated Technology
Value. Additionally, Spruce Point Capital found that C3's implied
market share of just 0.12% supports either market size inflation or
its irrelevance in the industry sales cycle.

Following this news, C3's stock price fell $1.01 per share, or
3.93%, to close at $24.70 per share on February 16, 2022.

WHAT CAN I DO?
C3 investors may, no later than May 3, 2022 seek to be appointed as
a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing
and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP encourages C3 investors who have suffered significant losses to
contact the firm directly to acquire more information.

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

ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP     
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com.

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

CABALETTA BIO: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of April 29 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Cabaletta Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ:
CABA), Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (NASDAQ: ERIC), C3.ai, Inc.
(NYSE: AI), and Rivian Automotive, Inc. (NASDAQ: RIVN).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.

Cabaletta Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ: CABA)

Class Period: October 24, 2019 IPO; October 24, 2019 - December 13,
2021

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 29, 2022

According to the lawsuit, the IPO offering documents and defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) top-line data of the Phase 1
Clinical Trial indicated that DSG3-CAART had, among other things,
worsened certain participants' disease activity scores and
necessitated additional systemic medication to improve disease
activity after DSG3-CAART infusion; (2) accordingly, DSG3-CAART was
not as effective as the Company had represented to investors; (3)
therefore, the Company had overstated DSG3-CAART's clinical and/or
commercial prospects; and (4) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

For more information on the Cabaletta class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/CABA

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (NASDAQ: ERIC)

Class Period: April 27, 2017 - February 25, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 2, 2022

The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives
violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading
statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) Ericsson overstated
the extent to which it had reformed its business practices to
eliminate the use of bribes to secure business in foreign
countries; (2) Ericsson had paid bribes to the terrorist group the
Islamic State in Iraq and Syria ("ISIS" or the "Islamic State") to
gain access to certain transport routes in Iraq; (3) accordingly,
the Company's revenues derived from its operations in Iraq were, in
at least substantial part, derived from unlawful conduct and thus
unsustainable; and (4) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On February 15, 2022, during intraday trading hours, Ericsson
issued a press release disclosing media inquiries into its business
dealings in Iraq. That press release assured investors of the
Company's "transparency" regarding these inquiries, while vaguely
alluding to having undertaken its own investigative and compliance
efforts.

Then, on February 16, 2022, Ericsson's Chief Executive Officer
("CEO") told a Swedish newspaper that the Company may have made
payments to ISIS to gain access to certain transport routes in
Iraq, noting that the Company had identified "unusual expenses
dating back to 2018" but had not yet determined the final recipient
of the funds for those expenses, although Defendants could "see
that it disappeared[,]" and that Ericsson has spent "considerable
resources trying to understand this as best we can."

Following these disclosures, Ericsson's American Depositary Share
("ADS") price fell $1.44 per ADS, or 11.57%, to close at $11.01 per
ADS on February 16, 2022.

Finally, on Sunday, February 27, 2022, the International Consortium
of Investigative Journalists ("ICIJ") published a report on
Ericsson's alleged dealings with ISIS in Iraq, citing a leaked
internal investigation that revealed that Ericsson had reportedly
made "tens of millions of dollars in suspicious payments" over
nearly a decade to keep its business in the country.

The ICIJ report also alleged that "a spreadsheet lists company
probes into possible bribery, money laundering and embezzlement by
employees in Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Brazil, China, Croatia,
Libya, Morocco, the United States and South Africa[,]" which "have
not been previously disclosed."

On this news, Ericsson's ADS price fell $0.84 per ADS, or 8.3%,
from its closing price on February 25, 2022, to close at $9.28 per
ADS on February 28, 2022, the next trading day.

For more information on the Ericsson class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/ERIC

C3.ai, Inc. (NYSE: AI)

Class Period: December 9, 2020 IPO; December 9, 2020 - February 15,
2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2022

The Complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation.
Additionally, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the
Offering Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) C3.ai's partnership
with Baker Hughes was deteriorating; (2) C3.ai's was employing a
flawed accounting methodology to conceal the deterioration of its
Baker Hughes partnership; (3) C3.ai faced challenges in product
adoption and significant salesforce turnover; (4) the Company
overstated, inter alia, the extent of its investment in technology,
description of its customers, its total addressable market ("TAM"),
the pace of its market growth, and the scale of alliances with its
major business partners; and (5) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

For more information on the C3.ai class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/AI

Rivian Automotive, Inc. (NASDAQ: RIVN)

Class Period: November 10, 2021 IPO

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 6, 2022

Rivian is an electric vehicle company that in 2018 unveiled its
first consumer EV's, the R1T electric pickup truck, and the R1S
electric SUV.

On November 10, 2021, Rivian offered 153 million shares to the
public through an IPO at a price of $78.00 per share for total
proceeds of $11.93 billion.

According to the Registration Statement, the "R1T and R1S introduce
our brand to the world and will serve as our flagship vehicles as
we continue to expand our offerings."

Rivian's focus on its reputation for transparency and devotion to
its customers, along with Rivian's R1T and R1S, including the large
number of preorders and potential for increased demand were key
selling points to IPO investors.

Unbeknownst to investors, however, the Registration Statement's
representations were materially inaccurate, misleading, and/or
incomplete because they failed to disclose, among other things,
that the R1T and R1S were underpriced to such a degree that Rivian
would have to raise prices shortly after the IPO and that these
price increases would tarnish Rivian's reputation as a trustworthy
and transparent company and would put a significant number of the
existing backlog of 55,400 preorders along with future preorders in
jeopardy of cancellation.

As a result, the price of the Company's shares was artificially and
materially inflated at the time of the Offering.

For more information on the Rivian class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/RIVN

              About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

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

Contact Information:

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

CANADA: Court Certifies Class Action Over CWB Privatization
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glenda-Lee Vossler, writing for SwiftCurrent Online, reports that a
Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench Judge has certified a Class Action
lawsuit alleging financial irregularities occurred during the
privatization of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Manitoba farmer Andrew Dennis filed the lawsuit against the
Government of Canada and G3 Canada Ltd.

Dennis is acting as the representative plaintiff for farmers who
sold wheat to the CWB's pool accounts in the 2010/11 and 2011/12
crop years.

The lawsuit alleges $145,000,000 of farmer's money was unlawfully
sheltered into an account that could be transferred to the
purchasers with the privatization of the CWB in 2012.

A statement from the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board (FCWB)
states that . . . . the Manitoba Court of Appeal accepted in a 2020
ruling that if this money had not been sheltered by the Government,
it would have been paid to farmers. The claim also alleges that the
CWB is liable to farmers by not paying them the full amount
required under their contracts.

Stewart Wells, Chair of the FCWB, says the certification of the
lawsuit now means the case can move to trial.

"The way that dismantling was done by Mr Ritz was morally wrong,
and now we're going to find out if it was not just morally wrong,
but also legally wrong."

Anders Bruun, one of the lawyers involved, says they are also
seeking $10,000,000 in punitive damages plus interest on the full
amount claimed for this misallocation of funds.

Wells says for over a decade the FCWB have alleged that the
Government of Canada and CWB took money that belonged to farmers
and sold it as part of the asset base taken over by the Crown and
then provided to G3 Canada Ltd.

"We're alleging that in his haste, and I think it's not going too
far to call Mr. Ritz's actions mean spirited. But in his haste to
strip the assets away from farmers and get ready to give those
assets to the government of Saudi Arabia and the grain company
Bunge. Mr. Ritz and the Cabinet orders were a little overzealous
and actually went past his authority as Agricultural Minister."

Wells says the wheels of justice have been grinding very slowly
because the government has been wasting taxpayers money trying to
delay everything, but those wheels are still grinding, and that's
the important point. [GN]

CANADA: Farmers' CWB Class Action Lawsuit Gets Certified
--------------------------------------------------------
Allan Dawson at GFM Network News reports that a class action
lawsuit alleging the government of Canada and G3 Canada Ltd.
unlawfully used millions of farmer dollars to privatize the
Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) has been certified after wending its way
through the courts for 10 years.

Court of Queen's Bench Justice Chris Martin delivered his written
judgment in Winnipeg, clearing the way for a judge to hear the
allegations on behalf of an estimated 70,000 or so western Canadian
farmers who delivered grain to the wheat board's pool accounts in
2010-11 and 2011-12.

"I think it is good news for the farmers who felt they weren't
dealt with fairly when (Agriculture Minister Gerry) Ritz and (Prime
Minister Stephen) Harper were privatizing the wheat board," Stewart
Wells, a Swift Current, Sask., farmer and member of the Friends of
the Canadian Wheat Board, said in an interview. "The wheels of
justice grind slowly but they're still grinding.

"It's the first major progress since the case was launched in 2012
and it's certified so this is going to be heard in court. It's just
not going to be swept under the rug somewhere. So that's a pretty
major advancement."

However, Wells didn't rule out the possibility that the government
and G3 will appeal Justice Martin's decision.

An out-of-court settlement is also possible.

The Harper government government removed the CWB as the sole
marketer of western Canadian wheat and barley destined for export
or domestic human consumption Aug. 1, 2012.

In 2015, G3 (Global Grain Group), newly formed to subsume the CWB,
agreed to invest $250.5 million and in return received the CWB's
assets from the federal government.

G3 is a joint venture firm majority-owned by the state-owned Saudi
Agricultural Livestock Investment Co. (SALIC) and Bunge.

The lawsuit brought by Brookdale, Man., farmer Andrew Dennis
alleges Ritz acted unlawfully by taking $150.9 million of farmers'
money from the CWB's pool accounts to help privatize the wheat
board.

One hundred and forty-five million dollars was used to triple the
wheat board's contingency fund and $5.9 million went to cover some
of the transition costs.

Under the Canadian Wheat Board Act, all money collected in the
CWB's pool accounts earned from marketing farmers' grain was
required to be paid to farmers, less board operating expenses.

"What's alleged is that Gerry Ritz . . . was acting illegally and
not in good faith -- the legal phrase is misfeasance while in
public office -- when he directed money to the contingency fund
that we argue ought to have been paid to farmers instead," Wells
said.

"We argue that he was morally and legally wrong to be hiving off
money that should have gone to the pooling accounts and been paid
to farmers but instead he was trying to build up the Canadian Wheat
Board as an entity so he could later on give it away to Saudi
Arabia and Bunge."

The CWB's board of directors unanimously passed a resolution
calling on the government to cover the cost of privatizing the
board instead of farmers, Wells said.

"And then Ritz said in public that he would pick up all the cost,
but when the (CWB's) final annual report came out it showed that
they had taken $5.9 million out of the pooling account to cover
restructuring costs," he said. "It makes no sense. It just loops
back to the notion that farmers weren't being treated fairly."

The suit also asks for $10 million, plus interest since 2012, in
damages, bringing the total compensation sought to $160.9 million,
excluding interest.

"It's not that much per individual farmer (if the suit is won),"
Wells said. "It totally depends how many tonnes they (farmers)
delivered to the pools in those two years, but that's one of the
reasons class actions were invented. It wouldn't make sense for one
or a very small group of farmers to take this sort of action, but
it certainly makes sense to launch it as a class."

Farmers who delivered to the pools in 2010-11 and 2011-12 are
automatically part of the class action lawsuit unless they opt out,
Wells said.

More information for affected farmers will be posted on a website,
he added.

Wells doesn't know when the case will be heard, but doesn't rule
out it taking another three to five years to resolve.

"They (federal government and G3) have been deliberately trying to
delay this process all the way along for the last 10 years… but
this is a very significant step toward getting the action certified
having the representative plaintiff Andrew Dennis named in the
action so he can carry it forward on behalf of all these farmers,"
Wells said. "It's a really crucial step. Without this the case
couldn't have gone anywhere."

Wells declined to disclose how much money has been spent litigating
the case so far.

"We have said all along that we are very grateful to all of the
farmers that supported us when we started fundraising for this
action back in very, very late 2011 and then in 2012, 2013 and
2014," he added. ‘We wouldn't have gotten anywhere without the
support of those farmers there's no question about that. This is
truly the farmers' action. Everybody is looking forward to the
result."

While the case is about the alleged misuse of farmers' money, it's
also about holding government to account, Wells said.

"Cabinet, through orders-in-council, can change some things but
they can never override the existing legislation," he said. "And
that's what we are arguing happened here -- that Ritz was
overriding the original legislation with his orders-in-council,
which in turn makes his actions illegal.

"Whether they (farmers) agreed with the wheat board being a
(mandatory) marketing agency or not they still didn't deserve to
have money taken from the pooling accounts and just given to the
King of Saudi Arabia and Bunge."

After taking over the CWB, the new G3, renamed G3 Canada Ltd., was
50.1 per cent owned by SALIC and Bunge and up to 49.9 per cent
potentially owned by farmers, depending on how much grain they
delivered to the new firm.

Farmers were to earn $5 of G3 equity for every tonne.

G3 Canada had two shareholders -- G3 Global Grain Group and the
farmers' equity trust. Farmers who deliver to CWB own units in the
trust and the trust owns shares in G3 Canada Limited.

After the farmers' equity is fully allocated, or in seven years
(2022), G3 Canada Ltd. can buy the equity, but isn't obliged to.

In 2016 Reuters reported SALIC's ownership within G3 Global Grain
Group jumped to 75 per cent from 49 per cent, according to an April
28, 2016 Bunge filing.

-- Allan Dawson is a reporter for the Manitoba Co-operator at
Miami, Man.  [GN]

CANADIAN AIR: Court Approves CAN$16MM Class Action Settlements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leah Jones, writing for Energy Global, reports that on March 28,
2022, Siskinds of London, Ontario, Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman
of Vancouver, BC, and Liebman Legal Inc. of Montreal, Quebec,
Canada, announced court approval of a protocol for the second
distribution of settlement funds in the Canadian Air Cargo
price-fixing class action. The class action relates to an alleged
global conspiracy to fix prices of airfreight shipping services.

On 28 March 2022, Siskinds of London, Ontario, Camp Fiorante
Matthews Mogerman of Vancouver, BC, and Liebman Legal Inc. of
Montreal, Quebec, Canada, announced court approval of a protocol
for the second distribution of settlement funds in the Canadian Air
Cargo price-fixing class action. The class action relates to an
alleged global conspiracy to fix prices of airfreight shipping
services.

Settlements totalling CAN$16 million have been reached with British
Airways and Air Canada. This brings total settlements reached in
this action to over CAN$45 million. The settled defendants do not
admit any wrongdoing or liability. The Ontario, British Columbia
and Québec courts approved the settlements and a protocol for
distributing the second round of settlement funds. Settlements
totalling CAN$29.6 million were previously distributed. The action
is now resolved in its entirety.

"This litigation raised complex factual and legal issues. As part
of this litigation, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that the
Ontario court has jurisdiction to certify an international class.
Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied. This was
an important ruling that paves the way for other international
classes in appropriate circumstances," said Linda Visser of
Siskinds.

"Price-fixing conspiracies result in businesses and consumers
paying artificially inflated prices for goods and services. Class
actions help to return those inflated prices to victims of such
conspiracies," said David Jones of Camp Fiorante Matthews
Mogerman.

Persons who purchased airfreight shipping services to or from
Canada (excluding shipments to or from the US) between January 2000
and September 2006 are eligible to claim settlement benefits.
Claims can be filed online at www.aircargosettlement2.com on or
before 27 June 2022.

More information can be found online at www.aircargosettlement2.com
or by calling the claims administrator at 1-888-291-9655 in Canada
or the US, or 1-614-553-1296 internationally.

About Class Counsel

Siskinds LLP is a full-service law firm with offices in Toronto and
London, and affiliate offices in Montreal and Quebec City. Siskinds
LLP is Canada's leading class action law firm.

Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman is a boutique law firm based in
Vancouver specialising in class actions, aviation accident
litigation, and product liability litigation, on behalf of
plaintiffs.

Liebman Legal Inc. is a law firm based in Montreal. It provides
complete legal services to its private and corporate clients.

For further information please contact:

Media Inquiries:

Charles Wright or Linda J. Visser
Siskinds LLP
275 Dundas Street, Unit 1
P.O. Box 2520
London, ON N6B 3L1
Toll-free (Canada): 1-800-461-6166 ext. 2455
Email: aircargo@siskinds.com

British Columbia:
David Jones
Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman
#400 - 856 Homer Street
Vancouver, BC V6B 2W5
Tel: 1-800-689-2322
Email: djones@cfmlawyers.ca

Quebec:
Moe F. Liebman
Liebman Legal Inc.
1 Westmount Square #350
Montreal, QC H3Z 2P9
Tel: 514-846-0666
Email: moe@liebmanlegal.com [GN]

CARDONE TRAINING: Handelsman Sues Over Unwanted Telephone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
JASON HANDELSMAN, individually and on behalf of all, others
similarly situated, v. CARDONE TRAINING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case
No. 147427907 (Fla. Cir., Miami-Dade Cty., April 11, 2022) contends
that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part,
by placing unwanted phone calls to wireless phone users, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

To promote its business, the Defendant sends prerecorded voice
messages to the telephones of consumers without consent to do so.

Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
the 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 himself and Class Members, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
unlawful actions of the Defendant.

On March 16, 2022, the Defendant called Plaintiff's cellular
telephone number ending in 9486 using a prerecorded voice message.
When Plaintiff listened to the prerecorded message, he was easily
able to determine that it was prerecorded, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant's prerecorded voice call constitutes telemarketing
because the purpose of the message was to encourage Plaintiff to
buy tickets to Defendant's event, the lawsuit says.[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
          13Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 533-4092
          E-mail: meisenband@eisenbandlaw.com

CARNAGIO ENTERPRISES: Judgment Bids in American Family Suit OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, S.I. and
AUSTIN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiffs v. CARNAGIO
ENTERPRISES, INC., an Illinois corporation, and ANGELA KARIKARI,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Defendants, Case No. 20 C 3665 (N.D. Ill.), Judge John Z. Lee of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part each of the
cross-motions for summary judgment.

I. Background

Defendant Carnagio is a McDonald's franchisee insured by both
Plaintiff American Family and Plaintiff Austin Mutual. In early
2019, Defendant Karikari filed a class action lawsuit against
Carnagio, alleging violations of Illinois's Biometric Information
Privacy Act ("BIPA"). Carnagio informed the insurance companies of
the lawsuit and requested coverage. The Plaintiffs then brought the
instant suit, seeking a declaratory judgment that violations of
BIPA are excluded under the policies they had issued to Carnagio.
As a result, the Plaintiffs contend that they have no duty to
defend Carnagio in Karikari's suit.

Carnagio operates 13 McDonald's restaurant franchises in Illinois.
From March 1, 2015, to March 1, 2020, all of Carnagio's McDonald's
locations were insured under policies issued by American Family.
From March 1, 2020 to March 1, 2021, Carnagio's restaurants were
covered under Businessowners' Liability Insurance policies issued
by Austin Mutual.

Each of these policies promises coverage for "the sums that the
insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of
'bodily injury', 'property damage' or 'personal and advertising
injury' to which this insurance applies." The policies further
acknowledge that American Family and Austin Mutual have a duty to
defend Carnagio "against any 'suit' seeking damages for" those
covered harms. The policies also contain identical exclusion
provisions, entitled "Employment-Related Practices" ("ERP
exclusion") and "Distribution Of Material In Violation Of Statutes"
("Statutory Violation exclusion"). Additionally, the Austin Mutual
policy includes an exclusion dealing with access to or disclosure
of confidential or personal information ("Access/Disclosure
exclusion").

Ms. Karikari alleges that she worked at one of Carnagio's
McDonald's restaurants starting in 2017. According to her, Carnagio
required her to clock in and out of each shift using a fingerprint
scanner. Despite its use of fingerprints for timekeeping and
identification, Karikari claims, Carnagio never informed "its
employees of the complete purposes for which it collects their
sensitive biometric data or to whom the data is disclosed if at
all"; never gave its employees "a written, publicly available
policy identifying its retention schedule, and guidelines for
permanently destroying its employees' fingerprints"; and never had
her sign a release allowing Carnagio to collect her fingerprints.

In March 2019, Karikari filed a lawsuit against Carnagio in state
court for violating provisions of BIPA. And Carnagio tendered
notice of the lawsuit to the insurance companies. The Plaintiffs
then filed the lawsuit, seeking a declaratory judgment that they
have no duty to defend Carnagio against Karikari's claims in state
court.

II. Discussion

As a preliminary matter, the parties agree that Illinois law
applies. Furthermore, the parties have not conducted discovery in
the case, and all facts relevant to the cross-motions are
undisputed. Accordingly, Judge Lee turns to the question at hand,
namely, whether any of Carnagio's insurance policies provide
coverage for the defense of Karikari's lawsuit. To answer this
question, the he must look to the language of the insurance
policies.

In the case, all parties agree that a lawsuit arising under BIPA
constitutes a claim asserting a "personal injury" that triggers
coverage under Carnagio's policies. The dispute is whether any of
the exclusions in the policies operate to preclude coverage for
Karikari's lawsuit.

A. ERP Exclusion

The Plaintiffs first contend that the ERP exclusion precludes
coverage because "the BIPA violations alleged in the Underlying
Complaint unquestionably arise out of the employment relationship
and occurred while Karikari and the other employees were performing
the work-related duty of using a biometric time clock to record
their hours." Not surprisingly, the Defendants disagree.

Judge Lee concludes that Carnagio's practice of requiring its
employees to provide their fingerprints when clocking in and out of
work does not fall within the ERP exclusion. At a minimum, there is
significant ambiguity as to whether the exclusion disavows coverage
of Karikari's claims. And, under Illinois law, such ambiguity must
be resolved in the insured's favor.

B. Statutory Violation Exclusion

In West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan, Inc.,
the Supreme Court of Illinois held that a nearly identical
provision did not exclude violations of BIPA from coverage. But the
Plaintiffs contend the result in Krishna does not control the case,
because the provision in Krishna, although otherwise identical, had
a more specific title: "Violation of Statutes that Govern E-Mails,
Fax, Phone Calls or Other Methods of Sending Material or
Information." Because the Supreme Court of Illinois began its
Krishna analysis with the title of the exclusion, the Plaintiffs
contend that Krishna should have no bearing on the interpretation
of the exclusion.

At the outset, Judge Lee is not convinced that the difference in
the titles makes these exclusions substantively different. But even
if the change in title were material, the Supreme Court of
Illinois's analysis in Krishna would remain the appropriate
starting point for this Court's understanding of the Statutory
Violation exclusion in the instant case.

Judge Lee holds that the underlying claims under BIPA are at least
potentially covered by Carnagio's policies. Additionally, because
American Family raised only the ERP exclusion and Statutory
Violation exclusion, neither of which unambiguously exclude
coverage in the case, the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment
is denied as to American Family, and Karikari's cross-motion for
summary judgment as to American Family is granted with respect to
these exclusions.

C. Access/Disclosure Exclusion

Austin Mutual argues that a third exclusion in its policy, the
Access/Disclosure exclusion, precludes coverage in the case.

Judge Lee concludes that claims for false light invasion of privacy
seek damages arising out of a publication of material that violates
a person's right of privacy, and, therefore, would satisfy the
definition of "personal and advertising injury" in the policy. Yet,
such claims would not fall under the Access/Disclosure exclusion
because they would not seek damages arising out of any access to or
disclosure of any person's confidential or personal information.
Therefore, contrary to Carnagio's contention, the Court's
construction of the Access/Disclosure exclusion would not render
coverage under the policy illusory. For all of these reasons, Judge
Lee holds that the policy's Access/Disclosure provision precludes
coverage of the Karikari lawsuit.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the cross-motions for summary judgment
are each granted in part and denied in part as follows: Judge Lee
issued a declaratory judgment that the Karikari lawsuit does not
implicate the Austin Mutual policy issued to Carnagio and Austin
Mutual has no obligation to defend or indemnify Carnagio in
connection with the Karikari lawsuit. Furthermore, Karikari's suit
is not excluded under the policy issued to Carnagio by American
Family.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/tcbsp9jw from
Leagle.com.


CARVER FEDERAL: Improperly Charges Overdraft Fees, Bonilla Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WANDA BONILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CARVER FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-03076 (S.D.N.Y., April 13, 2022) is an action against
the Defendant's routine practices of assessing more than one
insufficient funds fee ("NSF Fee") on the same transaction, and
assessing an overdraft fee ("OD Fee") on transactions that did not
actually overdraw checking accounts.

CARVER FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK operates as a full-service bank. The
Bank offers savings account, deposit, loans, insurance, investment,
bill payment, cash management, debit and prepaid cards, and online
banking services. Carver Federal Savings Bank serves African
American communities in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

CDK GLOBAL: Bragar Eagel Investigates Potential Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, has launched an investigation into whether the
officers or directors of CDK Global, Inc. (NASDAQ: CDK) breached
their fiduciary duties or violated the federal securities laws in
connection with the company's acquisition by Brookfield Business
Partners (NYSE: BBUC, BBU).

On April 7, 2022, CDK Global announced that it had entered into an
agreement to be acquired by Brookfield in a deal valued at
approximately $8.3 billion. Pursuant to the merger agreement, CDK
Global stockholders will receive $54.87 in cash for each share of
CDK Global common stock owned. The deal is scheduled to close in
the third quarter of 2022.

Bragar Eagel & Squire is concerned that CDK Global's board of
directors oversaw an unfair process and ultimately agreed to an
inadequate merger agreement. Accordingly, the firm is investigating
all relevant aspects of the deal and is committed to securing the
best result possible for CDK Global's stockholders.

If you own shares of CDK Global and are concerned about the
proposed merger, or you are interested in learning more about the
investigation or your legal rights and remedies, please contact
Melissa Fortunato or Alexandra Raymond by email at
mergers@bespc.com or telephone at (646) 860-9157, or by filling out
this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you.

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

Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Melissa Fortunato,
Esq. Alexandra Raymond, Esq. mergers@bespc.comwww.bespc.com [GN]

CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of May 16 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attention Celsius Holdings, Inc. ("Celsius") (NASDAQ: CELH)
shareholders:

The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on April 11 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased
between August 12, 2021 and March 1, 2022.

If you suffered a loss on your investment in Celsius, contact us
about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost
or obligation to you.

https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/celsius-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=25744&wire=4

ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Celsius includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
Company had improperly recorded expenses for non-cash share-based
compensation for second and third quarters of 2021; (2) as a
result, the Company's financial statements for those periods would
be restated, including to report a net loss for the third quarter
of 2021; (3) there was a material weakness in Celsius's internal
controls over financial reporting; and (4) as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

DEADLINE: May 16, 2022

Aggrieved Celsius investors only have until May 16, 2022 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required
to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]

CHICAGO, IL: Judge Pares Claims in Vehicle Impound Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a judge
has split up a longstanding legal action challenging Chicago's
vehicle impounding policies, but will allow plaintiffs to keep
pressing their claims that the city violated their constitutional
property rights by seizing vehicles and then selling them to tow
companies before the owners had enough time to retrieve their
cars.

In June 2019, attorneys with the firm of Myron M. Cherry &
Associates, of Chicago, filed suit on behalf of named plaintiff
Andrea Santiago. The lawsuit aims to force the city to pay up to
two classes of perhaps tens of thousands of car owners whose
vehicles were either towed by the city after being declared
abandoned, or were later "disposed of by the city" -- a phrase that
often meant the cars were sold to tow companies, which later resold
the vehicles for scrap and parts.

In November 2020, after the city removed the complaint to federal
court, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly said Santiago's
complaint met thresholds needed to certify it to proceed as a class
action. The city appealed, and the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals vacated Kennelly's order and sent the case back to district
court in December.

After Santiago filed an amended complaint, the city again moved to
dismiss. Kennelly ruled on that motion in an opinion issued April
5, only partially granting the city's request.

Santiago's amended complaint sought to create two classes, one for
people whose vehicles the city towed away and a second for those
whose vehicles the city sold.

According to court documents, Santiago is a senior citizen who uses
a wheelchair due to multiple sclerosis. Her daughter, Lisanda
Velez, drives Santiago in her mother's vehicle. On June 5, 2018, a
city employee placed a sticker on the window of Santiago's 1998 GMC
Savanna 1500 indicating the city deemed the vehicle abandoned and
would tow it if not moved within seven days. Velez saw and removed
the notice but didn't tell her mother, although she did move the
van and put signs in the windows indicating it wasn't abandoned.

On June 13, the city towed the van and mailed two impound notices.
Before July 5, Velez tried to recover the van, but the lot denied
her request because Santiago is the sole owner. Velez returned
later that month with a notarized letter, but the vehicle was
disposed of on July 16, 2018.

Kennelly granted some wins to both sides on the question of whether
the lawsuit can continue.

Notably, Kennelly sided with Santiago's position that the city
violated Fifth Amendment rights of vehicle owners when it sold
their cars.

"It cannot be said that one has notice that her car will be
disposed of when the city does not follow the procedures outlined
in its ordinances," Kennelly wrote. "Based on the 'additional
notice' language of the ordinance, it would be reasonable for a
vehicle owner to think that her car will not be disposed of until
the city sends an additional notice after the first one. The court
further notes that the mailed notice that Santiago received
contained inaccurate information regarding how long she had to
collect her vehicle before disposal."

Kennelly partially rejected the city's argument Santiago lacks
standing to challenge the sticker notice policy, saying Velez isn't
Santiago's legal agent, nor did Velez's knowledge of the sticker
impute to her mother. However, he agreed with the city that "had
Velez not removed the sticker, Santiago likely would have seen it
when she got into the car." He also said she lacks standing to
challenge the content of the notification sticker because she said
she never saw the actual sticker.

He likewise said Santiago can't challenge the city's failure to
provide a hearing before towing because even if that process
existed, and if the sticker told owners of their right to a
hearing, Santiago wouldn't have known, only Velez.

Santiago also cannot pursue her unjust enrichment claim because her
complaint "alleges no facts suggesting that she ever paid a fee to
the City in connection with the towing and impoundment of her van,"
only that the city got money for selling it to United Road Towing.
And because her new van hasn't been towed, she can't ask the court
to declare the city's policy violates due process rights.

The judge allowed the unjust enrichment claim for the second
putative class, but rejected Santiago's contention that the city
also violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable
seizure, as that "is limited to an individual's interest in
retaining her property and cannot be invoked by the dispossessed
owner to regain her property."

Kennelly rejected Santiago's request for injunctive relief for the
vehicle disposal class, saying it would be speculative as was
applied to the tow class. He also refused to issue a writ of
mandamus forcing the city to send additional notice of impending
disposal.

Kennelly dismissed the count of unjust enrichment for the tow class
and Fourth Amendment violations for the disposal class. He did not
dismiss the unjust enrichment or the Fifth Amendment claims for the
disposal class, ordering the city to respond by April 26.

In the ruling, the judge also sent the remaining counts, for which
Santiago could not demonstrate standing to pursue in federal court,
back to Cook County court.

Santiago and the additional classes of plaintiffs are represented
in the case by attorneys Jacie Zolna, Myron Cherry, Benjamin
Swetland, Jeremiah Nixon and Jessica Charvin, fo the Myron Cherry
firm.

The city is represented by attorneys J. David Duffy and Patrick
Morales-Doyle, of the Thompson Coburn firm, of Chicago; and
Jennifer Zlotow and Peter Cavanaugh, of the city's Department of
Law. [GN]


CINEFLIX MEDIA: Opts Out of Collective Agreement in Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Townsend, writing for Playback Daily, reports that Cineflix
Media will not be signing a collective agreement with unions CWA
Canada and IATSE following its settlement of a class action lawsuit
from factual workers last year.

The Montreal-based media company has opted to pay out $2.5 million
to members of the class action, rather than the alternative option
of paying $1 million with a collective agreement.

"We have learned a great deal through this process, and we are very
confident that our policies and practices surrounding factual
production are consistent with the employment standards across the
industry," said Glen Salzman, co-founder and co-CEO of Cineflix
Media, in a statement. "We believe that our settlement decision is
in the best interest of the company and its employees, and will
allow Cineflix to continue to operate successfully."

In September 2021, Cineflix reached a settlement with Toronto firm
Cavalluzzo over a class action lawsuit that alleged Cineflix
violated the Ontario Employment Standards Act by classifying
workers as independent contractors instead of employees, claiming
that workers were not compensated for overtime, vacation or holiday
pay.

If Cineflix had opted to sign the agreement, it would have been the
first time a production company in Canada formed a collective
agreement with factual workers. The template agreement provided by
CWA Canada and IATSE had provisions such as minimum pay scales,
overtime, vacation and holiday pay, as well as meal breaks and
travel time.

However, the outcome is considered a "win-win" for workers,
according to a release from CWA Canada.

"I think it could actually be the best result for all workers.
Cineflix decided to pay $2.5 million to all the people in the class
action, none of which hinders the Cineflix workers from organizing,
unionizing, and getting a collective agreement anyway," said Anna
Bourque, the representative plaintiff in the class action case.

A similar class action lawsuit between factual workers and
Toronto-based production company Insight Productions was filed in
2020, but was dismissed this past January due to a "legal
technicality" arising from a misunderstanding of deadlines in case
management meetings, according to CWA Canada.

CWA Canada launched a Fairness in Factual campaign more than six
years ago to lobby for better working conditions for crew members
on unscripted productions. IATSE joined the campaign in 2019 and
broadened its scope to provide more comprehensive coverage to
factual workers. The union currently represents more than 30,000
workers in Canada, largely for scripted productions. [GN]

CIRCLE K STORES: McDonald Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TIFFANY MCDONALD, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CIRCLE K STORES, INC. and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. 37-2021-00018913-CU-OE-CTL, was
removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, County
of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California on April 11, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00495-L-AGS 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 pay minimum wages, failure pay overtime
wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit rest
breaks, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and
failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment.

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

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Maria C. Rodriguez, Esq.
         Christopher A. 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

CITYWIDE SECURITY: Evans Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EBRIANNA EVANS and DEANDRE JIGGETS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CITYWIDE SECURITY AND PRIVATE
INVESTIGATION, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-03035 (S.D.N.Y. April 12,
2022) is a collective and class action brought by Individual and
Representative Plaintiffs Ebrianna and Jiggets and all putative
plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of the Proposed
Collective Classes and Classes.

The Plaintiffs and the putative Collective Class and Class Members
were or are employed as hourly paid Security Guards by the
Defendant Citywide Security in New York during the relevant Class
and Collective Class Periods.

All Plaintiffs were allegedly affected by an unlawful "time
shaving" policy and practice, where the Defendant manipulated the
actual clock in and out times of the Security Guards in order to
avoid paying them an overtime premium rate for all overtime hours
worked, which the Defendant knowingly suffered and permitted.
Through this company-wide policy and practice, the Defendant
unlawfully denied Plaintiffs overtime premiums at a rate of at
least 1.5 times the regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a
week and engaged in recordkeeping practices that violated federal
and/or state wage and hour laws.

The Plaintiffs are all similarly situated under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and the Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 and have suffered the same violations pursuant
to Defendant’s common policies and practices.

The Collective is made up of all persons who are or have been
employed by Defendant in New York as Security Guards within the
period of the past three years from this action's filing date
through the date of the final disposition of this action (the
"Collective Period") and who were subject to Defendant’s unlawful
and uniform time shaving policy and practice resulting in the
failure to pay Collective Plaintiffs overtime premiums for all
hours worked over 40 during the Collective Period in violation of
the FLSA.

Individual and Representative Plaintiff Ebrianna Evans is a former
hourly Security Guard employed by Defendant CWPS from August 14,
2021 through October 28, 2021.

Individual and Representative Plaintiff DeAndre Jiggets is a former
hourly Security Guard employed by Defendant CWPS from March 2021 to
October 2021.

Defendant CWPS is a New York domestic corporation that provides
security services across various sites ranging from hospitals,
constructions sites, homeless shelters, and schools.

The Plaintiff brings FLSA claims on behalf of herself and other
employees similarly situated as authorized under 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b). The employees similarly situated in the Collective are:

FLSA Overtime Collective: All persons who are or have been employed
by Defendant as hourly Security Guards in New York within the
period of the past three years prior to this action’s filing date
through the date of the final disposition of this action who worked
over 40 hours in at least one workweek during the Collective Class
Period and who were subject to Defendant’s failure to pay lawful
overtime premiums for all hours worked over 40 during a workweek
based on the alleged uniform policies and practice.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher Q. Davis, Esq.
          Hajar Hasani, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER Q. DAVIS, PLLC
          80 Broad Street, Suite 703
          New York, New York 10004
          Telephone: (646) 430-7930

CLEVELAND CLINIC: Dimascio Sues Over Event Specialists' Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIANA DIMASCIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CLEVELAND CLINIC FLORIDA HEALTH SYSTEM
NONPROFIT CORPORATION and IVAN BLANCO, Defendants, Case No.
0:22-cv-60734 (S.D. Fla., April 13, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for their failure to compensate the Plaintiff and
similarly situated event specialists overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has been employed by Cleveland Clinic as an event
specialist since December 14, 2020.

Cleveland Clinic Florida is a nonprofit health care company based
in West Palm Beach, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Anisley Tarragona, Esq.
         Jason D. Berkowitz, Esq.
         BT LAW GROUP, PLLC
         3050 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 205
         Miami, FL 33137
         Telephone: (305) 507-8506
         E-mail: anisley@btattorneys.com
                 jason@btattorneys.com

CLEVELAND PUBLIC: Energy Class Action Trial Scheduled for July 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Pagonakis, writing for News5Cleveland, reports that Steven
Vecker of Cleveland has been dealing with major questions about the
energy adjustment charge on his Cleveland Public Power bill for
years.

Vecker told News 5 he's always wondered what the charge was all
about but said each time he calls CPP to get a breakdown of the
charges and get an explanation he's left with more questions than
answers.

It's a charge that is under fire in an ongoing class-action lawsuit
filed nearly seven years ago, which alleges that buried in the
energy adjustment charge is an environmental charge that is in
violation of Cleveland city ordinance.

"When I called customer service, she just sort of flubbed it off,
well that's just an extra charge that we have, so what could I
say," Vecker said. "I don't get it, doesn't seem right does it.
When you look at my bill and then we travel down here and there's
this other charge, what is it called energy adjustment charge, it's
more than what I'm paying for the actual wattage or the electric."

Class-action lawsuit attorney Tom Merriman, with Merriman Legal,
told News 5 the case against CPP is set for a jury trial in
Cuyahoga County Court on July 25. Merriman said the lawsuit claims
CPP over-charged consumers some $130-million, allegedly using what
the lawsuit claims are a hidden charge. The lawsuit is asking that
CPP pay back millions to some 70,000 of its customers.

"We've been at this for almost seven years now," Merriman said.
"It's called an environmental adjustment and it's buried inside
another item on your bill called an energy adjustment. So the
consumer has no idea they're being charged this fee."

"It's illegal, it violates city ordinance. The environmental
adjustment was supposed to be about passing along the cost of
complying with environmental regulations. The city has admitted
none of this money has gone to comply with environmental
regulation."

"When you have two appellate courts that said this charge violates
your own ordinance, a legit business stops the practice, Mayor Bibb
has a great opportunity here to just stop charging this hidden fee
to people."

Cleveland Public Power responded immediately to our story and
explained the energy adjustment charge is "the charge by which CPP
recovers costs incurred by the purchase of electric power that CPP
sells to its customers."

But when News 5 issued a follow-up question concerning allegations
that an environmental charge is buried with the energy adjustment
charge, CPP did not deny the allegations. CPP simply issued a
statement saying "Cleveland Public Power has no comment on this
request as it is part of ongoing litigation."

News 5 asked the same questions to the office of Cleveland Mayor
Justin Bibb, but we're still waiting for a response.

Cleveland Councilman Brian Kazy, who is also the Chairman of the
Cleveland Utilities Committee, told News 5 CPP will be the subject
of a facilities-wide evaluation this summer and said the energy
adjustment charge will be part of that evaluation.

Meanwhile, consumers like Steven Vecker can only hope they'll have
more answers about the CPP energy adjustment charge in the coming
months.

"Why pay more than you have to, especially with energy costs which
are gasoline, natural gas, and your groceries, we don't need any
extra charges they shouldn't be charging us," Vecker said. "Let's
check into this, and if we've got money coming back, let's
straighten this out, we should be getting money back or change the
rate on it or something, let's do it." [GN]

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Fails to Properly Pay Laborers, Burian Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
HEIDI BURIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 2:22-cv-02108 (E.D.N.Y., April 12, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to pay timely wages and
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the New York Labor
Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a manual laborer in
Melville, New York in or around 2013 until December 2021.

Costco Wholesale Corporation is an American multinational
corporation which operates a chain of membership-only big-box
retail stores, with its principal place of business located in
Issaquah, Washington. [BN]

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

COURIER EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Sufficient Wages under FLSA & SCPWA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHANDEL HOFFMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. COURIER EXPRESS/CHARLOTTE, INC., and COURIER EXPRESS
FREIGHT, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01188-BHH (D.S.C., April 12, 2022)
is a collective action against the Defendant for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the South Carolina Payment of Wages
Act.

The Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, costs, and a reasonable attorneys’ fee, as a
result of the Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay
Plaintiff sufficient wages under the FLSA and the SCPWA.

The Defendant employed Plaintiff within the three years preceding
the filing of this lawsuit. Specifically, the Plaintiff worked for
Defendants as a Delivery Driver from November of 2021 until January
of 2022.

The Plaintiff's primary duties were to deliver packages for
Defendant. The Plaintiff was also required to load packages into
trucks at the beginning of each workday.

The Defendant owns and operates a package delivery service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob J Modla, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JASON E. TAYLOR, P.C.
          115 Elk Avenue
          Rock Hill, SC 29730
          Telephone: (803) 328-0898
          E-mail: jmodla@jasonetaylor.com

               - and -

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

CREDIT UNION: Faces Lucero ERISA Class Suit Over Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA L. LUCERO, HEATHER BARTON, ILONA KOMPANIIETS and CYNTHIA
HURTADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CREDIT UNION RETIREMENT PLAN ASSOCIATION, THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE CREDIT UNION RETIREMENT PLAN ASSOCIATION, THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CREDIT UNION RETIREMENT PLAN ASSOCIATION
and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 3:22-cv-00208 (W.D. Wis., April 12,
2022) is a class action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, against the Plan's fiduciaries, which
include the Credit Union Retirement Plan Association and the Board
of Directors of the Credit Union Retirement Plan Association and
its members during the Class Period and the Board of Trustees of
the Credit Union Retirement Plan Association and its members during
the Class Period.

The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period,
Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined
under ERISA.

The Defendants' alleged mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment
of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the
fiduciary duty of prudence, in violation of 29 U.S.C. section 1104.
Their actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary
and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars.

The Plaintiffs have standing to bring this action on behalf of the
Plan because they participated in the Plan and were injured by
Defendants' unlawful conduct.

CUNA is the Plan sponsor and a named fiduciary with a principal
place of business being 5710 Mineral Point Road, Madison,
Wisconsin.

To safeguard Plan participants and beneficiaries, ERISA imposes
strict fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence upon employers and
other plan fiduciaries. Fiduciaries must act "solely in the
interest of the participants and beneficiaries," with the "care,
skill, prudence, and diligence" that would be expected in managing
a plan of similar scope.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


CRONOS GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Cronos Group Inc. (NASDAQ: CRON) resulting from
allegations that Cronos may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Cronos securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=2704 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On November 9, 2021, Cronos filed a Form 8-K
with the SEC in which it disclosed that it had determined the
previous day that the Company would "be required to restate its
previously issued unaudited interim financial statements for the
three and six months ended June 30, 2021" and that "[t]he Company's
financial statements for this period should therefore no longer be
relied upon." On this news, Cronos' share price dropped nearly 16%,
damaging investors.

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

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

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


CYTODYN INC: Files Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit in Wash.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CytoDyn Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended February 28, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 11, 2022, that on February 25, 2022,
it filed a motion to dismiss an amended class action complaint
filed against it and certain of its current and former officers,
which alleges, among other things, that they made false or
misleading statements concerning the safety and efficacy of
leronlimab as a potential treatment for COVID-19.  

On March 17, 2021, a stockholder filed this putative class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington against the Company and certain current and former
officers. The complaint generally alleges the defendants made false
and misleading statements regarding the viability of leronlimab as
a potential treatment for COVID-19.

On April 9, 2021, a second stockholder filed a similar putative
class action lawsuit in the same court, which the plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on July 23, 2021. On August
9, 2021, the court appointed lead plaintiffs for the March 17, 2021
lawsuit.

On December 21, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which is brought on behalf of an alleged class of those who
purchased the Company’s common stock between March 27, 2020 and
May 17, 2021.  The amended complaint generally alleges that the
Company and certain current and former officers violated Sections
10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making purportedly false or
misleading statements concerning, among other things, the safety
and efficacy of leronlimab as a potential treatment for COVID-19,
the Company’s CD10 and CD12 clinical trials, and its HIV BLA.  

The amended complaint also alleges that the individual defendants
violated Section 20A of the Exchange Act by selling shares of the
Company’s common stock purportedly while in possession of
material nonpublic information.  The amended complaint seeks, among
other relief, a ruling that the case may proceed as a class action
and unspecified damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.

On February 25, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. The Company and the individual defendants deny
all allegations of wrongdoing in the complaint and intend to
vigorously defend the matter. Since this case is in an early stage
where the number of plaintiffs is not known, and the claims do not
specify an amount of damages, the Company is unable to predict the
ultimate outcome of the lawsuit and cannot reasonably estimate the
potential loss or range of loss the Company may incur.

CytoDyn, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company, which
engages in the development of innovative treatments for multiple
therapeutic indications based on leronlimab. Its product include
HIV, Cancer, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), and COVID-19. The
company was founded by Allen D. Allen on May 2, 2002 and is
headquartered in Vancouver, WA.

DAIRY FARMERS: Dairy Farmers File Antitrust Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Wilson Fay, writing for Law Street, reports that on April 4, a
group of dairy farmers filed a class action lawsuit in the District
of New Mexico against Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. (DFA), Select
Milk Producers, Inc. (Select Milk) and Greater Southwest Agency,
Inc. (GSA) alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

According to the complaint, the named plaintiffs, Othart Dairy
Farms, LLC, Pareo Farm, Inc., Pareo Farm II, Inc., Desertland
Dairy, LLC, Del Oro Dairy, LLC, Bright Star Dairy, LLC and Sunset
Dairy, LLC, marketed their raw Grade A milk through the dairy
cooperative defendants.

The complaint also states that DFA is a Kansas not-for-profit
organization and Select Milk is a New Mexico not-for-profit
marketing cooperative association and both are organized as
member-owned, non-profit dairy cooperatives, obligated to operate
for the benefit of their farmer-members. The complaint purports
that together DFA and Select Milk control at least 75% of the
Southwest dairy market.

Additionally, the complaint states that defendant GSA is a Texas
corporation that was formed by the three dairy cooperatives that
supply nearly 100% of all milk marketed in the Southwest through
cooperatives, DFA, Select Milk and Lone Star Milk Producers, to
market dairy products in the southwest. The complaint also states
that GSA shares its mailing address with DFA's Southwest Area
office.

Further, the complaint states that through the dairy cooperative
process the dairy farmer members are obligated to deliver all of
their milk to the cooperative to market on their behalf and in
return the cooperative must process and market the milk to obtain
the best price for the product.

The complaint purports that the vast majority of the milk marketed
in the southwest, approximately 85-90%, is marketed through a
cooperative. Further, the complaint notes that cooperatives like
DFA and Select Milk financially benefit from reducing raw milk
prices paid to farmers while maintaining the supply of as much raw
milk volume as possible.

In fact, the plaintiffs argue that the defendants have conspired in
violation of the Sherman Act to depress the price dairy farmers
receive in exchange for their raw milk that is delivered to the
defendants. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that DFA and Select
Milk conspired and colluded through GSA to fix and depress the
prices paid to Southwestern dairy farmers for the raw Grade A milk
they produced beginning in at least 2015.

The plaintiffs argue that as a result of the defendants' unlawful
conduct, the plaintiffs were artificially underpaid for the raw
Grade A milk they produced. Accordingly, the plaintiffs brought the
present case alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act and seeking class certification, declaratory and
injunctive relief, damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
attorney's fees and costs. The plaintiffs are represented by
Peifer, Hanson, Mullins & Baker, P.A., Lockridge Grindal Nauen
P.L.L.P. and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. [GN]

DAIRY FARMERS: New Mexico Dairies File Antitrust Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Dunlap, writing for Rosewell Daily Record, reports that New
Mexico dairies and cooperatives are embroiled in a federal class
action antitrust lawsuit that accuses two dairy cooperatives of
"artificially depressing" prices for at least seven years, causing
many dairy farmers to experience severe financial distress and even
bankruptcy as a result.

"Defendants' illegal conspiracy has substantially restrained
competition, forcing farmers to increasingly join DFA (Dairy
Farmers of America) or Select Milk. In so doing, Defendants have
depressed and fixed at artificially low prices the prices dairy
farmers receive for the raw Grade A milk they produce," states the
antitrust complaint filed April 4 in the U.S. District Court of New
Mexico.

Although the lawsuit is brought on behalf of all dairy producers in
the Southwest, the named plaintiffs include Othart Farms of
Veguita, Desertland Dairy LLC of Vado, and three dairies in
Mesquite: Del Oro Dairy LLC, Bright Star Dairy LLC and Sunset Dairy
LLC. Pareo Farm Inc. and Pareo Farm II Inc. of Veguita sold their
assets and closed down in 2021.

There are three named defendants. They are Dairy Farmers of America
Inc., the largest dairy cooperative in the United States with about
11,500 members nationwide and 252 in the southwestern U.S.; Select
Milk Producers Inc. based in Artesia, New Mexico, that has about
112 members, according to its website; and the marketing entity
Greater Southwest Agency, which includes Dairy Farmers and Select
Milk as members. Other alleged "co-conspirators" are named in the
suit as well.

Together, Dairy Farmers of America and Select Milk Producers
control 85% to 90% of all milk sales in the southwest region, the
lawsuit states. That region is defined as all of New Mexico, most
of Texas, the eastern portion of Arizona, the Oklahoma panhandle
and southwestern Kansas.

A jury trial has been requested, and the plaintiffs are asking
damages, attorney fees and interest, along with a finding that the
defendants violated antitrust laws.

Phone messages left with representatives of the companies had not
been returned.

The lawsuit gives a detailed explanation of the dairy industry and
its complicated pricing mechanisms. While the federal government
sets allowable pricing ceilings on a weekly basis, according to the
lawsuit, cooperatives are not required to pay those amounts. In
fact, according to the suit, because the cooperatives often control
other businesses, such as cheese or food manufacturing companies,
they have an incentive to pay as little for milk as they can. The
cooperatives also can affect pricing in other ways, including by
paying less for milk after dairies have reached ceilings on sales
established by the cooperatives and by choosing which purposes the
milk will be used for, with some purposes paying less than others.

Furthermore, the lawsuit contends, dairies or groups of dairies
that try to leave the cooperatives or sell separately from them
have faced retaliation or find that they cannot be competitive
because the cooperatives already have contracted with all the
purchasers in the area.

Although the lawyers contend that pricing information is not
available for Select Milk Producers, they stated in the lawsuit
that Dairy Farmers of America paid an annual average of anywhere
from $10.50 per hundredweight to $5.08 per hundredweight less to
dairies from 2015 to 2020 than the price they received for selling
the milk, with the average deficit for those years being $6.27 per
hundredweight.

Dairy Farmers of America also has decreased the percentage of
earnings it shares with members, the lawsuit states. In 2017, it
distributed 25% of its earnings before interest, taxes and
depreciation, $40 million. In 2020, the cooperative shared 8.9%,
$46 million.

The complaint calls the conduct of Dairy Farmers of America
"recidivist," saying the cooperative has paid large settlements on
other antitrust lawsuits. The lawsuit states that Dairy Farmers
joined with other defendants in a $158.6 million settlement on two
class action lawsuits in 2013, and it paid $50 million for another
settlement that same year. [GN]

DIAGEO PLC: Settles US Class Action Over Guinness Brew Origin
-------------------------------------------------------------
independent.ie reports that Diageo has settled a long-running US
class action over the marketing of a Guinness product in the US
after consumers complained it looked like it was made in Dublin,
despite being brewed in Canada.

The class action between lead plaintiff Kieran O'Hara and Diageo
started in 2015 and was recently resolved following mediation.

In his court complaint from 2015, O'Hara alleged the outer
packaging of Guinness Extra Stout sold in stores at the time could
lead consumers to believe it was brewed in the St James' Gate
brewery in Dublin.

The complaint said Guinness Extra Stout was brewed in New
Brunswick, Canada, with the location noted in small print on the
side of the bottles.

He said he bought the product at a "premium price" because he
thought it was from Dublin, claiming he and other consumers had
been damaged.

The Salem News said around $770,000 (EUR706,000) was set aside to
reimburse customers. The rest will go to the lawyers, $1.3m in
legal fees and costs.

Diageo did not admit liability or wrongdoing.

"We are pleased both sides could come together to resolve this
matter," said a Diageo spokesperson.

Lawyer Kevin McCullough, who represented O'Hara and others in the
class action, told US media that the two sides sat down with a
mediator and worked out the settlement.

McCullough said at least 23,000 people submitted claims before the
deadline last year.[GN]

DOCTOR'S BEST: Settles Glucosamine False Advertising Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Doctor's Best agreed to settle class
action claims it falsely advertises its glucosamine supplements as
containing glucosamine suflate, and Class Members can claim up to
$25 with no proof of purchase.

The settlement benefits consumers who purchased certain Doctor's
Best glucosamine supplements between July 22, 2016, and Feb. 28,
2022. Products included in the settlement are:

-- Doctor's Best Glucosamine Sulfate 750mg
-- Vegan Glucosamine Sulfate 750mg
-- Synergistic Glucosamine MSM
-- Glucosamine Chondroitin MSM
-- Vegan Glucosamine Chondroitin MSM
-- and Glucosamine Chondroitin MSM + Hyaluronic Acid

Glucosamine supplements are commonly used to help with painful
conditions such as arthritis, according to the Mayo Clinic. Not all
glucosamine supplements are made equal, with glucosamine sulfate
being the premier form of glucosamine based on clinical research.
Doctor's Best is one brand that offers glucosamine supplements to
consumers to help with these conditions.

Although Doctor's Best is a widely used brand of glucosamine
supplement, a class action lawsuit against the company claims the
brand intentionally misrepresents its supplements as containing
glucosamine sulfate. In reality, the supplements allegedly contain
less effective ingredients including glucosamine hydrochloride and
potassium sulfate.

Plaintiffs say that they paid a higher price for Doctor's Best
glucosamine supplements based on advertising that the products
contained glucosamine sulfate. Because these representations were
false, consumers overpaid for the supplements and suffered from
financial injury, the class action lawsuit contends.

The Doctor's Best class action lawsuit sought relief under various
consumer protection laws including the California Unfair
Competition Law, California' False Advertising Law, and the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Doctor's Best hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to resolve
these allegations with a class action settlement.

Under the terms of the deal, Class Members can recover partial
refunds for purchases of Doctor's Best glucosamine supplements.

With proof of purchase such as receipts, Class Members can collect
a 60 percent refund for each purchased product, limited to 12
products claimed per household.

Without any proof of purchase, Class Members can still recover a
settlement payment of $5 per purchased product, limited to five
products per household and a maximum payment of $25.

The settlement provides more than just monetary benefits.

Under the settlement terms, Doctor's Best will not represent that
its supplements contain glucosamine sulfate on any labels,
marketing, or advertising material. The company will follow these
requirements for three years.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 10, 2022.

The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for July
8, 2022.

In order to receive benefits from the settlement, Class Members
must submit a valid claim form by June 14, 2022.

Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits consumers who purchased certain Doctor's
Best glucosamine supplements between July 22, 2016, and Feb. 28,
2022. Products included in the settlement are:

Doctor's Best Glucosamine Sulfate 750mg
Vegan Glucosamine Sulfate 750mg
Synergistic Glucosamine MSM
Glucosamine Chondroitin MSM
Vegan Glucosamine Chondroitin MSM
and Glucosamine Chondroitin MSM + Hyaluronic Acid
Potential Award
Up to $25

Proof of Purchase
If you have proof of purchase, send it with the claim form.

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

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

Claim Form Deadline
06/14/2022

Case Name
Sharae Casey v. Doctor's Best Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-01325-JLS-JDE,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Final Hearing
06/08/2022

Settlement Website
DoctorsBestGlucosamineSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Sharae Casey v. Doctor's Best, Inc.
c/o Kroll Settlement Administration, LLC
PO Box 225391
New York, NY 10150-5391
833-620-3614
Class Counsel
Jonathan M. Rotter Esq.
Danielle L. Manning Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP

Carl L. Stine Esq.
Matthew Insley-Pruitt Esq.
PHILIP M. BLACK WOLF POPPER LLP

Defense Counsel
Ashley Simonsen Esq.
Cortlin Lannin Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP [GN]

DRAKES: Settles Underpayment Class Action for $2 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert Stockdill, writing for Inside FMCG, reports that Drakes, the
independent supermarket business, has reached a settlement with the
law firm leading a class action on behalf of staff allegedly
underpaid between 2014 and 2020.

Subject to approval by the Federal Court, Drakes will pay $1.455
million to current and former managers who allege underpayment,
along with a further $590,000 in penalties and interest.  

The liability may rise further with eligible staff allowed to
register claims up until May 6.

The settlement resulted from mediation between the law firm Adero
Law and Drakes that took place late last year.

Adero Law is running multiple class-action suits against
supermarkets and other retailers, including a massive case against
Coles and supermarkets that, together with Fair Work Ombudsman
litigation, could run to almost $500 million. That claim impacts
28,000 staff of the two companies and is set to be heard over a
seven-week Federal Court hearing in June next year.

Last year, Woolworths agreed to a $50 million settlement over one
case, but that was suspended and later abandoned after the court
said it would not be approved -- citing a concurrent case brought
by the FWO.

When Adero Law launched the class action against Drakes two years
ago it estimated about 1000 current and former staff of the
retailer could be owed underpayments totalling as much as $20
million.

Adero Law reached a settlement agreement with another independent
grocery chain, Romeo's Retail Group, last December. Both
settlements will be ruled on by the Federal Cout on June 14.

Meanwhile, the firm is pursuing a similar action against
convenience store operator OTR. [GN]

ELANCO ANIMAL: Seresto Flea Collar Class Actions Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that if
there is one thing consumers are protective of, it's their pets.
With April being National Canine Fitness Month, the health of our
four-legged furry friends is once again coming first.

Consumers are certainly not afraid to hold pet companies
accountable, either, with class action lawsuits recently filed over
allegations of dangerous collars and products and falsely
advertised dog food and shampoo ingredients. A number of recalls
have also been initiated recently over contaminated dog food.

With that in mind, Top Class Actions is looking at the pet
products, which, according to recent class action lawsuits and
recalls, make them the worst on the market.

Seresto Flea Collar Connected to Thousands of Pet Deaths
Seresto first came under fire in March 2021 after a Congressional
Subcommittee report linked its popular Seresto flea & tick collars
to nearly 1,700 pet deaths and more than 75,000 incidences of harm
since they were introduced in 2012 by former owner Bayer.

The subcommittee's findings came from documents disclosed by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which revealed the flea &
tick collars were also linked to almost 1,000 incidents of causing
human harm.

Now owned by Elanco Animal Health, Seresto flea & tick collars work
by continually releasing low amounts of pesticide onto its wearer
for eight months to kill the insects and arachnids.

A class action lawsuit filed by a pet owner in May 2021; however,
claims the pesticides released in the Seresto collars aren't just
killing ticks and fleas but harming pets and their owners, as well.


The class action lawsuit references the EPA's findings while
arguing the pesticides in the collar can cause pets to suffer from
rash, seizure or death.

Another class action lawsuit was filed in April 2021, targeting
both Bayer and Elanco with claims the companies knew when selling
the collars that it could kill the pets who wore them.

Purina, Blue Buffalo, Simply Nourish Dog Foods Have All Faced False
Advertising Claims

Class action lawsuits were also filed last year against dog food
manufacturers Nestle Purina and Blue Buffalo over claims the
companies falsely advertised the contents of their pet foods.

In September 2021, a group of three pet owners claimed Nestle
Purina misrepresented some of its limited-ingredient dog foods as
being free of grain and soy.

Pet owners argued the dog food products, which included Purina Pro
Plan and Purina Beneful brands, actually contained wheat or soy
despite the representations.

Blue Buffalo, meanwhile, was accused by a class of Canadian pet
owners in April 2021 of falsely advertising that its pet foods are
healthier than other brands.

Canadian pet owners argued there was "no scientific basis" to Blue
Buffalo's "True Blue Promise," which states its pet foods contain
no corn, poultry byproduct meal, wheat, soy or artificial
preservatives, colors or flavors.

Simply Nourish was also accused of false marketing when, in March
2020, a pet owner claimed its pet food products were not actually
"natural" as the company advertised.

The pet owner argued that, despite being labeled as "natural,"
Simply Nourish pet food actually contains artificial ingredients,
including folic acid and niacin, among other things.

Several of the claims against Simply Nourish were later dismissed
in January 2021.

Fromm, Freshpet, Sunshine Mills, Hill's Pet Nutrition Dog Food
Recalls

A number of dog food recalls were initiated last year over
contamination concerns.

Most recently, Nationwide voluntarily recalled in September four of
its Fromm Four-Star Nutritional Shredded canned dog foods over
concerns they contained elevated levels of Vitamin D.

The recall ultimately took 5,500 cases of Nationwide's Fromm
Four-Star Nutritional Shredded canned dog foods off the shelves.

Freshpet also initiated a recall last year, when, in June, it
recalled a single lot of its Freshpet Select Small Dog Bite Size
Beef & Egg Recipe Dog Food over concerns it was contaminated with
salmonella.

The company claimed it meant to destroy the recalled product before
it was originally sent out, but that some packages were
"inadvertently shipped" to retailers anyway.

That same month, salmonella contamination concerns led Sunshine
Mills to initiate a voluntary recall for several of its dog food
products, including Sportsman's Pride, Sprout Sporting, Intimidator
and FRM Gold Select dog foods.

Sunshine Mills initiated the recall after a sample of its Sprout
Sporting dog food tested positive for the dangerous bacteria.

Salmonella contamination, along with listeria monocytogenes, also
led Bravo Packing Inc. to conduct a recall for several of its dog
food and bone products in March 2021.

Going back to 2019, pet owners came together to discuss how they
were affected by a Hill's Pet Nutrition recall done on account of
elevated Vitamin D levels in several of the companies Prescription
Diet and Science Diet dog food products.

Aldi, Burt's Bees Face Recalls, Class Actions Over Pet Products
In January, Aldi announced it was voluntarily recalling its Pure
Being Cat Advent Calendars and Pure Being Dog Advent Calendars
after determining they presented a choking hazard.

Aldi said it was initiating the recall out of an "abundance of
caution" while reassuring consumers that none of its other products
were affected.

In June 2021, meanwhile, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Burt's Bees over claims the company falsely advertised its dog
shampoo as being "99.7 percent natural."

Pet owners claim that, rather than being nearly entirely natural,
Burt's Bees dog shampoos are mostly made up of synthetic
ingredients, including coco betaine. [GN]

ELLUME USA: Faces Class Action Over Recalled COVID-19 Tests
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Raphael, Esq., and Jessica Gilbert, Esq., of Crowell, report
that class actions following a product recall often focus on what
the company allegedly knew before its products were taken off the
market. But this is not always the case. A company can also come
under fire for its actions after the recall and, specifically, what
recourse it offers to consumers of recalled products.

On October 5, 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
alerted the public of a manufacturing issue with certain lots of
Ellume USA LLC's ("Ellume") COVID-19 Home Tests that had could lead
to false positive results, and several weeks later, the FDA
announced a Class I recall of these tests based on the
higher-than-acceptable false positive test result. When it comes to
COVID-19, a false positive could lead to delayed diagnosis and
treatment of the actual cause of illness; further spread of COVID
19 when presumed positive people are grouped based on false test
results; unnecessary COVID-19 treatment from health care providers,
such as antiviral treatment, convalescent plasma, or monoclonal
antibody treatment, which can result in side effects; disregard for
the recommended precautions against COVID-19, including
vaccination; and isolation, monitoring household or close contacts
for symptoms, limiting contact with family or friends, and missing
school or work.

Now, nearly six months after the FDA recall, Ellume is facing a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland. On March 22, 2022, two consumers from Indiana and Ohio
filed Karen Kerschen et al., v. Ellume USA LLC, 1:22-cv-00704 (D.
Md.), alleging that Ellume refused to refund purchasers of the
recalled COVID tests. In the complaint, plaintiffs allege they were
personally affected by false positive test results, which led them
to cancel, change, and/or delay travel plans, and incur costs for
additional tests. Plaintiffs assert claims for unjust enrichment on
behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of purchasers of the
Ellume COVID tests recalled in October and November 2021. In the
alternative, plaintiffs seek to represent two-state specific
classes of Indiana and Ohio purchasers.

Ellume is not the only company facing scrutiny for its actions
following an FDA recall. Over nine months ago, Philips Respironics
("Philips") initiated a recall of ventilators, continuous positive
airway pressure (CPAP) and bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP)
machines. And on March 10, 2022, the FDA sent Philips a 518(a)
Notification Order mandating that Philips improve its communication
about the recall and the serious risk posed by the PE-PUR sound
abatement foam used in the recalled products. The FDA's Order
states that it continues to hear from patients and medical
equipment suppliers who are unaware of the recall and/or have
received insufficient information about next steps. Among other
things, Philips has 45 days to (1) notify all device users, durable
medical equipment suppliers, importers, distributors, retailers,
and health professionals who prescribe the device about the
potential health risks of using these sleep apnea and ventilator
machines, (2) display this information prominently on its website,
and (3) provide a link for healthcare providers and registrants to
access available testing results and findings. According to the
Notification Order, failure to comply is a "prohibited act" under
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which could result in
fines and penalties. And if the FDA determines that its
Notification Order is not sufficient, it is also entitled to take
legal action though seizure, injunction or prosecution, or through
regulation of, or regulations or bans of the sale, distribution, or
use of the recalled products. [GN]

EMBARK TECHNOLOGY: Gainey McKenna Reminds of May 31 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on April 5 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Embark Technology, Inc. f/k/a
Northern Genesis Acquisition Corp. II (NASDAQ: EMBK) (NASDAQ:
EMBKW) (NASDAQ: NGAB) (NASDAQ: NGAB.U) (NASDAQ: NGAB.WS) ("Embark"
or the "Company") in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of investors who
purchased Embark stock between January 12, 2021 and January 5,
2022, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Embark
should contact the Firm prior to the May 31, 2022 lead plaintiff
motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M.
Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or
via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]

EMBARK TECHNOLOGY: Glancy Prongay Reminds of May 31 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a leading national shareholder
rights law firm, on April 11 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Embark Technology, Inc. f/k/a Northern Genesis Acquisition
Corp. II ("Embark" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EMBK) securities
between January 12, 2021 and January 5, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Embark investors have until May 31, 2022 to file a lead
plaintiff motion.

If you suffered a loss on your Embark investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/embark-technology-inc/. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On November 10, 2021, Northern Genesis Acquisition Corp. II, a
special purpose acquisition company, combined with Embark Trucks
Inc. ("Legacy Embark") and the combined entity was renamed Embark
Technology, Inc. (the "Business Combination").

On January 6, 2022, The Bear Cave published a report which alleged,
among other things, that Embark "appears to lack true economic
substance" and that it's "current evaluation appears to be based on
puffery rather than actual substance." The report claimed that the
Company "holds no patents, has only a dozen or so test trucks, and
may be more bark than bite."

On this news, Embark's stock fell $1.37, or 16.75%, to close at
$6.81 per share on January 6, 2022, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) the Company had performed inadequate due diligence into
Legacy Embark; (2) Legacy Embark and the Company following the
Business Combination held no patents and an insignificant amount of
test trucks; (3) accordingly, the Company had overstated its
operational and technological capabilities; (4) as a result of all
the foregoing, the Company had overstated the business and
financial prospects of the Company post-Business Combination; and
(5) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Embark securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than May 31, 2022 to
ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of
the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent
member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action,
or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite
2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]

EMBARK TECHNOLOGY: Robbins Geller Reminds of May 31 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on April 10
disclosed that purchasers or acquirers of Embark Technology, Inc.
(NASDAQ: EMBK; EMBKW) f/k/a Northern Genesis Acquisition Corp. II
(NYSE: NGAB.U, NGAB, and NGAB WS) securities between January 12,
2021 and January 5, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period")
have until May 31, 2022 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in
Hardy v. Embark Technology, Inc. f/k/a Northern Genesis Acquisition
Corp. II, No. 22-cv-02090 (N.D. Cal.). Commenced on April 1, 2022,
the Embark class action lawsuit charges Embark as well as certain
of its top executive officers with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you suffered significant losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Embark class action lawsuit, please provide your
information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney J.C.
Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Embark class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than May 31,
2022.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Embark develops self-driving software solutions
for the trucking industry in the United States. Embark, originally
named Northern Genesis Acquisition Corp. II, was a special purpose
acquisition company ("SPAC" or blank check company). On November
10, 2021, Embark merged with Embark Trucks Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Legacy Embark"), pursuant to which Embark changed its
name to "Embark Technology, Inc." (the "Business Combination").

The Embark class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that: (i) Embark had performed inadequate due diligence
into Legacy Embark; (ii) Legacy Embark and Embark following the
Business Combination held no patents and an insignificant amount of
test trucks; (iii) accordingly, Embark had overstated its
operational and technological capabilities; (iv) as a result of all
the foregoing, Embark had overstated the business and financial
prospects of Embark post-Business Combination; and (v) as a result,
Embark public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On January 6, 2022, The Bear Cave published a research report
alleging, among other things, "that Embark appears to lack true
economic substance" and that its "current evaluation appears to be
based on puffery rather than actual substance," noting that "[t]he
company holds no patents, has only a dozen or so test trucks, and
may be more bark than bite." On this news, Embark's share price
declined by more than 16%, damaging investors.

Robbins Geller has launched a dedicated SPAC Task Force to protect
investors in blank check companies and seek redress for corporate
malfeasance. Comprised of experienced litigators, investigators,
and forensic accountants, the SPAC Task Force is dedicated to
rooting out and prosecuting fraud on behalf of injured SPAC
investors. The rise in blank check financing poses unique risks to
investors. Robbins Geller's SPAC Task Force represents the vanguard
of ensuring integrity, honesty, and justice in this rapidly
developing investment arena.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Embark
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Embark class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is
generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the class action lawsuit. The
lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery of the class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading complex class action firms
representing plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. The Firm is
ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50
Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for investors last year
alone – more than triple the amount recovered by any other
plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller's
attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history, including the largest securities class
action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec.
Litig. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.

Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.

Contact:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]

EVENTIDE CREDIT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Duggan Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANA DUGGAN, individually and on behalf of persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MATT MARTORELLO and EVENTIDE
CREDIT ACQUISITIONS, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-12277-JGD
(D. Mass.), Magistrate Judge Judith Gail Dein of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts denied the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19.

I. Background

The lawsuit is a putative class action in which the Plaintiff
Duggan claims that the Defendants Martorello and his company,
Eventide, engaged in an internet-based predatory lending scheme in
which they charged Duggan and other consumers unconscionably high
interest rates, often exceeding 500%, for short-term loans.
According to Duggan, Martorello and Eventide sought to evade state
and federal laws prohibiting usurious lending practices by
partnering with the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
Indians ("LVD" or the "Tribe") to set up a lending entity.

Under this so-called "rent-a-tribe" scheme, LVD, through a company
known as Big Picture Loans, LLC, allegedly acted as the nominal
lender while Martorello and Eventide operated and exercised actual
control over the lending business under the cloak of the Tribe's
sovereign immunity. Duggan claims that this arrangement enabled the
Defendants to take advantage of the privileges and immunities
available to Native American tribes to carry out their fraudulent
enterprise and enrich themselves at the expense of borrowers.

By her Second Amended Class Action Complaint, Duggan has asserted
claims against Martorello and Eventide for violations of
Massachusetts lending, licensing and consumer protection laws,
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1961, et seq. ("RICO"), unjust enrichment
and declaratory judgment. Additionally, Duggan is seeking to
certify a class and a subclass of similarly situated borrowers
residing in Massachusetts and in other states around the country.

The matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. By their motion, the
Defendants argue that LVD, Big Picture Loans and Ascension
Technologies, LLC, an affiliate of Big Picture Loans, are necessary
and indispensable parties to the action pursuant to Rule 19 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They further argue that LVD, Big
Picture Loans and Ascension (collectively, the "Tribal Entities")
cannot be joined because they are arms of the Tribe who are
protected from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, and
that the inability to join indispensable parties warrants the
dismissal of the case.

II. Analysis

The Defendants have moved to dismiss Duggan's claims, pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 19, on the grounds that the Tribal Entities "are
necessary and indispensable parties to the action, but cannot be
joined due to their sovereign immunity." "Rule 19 addresses
situations where a lawsuit is proceeding without a party whose
interests are central to the suit." It "provides for joinder of
required parties when feasible, Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a), and for
dismissal of suits when joinder of a required party is not feasible
and that party is indispensable, Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b)." In
determining whether a party is required and indispensable under
Rule 19, the court is expected "to make pragmatic, practical
judgments that are heavily influenced by the facts" of the specific
case.

As Rule 19(a) provides in relevant part: (1) Required Party. A
person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will
not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined
as a party if: (A) in that person's absence, the court cannot
accord complete relief among existing parties; or (B) that person
claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so
situated that disposing of the action in the person's absence may:
(i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to
protect the interest; or (ii) leave an existing party subject to a
substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise
inconsistent obligations because of the interest. Fed. R. Civ. P.
19(a). The party raising a Rule 19 defense has the burden "to show
that the absent party is needed for a just adjudication" of the
case.

The first question to be addressed under Rule 19(a) is whether the
Court can provide the existing parties with "complete relief" in
the absence of the Tribal Entities. The Defendants do not seriously
dispute that the Court can do so. Therefore, Judge Dein turns to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B) and its two subparts.

Judge Dein finds that where a party is aware of an action and
chooses not to claim an interest, the district court does not err
by holding that joinder is unnecessary." The Tribal Entities'
settlement "is the best evidence that their absence would not
impair or impede their ability to protect their interests." In
addition to the fact that the Tribal Entities chose to settle
Duggan's claims rather than remain in the case and defend Duggan's
challenge with respect to the Loan Agreements, "this is not an
action to set aside a contract or for breach of contract." The
Defendants have not shown that the Tribal Entities should be joined
on this basis.

The Defendants also argue that the Tribe is a necessary party
because proceeding in its absence will impair its ability to
protect its sovereign and economic interests. Thus, they assert
that "adjudicating the validity of tribal choice of law and forum
selection provisions without the Tribe will impair its sovereign
interests in making and enforcing its laws." They also contend that
the Tribe's economic interest in the continued operations of Big
Picture Loans' lending operations, and the interest in avoiding a
judgment that would negatively impact its lending business, further
supports its status as a necessary party in the case.

Judge Dein finds these arguments unpersuasive. She holds that the
Tribal Entities' decision to settle Duggan's claims against them,
instead of remaining in the case and defending those claims on the
grounds of sovereign immunity, defeats the Defendants' argument
that litigating without them will impair or impede those parties'
interests. As the District Court stated in Smith v. Martorello, No.
3:18cv-1651-AC, 2021 WL 1257941, at *1 (D. Or. Jan. 5, 2021), "it
is not for Martorello or Eventide to decide what infringes on a
Tribe's sovereign immunity, when the Tribe and its affiliated
entities have not elected to rely on that immunity." The same holds
true for the Tribe's economic interests. Accordingly, the
Defendants have not shown that the Tribal Entities are necessary or
required parties under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a), and their motion to
dismiss under Rule 19 must be denied.

III. Conclusion

Judge Dein concludes that the Tribal Entities are no strangers to
the litigation. Either they or their members were previously joined
as defendants in the case but were dismissed voluntarily following
a settlement with the Plaintiff. Judge Dein finds that as a result,
and for the additional reasons she described, the Tribal Entities
cannot be deemed necessary or indispensable parties to the action
under Rule 19. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss is
denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2022 Memorandum of
Decision & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/8xfurn4m from
Leagle.com.


EVERBRIDGE INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Potential Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Everbridge, Inc.
("Everbridge" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EVBG) and reminds
investors of the June 3, 2022 deadline to seek the role of lead
plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed
against the Company.

If you suffered losses exceeding $250,000 investing in Everbridge
stock or options between November 4, 2019 and February 24, 2022 and
would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi
partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext.
1310). You may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/EVBG.

There is no cost or obligation to you.

Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania,
California and Georgia.

As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1)
failed to disclose that Everbridge was experiencing integration
problems with respect to these acquisitions; (2) used the revenues
from these acquisitions to mask increasingly stagnant organic
growth; and (3) failed to disclose that the COVID pandemic was
having a material impact on the size of the deals that Everbridge
was able to obtain, with a negative effect on the Company's revenue
growth.

The truth regarding Everbridge's failed growth strategy was
partially revealed through a press release issued on December 9,
2021. On that date, the Company disclosed that Defendant David
Meredith had unexpectedly resigned as Everbridge's CEO. The Company
also provided 2022 revenue growth guidance of between 20-23%, well
below the expected baseline of 30%. On this news, Everbridge's
common stock price fell almost by half, a price decline of $52.37
per share, or 45.4 percent, to close at $63.00 per share on
December 10, 2021.

Then, on February 24, 2022, the full truth was revealed. On that
date, Everbridge announced its financial results for the fourth
quarter and full year 2021, as well as its guidance for the first
quarter and full year 2022. As to revenue, the Company guided only
20% growth in the first quarter of 2022 and a scant 15-17% growth
for the full year, even lower than the disappointing guidance
previously issued in December 2021.

Further, in the related earnings call that same day, the new
interim co-CEO, Vernon Irvin, disclosed for the first time, despite
prior representations to the contrary, that "these products and
businesses" obtained from Everbridge's buying binge "have created
incremental product line complexity that produce integration
challenges and have complicated our go-to-market efforts." He also
stated that Everbridge will pause engaging in any new M&A activity
to focus on product integration, as well as significantly
"simplify" and reduce its product offerings.

Defendant Patrick Brickley, the other interim co-CEO and CFO,
stated that the focus on product integration and simplification
would alone result in an approximate $17 million of revenue loss.
Brickley also disclosed that the decline in deal sizes "has been
exacerbated by lingering effects of COVID," and that it would
result in another $15 million reduction in revenues. On all this
news, Everbridge's common stock price fell another $15.68 per
share, or 33.9 percent, to close at $30.61 per share on February
25, 2022.

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

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Everbridge's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN]

EVERBRIDGE INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds of June 3 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on April 6 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Everbridge, Inc. ("Everbridge" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: EVBG) in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on behalf of investors who
purchased Everbridge stock between November 4, 2019 and February
24, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was
experiencing integration problems with respect to its acquiring
nine separate companies; (2) the Company was using the revenues
from these acquisitions to mask increasingly stagnant organic
growth; and (3) the Company was failing to disclose that the
COVID-19 pandemic was having a material impact on the size of the
deals that the Company was able to obtain, with a negative effect
on the Company's revenue growth. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Everbridge
should contact the Firm prior to the June 3, 2022 lead plaintiff
motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  If
you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M.
Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or
via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]

EVERBRIDGE INC: Robbins LLP Discloses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Class: Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds
investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Everbridge, Inc. (NASDAQ: EVBG) securities between, November 4,
2019 and February 24, 2022, for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. 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.

If you would like more information about Everbridge, Inc.'s
misconduct, click https://robbinsllp.com/everbridge-inc-bw/.

What is this Case About: Everbridge, Inc. (EVBG) Misled Investors
Regarding its Ability to Integrate Recently Purchased Companies and
Their Offerings

According to the complaint, Everbridge acquired nine companies
shortly before and during the class period. Throughout the class
period, defendants misled investors regarding its ability to
integrate the new acquisitions and expectations of revenue growth.


The truth about Everbridge's failings was partially revealed on
December 9, 2021, when the Company disclosed the resignation of its
CEO, without providing a reason for the decision. The Company also
provided 2022 revenue growth guidance of between 20%-23%, well
below the expected baseline of 30%. On this news, Everbridge's
common stock fell over 45%, or $52.37 per share.

Then, on February 24, 2022, Everbridge announced disappointing
financial results for the fourth quarter and full year 2021, and
even lower guidance for the first quarter and full year 2022. In so
doing, one new interim co-CEO revealed the integration challenges
resulting from the buying binge and noted that Everbridge will
pause engaging in any new M&A activity to focus on product
integration, as well as significantly "simplify" and reduce its
product offerings. The other interim co-CEO noted that focus on
product integration and simplification would alone result in an
approximate $17 million of revenue loss and the decline in deal
sizes would result in another $15 million reduction in revenues. On
this news, Everbridge's common stock price fell another $15.68 per
share, or 33.9%, to close at $30.61 per share on February 25,
2022.

Next Steps: If you acquired shares of Everbridge, Inc. (EVBG)
between November 4, 2019 and February 24, 2022, you have until June
3, 2022, to ask the court to appoint you lead plaintiff for the
class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have
to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses. [GN]

EVERBRIDGE INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of June 3 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on April 6
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Everbridge, Inc. (NASDAQ: EVBG)
between November 4, 2019 and February 24, 2022, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 3, 2022.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Everbridge class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3095 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 3, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Everbridge was experiencing
integration problems with respect to its acquiring nine separate
companies; (2) the Company was using the revenues from these
acquisitions to mask increasingly stagnant organic growth; and (3)
the Company was failing to disclose that the COVID-19 pandemic was
having a material impact on the size of the deals that Everbridge
was able to obtain, with a negative effect on the Company's revenue
growth. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Everbridge class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3095 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

FACEBOOK INC: Judge Won't Completely Close Out BIPA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
federal judge in San Francisco won't completely close out a class
action based on allegations Facebook violated an Illinois privacy
law when it allowed photographs to be uploaded without the consent
of people pictured who didn't have accounts with the social media
giant.

U.S. District Judge James Donato issued the opinion March 31 in a
case he wrote substantially "overlaps with the facts and law" of a
case that ended in early 2021 with a $650 million settlement for
Illinois residents with Facebook accounts based on allegations the
platform's photo-tagging system violated the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

Donato, who also presided over that litigation, said the complaint
from named plaintiff Clayton Zellmer is distinct because its class
would include Illinoisans who never had a Facebook account or used
services of the company now known as Meta. But as in the settled
class action, the heart of Zellmer's claims is a Facebook algorithm
that relies on facial recognition technology.

"Since Zellmer filed the complaint in this case, Facebook has
abandoned the tagging functionality pursuant to the settlement
agreement," Donato wrote.

Allegations common to both complaints are that Facebook didn't
obtain written authorization from those being tagged before it
scanned their images and created a template assigned to their name,
and further that Facebook didn't provide notice to users before
conducting the tag suggestion facial scans.

Facebook requested summary judgment on Zellmer's complaint, which
Donato granted as relates to BIPA's notification and consent
requirements.

"The reason is straightforward," Donato wrote. "It would be
patently unreasonable to construe BIPA to mean that Facebook was
required to provide notice to, and obtain consent from, non-users
who were for all practical purposes total strangers to Facebook,
and with whom Facebook had no relationship whatsoever."

He further said filings from Facebook and Zellmer "devoted
substantial effort" to questions over whether facial scans are
biometric "identifiers" or "information" under BIPA, and whether
the company "collects" or "possesses" those scans. But even reading
things in Zellmer's favor, Donato explained, his allegations read
BIPA's protections too broadly.

"The Illinois Legislature clearly contemplated that BIPA would
apply in situations where a business had at least some measure of
knowing contact with and awareness of the people subject to
biometric data collection," Donato wrote. "The legislative findings
emphasize that BIPA is intended to apply to interactions between
businesses and their customers."

Taking Zellmer's position, Donato continued, would essentially mean
Meta would have to "identify every non-user in Illinois on a
regular basis, and figure out a way to communicate with them to
provide notice and obtain consent." He rejected Zellmer's ideas for
how this could be accomplished, such as "deputizing" users to
affirm non-users consented to having their faces scanned in
uploaded pictures or to apply facial scanning only when Facebook
users had written permission from everyone in a picture.

"This too is not consonant with the plain language of BIPA, and
immediately raises an insurmountable practical problem for the
myriad of photos taken in restaurants, vacation destinations,
school graduations and countless other settings where unknown
people will appear in a picture," Donato wrote. "There is no
realistic way for the person posting the photo to obtain consent
from every stranger whose face happened to be caught on camera. It
may be, as Zellmer suggests, that Amazon and Shutterfly have such
policies, but that does not mean those policies satisfy BIPA, or
are otherwise legally sound. Simply pointing to other policies also
does not provide an answer to the problems the court has
identified."

However, Donato refused summary judgment on Zellmer's allegation
Facebook lacked a written, publicly available data retention
policy. He said Zellmer contests Facebook's evidence concerning
such a policy and its past actions, such as claims it deleted
facial signatures if it determined there wasn't a match to an
existing template, and determined such "quintessential disputes of
material facts" must be resolved at trial.

Donato set a status conference for May 26, at which time both sides
should expect to discuss if the lack of a public policy meeting
BIPA requirements would be a single violation warranting one pool
of liquidated or actual damages or if another remedy would be
appropriate.

Zellmer has been represented in the case by attorneys David P.
Milian, John C. Carey and Jennifer M. Hernandez, of the firm of
Carey Rodriguez Milian, of Miami; and Albert Y. Chang, of Bottini &
Bottini, of LaJolla, California.

Facebook has been represented by attorneys Lauren R. Goldman,
Michael Rayfield and Matthew D. Provance, of the firm of Mayer
Brown, with offices in Chicago and New York; and Michael G. Rhodes
and Whitty Somvichian, of Cooley LLP, of San Francisco. [GN]

FACEBOOK INC: Miller Thomson Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
George A.G. Anderson, Esq., of Miller Thomson LLP, in an article
for Mondaq, reports that companies often require individuals to
provide access to their personal data in order to access products
and services. In some circumstances, an individual's digital
footprint and data might be shared with a third party either
intentionally or unintentionally. These situations can lead to
allegations that a personal data breach has occurred giving rise to
a potential class action. Which in turn, may trigger a data breach
or cyber security insurance policy.

In determining whether to certify an alleged privacy breach as a
class action, the courts may be required to determine whether the
claim can proceed where there is insufficient evidence to prove
that a company, without the authorization of the end-user,
intentionally or recklessly breached and invaded the end-user's
privacy. In Simpson v. Facebook, Inc., 2022 ONSC 1284, the
Divisional Court considered this issue in relation to a proposed
class action alleging the personal data of Canadian Facebook users
was improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica.

The Certification
In Simpson v. Facebook, 2021 ONSC 968, the plaintiff moved to
certify a proposed class action against Facebook for improperly
sharing Facebook users' personal data with Cambridge Analytica
which was in breach of Facebook's own terms of use and an invasion
of privacy of thousands of Facebook users. Relying on the tort of
"intrusion upon seclusion" the Plaintiff sought to hold Facebook
accountable through $622 million in "symbolic or moral damages" and
$62 million in punitive damages on behalf of the class.

The certification was dismissed by Justice Belobaba of the Ontario
Superior Court for failure to satisfy the common issues
requirements of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992. In particular, the
requirement that "some evidence" was required to demonstrate that a
Canadian user's personal data was shared with Cambridge
Analytica2:

It follows that there is no basis in fact for any of the proposed
common issues that ask whether the defendants invaded any class
member's privacy, whether at common law under the tort of intrusion
upon seclusion or in breach of provincial privacy statutes. None of
these PCIs can be certified. Absent common issues, there is no
justification for a class proceeding.

Justice Belobaba reiterated the importance of protecting the
privacy of individuals and their personal data, while at the same
time acknowledging the court's role as a gatekeeper for allowing
class actions to proceed.

The Appeal
The plaintiff appealed the decision of Justice Belobaba to the
Ontario Divisional Court, which upheld the decision refusing to
certify the class action.

In its analysis, the Divisional Court acknowledged that the motion
judge is entitled to substantial deference. The court held the
motion judge correctly applied the certification test and held that
it was not an error to focus of the s.5 (1)(c) common issues
requirement, as failure to meet one of the requirements is fatal.

The court held that the motion judge applied the legal principals
and was consistent with case law with respect to certification
motions. Moreover, the court held the motions judge did not require
the appellant to show an actual breach of privacy, but found that
as there was no basis in fact for the core allegation on which the
claim and common issues depended the certification had to be
dismissed.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Takeaway
The Divisional Court's decision demonstrates that even though there
is a low bar for the certification of a class action, it is a
hurdle that still must be overcome in order to successfully advance
a claim. Moreover, the decision is consistent with trends from
Canadian courts to act as gatekeepers where class actions are
commenced on speculative grounds, where there is insufficient
evidence to support the cause of action, or damages are difficult
to quantify.

Businesses involved in the collection or commercialization of
personal information should ensure they have clear policies in
place to protect against data breaches and bring to the attention
of the end users how their data might be used in order to mitigate
against future risks involving potential privacy breaches. [GN]

FANDANGO MEDIA: Violates Video Privacy Protection Act, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON GOLDSTEIN and TAMMY HUTTEMEYER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. FANDANGO MEDIA, LLC, Case No.
9:22-cv-80569 (S.D. Fla., April 11, 2022) alleges that Fandango
violated the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA").

The Defendant develops, owns, and operates a website and mobile
application, both titled "Fandango," that allow users to "catch the
newest trailers, browse Rotten Tomatoes scores, find the latest
showtimes, and buy tickets to the right movie at the right time
with ticketing to more than 33,000 screens nationwide."

Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and members of the Classes, the Defendant
allegedly knowingly and intentionally discloses its customers'
personally identifiable information whenever they purchase a movie
ticket or watch a video clip on Fandango.

The Defendant sells tickets to movies and contracts directly with
more than 40,000 theaters worldwide, serving as a substitute for a
theater’s box office.

Fandango also hosts and delivers thousands of movie trailers,
interviews, select scenes, and premiere videos. These video clips
are all available for viewing on the Fandango website and app.

The Defendant develops, owns, and operates a mobile application
("Fandango App"). Consumers can download the Fandango App through
the Google Play Store on Android devices or the Apple App Store on
iOS devices. Once downloaded, the Fandango App requests permission
from the user to access their location through the mobile
device’s GPS and to allow push notifications. Users may also
register an account with the App, a process that requires them to
input their email addresses.

At no point does Defendant receive permission from users to share
personally identifiable information or video viewing information
with third parties, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher R. Reilly, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 330-5512
          Facsimile: (305) 679-9006
          E-Mail: creilly@bursor.com

FAT BRANDS: Rosen Law Reminds of May 17 Deadline
------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of FAT Brands Inc. (NASDAQ: FAT,
FATBB, FATBP, FATBW) between December 4, 2017 and February 18,
2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important May 17, 2022
lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action commenced by
the Firm.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the FAT Brands class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3635 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 17, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company and the Wiederhorns
engaged in transactions "for no legitimate corporate purpose"; (2)
the Company ignored warning signs relating to transactions with the
Wiederhorns; (3) as a result, the Company was likely to face
increased scrutiny, investigations, and other potential issues; (4)
certain executives, who are touted as critical to the Company's
success, were at great risk of scrutiny-potentially, at least in
part, due to the Company's actions; (5) the Company's touted chief
executive officer (CEO) and chief operating officer (COO) were
under investigation regarding transactions with the Company; and
(6) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

To join the FAT Brands class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=3635 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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


FCA US: Faces Gomez Suit Over Defective Chrysler Minivans
---------------------------------------------------------
RODRIGO NIETO GOMEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FCA US LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-02171 (N.D. Cal., April 6, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for alleged violations of the California's Unfair
Competition Law, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, the
California Business & Professions Code, and the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.

FCA advertises its Chrysler Pacifica minivans as "designed to help
keep your family safe." In reality, the 2017 and 2018 Plug-In
Hybrid Vehicles have a serious risk of exploding and erupting in
flames, posing a grave threat of both severe property damage and
physical harm, or even death, to drivers and passengers, prompting
FCA to issue Recall No. 22V-077 on February 11, 2022. In the course
of normal use, Class Vehicles may erupt in flames, causing an
explosion. The risk of fire is present regardless of whether the
ignition is turned on or off. The defect is inherent in each of the
Class Vehicles and was present at the time of sale, says the
complaint.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members
purchased or leased vehicles that, at the time of purchase or
lease, were of a lesser standard and quality than represented and
were not fit for the ordinary purpose of providing safe
transportation. Plaintiff and Class Members would have paid less
for their vehicles had they known of the Defect. The Plaintiff and
Class Members have allegedly suffered damages in that they lost the
benefit of their bargain, overpaid for the Class Vehicles, suffered
diminution in value of the Class Vehicles, loss of use of the Class
Vehicles, as well as incurred out of pocket expenses related to
loss of use of the affected vehicles.

FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells
vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David S. Casey, Jr., Esq.
          Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
          Jeremy Robinson, Esq.
          P. Camille Guerra, Esq.
          Michael J. Morphew, Esq.
          CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA
           BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
          110 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1811
          Facsimile: (619) 544-9232   
          E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com
                  gmb@cglaw.com
                  jrobinson@cglaw.com
                  camille@cglaw.com
                  mmorphew@cglaw.com

FCA US: Ramirez Sues Over Defective Electric Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------
ELIAS RAMIREZ, MICHELLE TINIO RAMIREZ, and JAVIN T. OLSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-10734-SDD-CI (E.D. Mich., April 6,
2022) is a consumer class action that arises out of Defendant FCA
US, LLC's manufacture and sale of Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid
Minivans, a/k/a Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles or PHEVs, that
were uniformly and dangerously defective, causing them to be prone
to catching fire and even explosion.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sold these dangerously
defective vehicles to consumers, including Plaintiffs, without
disclosing their uniform and dangerous defect, respecting which
Defendant has yet to remedy and has not yet disclosed its root
cause though it appears that the defect is rooted in or connected
to the vehicles' high voltage batteries.

Because of FCA's breaches of implied warranties and its alleged
failure to act more quickly in disclosing and providing a remedy
for the hybrid propulsion defect, owners and lessees of Defective
Class Vehicles are injured in fact, incurred damages, and suffered
ascertainable losses in money and property. Had Plaintiffs and the
putative Class Members known of the defect, then they would not
have purchased or leased those vehicles, would have paid
substantially less for them, or would have purchased non-hybrid
versions of the vehicles, which cost substantially less.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action to redress FCA's misconduct.
They seek damages and a repair under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
and state laws.

FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells
vehicles.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC
          950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
          Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS, & BACINE
          600 W Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619)230-0800  
          Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
          E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
                  sward@barrack.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600
          E-mail: jgolan@barrack.com

               - and -

          John G. Emerson, Esq.
          EMERSON FIRM, PLLC
          2500 Wilcrest Drive, Suite 300
          Houston, TX 77042
          Telephone: (800) 551-8649
          Facsimile: (501) 286-4659
          E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com

GAMESTOP INC: Illegally Transmits Consumers' PII, Echevarria Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY ECHEVARRIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GAMESTOP, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02143 (E.D.N.Y., April 13, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Video Privacy Protection
Act (VPPA).

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the VPPA by
transmitting the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers to unrelated third
parties. The Defendant utilized the Facebook Tracking Pixel to
compel the Plaintiff's and Class members' web browsers to transfer
their identifying information, like their Facebook IDs, along with
their event data, like the title of the video games they purchased
from the Defendant. The Defendant knowingly disclosed the
Plaintiff's and Class members' PII because it used that data to
build audiences on Facebook to retarget them for its advertising
campaigns. The Plaintiff and Class members did not provide the
Defendant with any form of consent to disclose their PII to third
parties.

Gamestop, Inc. is a video tape service provider, with its principal
place of business located at 625 Westport Parkway, Grapevine,
Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
         Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         888 Seventh Avenue
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (646) 837-7150
         Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
         E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com
                 pfraietta@bursor.com

                 - and –

         Christopher R. Reilly, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
         Miami, FL 33131
         Telephone: (305) 330-5512
         Facsimile: (305) 679-9006
         E-mail: creilly@bursor.com

GATOS SILVER: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of April 25 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until April 25, 2022 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against Gatos Silver, Inc.
(NYSE: GATO), if they purchased the Company's securities between
October 28, 2020 and January 25, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period") and/or purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
shares pursuant to the Company's October 2020 initial public
offering (the "IPO"). This action is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities or shares of Gatos as above and would
like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect
you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may,
without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner
Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-gato/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by April 25, 2022.

About the Lawsuit

Gatos Silver and certain of its executives are charged with failing
to disclose material information during the Class Period and/or in
the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in conjunction
with the initial public offering, violating federal securities
laws.

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

On this news, shares of Gatos Silver fell $7.02 per share, or
approximately 68.9%, to close at $3.17 per share on January 26,
2022.

The case is Bilinsky v. Gatos Silver, Inc., et al., No. 22-cv-453.

                About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients --
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors -- in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California,
Louisiana and New Jersey.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Contact:

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]

GATOS SILVER: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of April 25 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on April 11 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors. This lawsuit
is on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Gatos: (a) common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
documents issued in connection with the Company's initial public
offering conducted on or about October 28, 2020; and/or (b)
securities between October 28, 2020 and January 25, 2022,
inclusive.

If you suffered a loss on your investment in Gatos, contact us
about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost
or obligation to you.

https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/gatos-silver-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=25733&wire=4

ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Gatos includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
technical report for Gatos's primary mine, the Cerro Los Gatos
deposit, contained certain errors; (2) among other things, the
mineral reserves had been overestimated by as much as 50%; and (3)
as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

DEADLINE: April 25, 2022

Aggrieved Gatos investors only have until April 25, 2022 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required
to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Chevrolet Bolt EV Class Action in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Chevrolet Bolt EV class action lawsuit in Canada alleges 2017-2022
Chevrolet Bolt EV and 2022 Chevrolet Bolt EUV cars are defective
due to the batteries.

The General Motors Canada lawsuit alleges the EV batteries cause
the electric cars to catch fire when the batteries are fully or
nearly fully charged.

Chevy Bolt owners cannot charge their batteries to their capacity
and GM advises not to allow the battery to be discharged lower than
30%.

The Chevy Bolt class action lawsuit was filed by the British
Columbia owner of a 2017 Chevrolet Bolt and a 2018 Bolt.

According to the plaintiff, GM was deceptive in the marketing of
the Bolts which has caused Canadian customers to drive dangerous
cars due to the risk of battery fires.

The GM class action asserts when the Bolt cars are in operation,
they use an active thermal management system to keep the batteries
at safe temperatures. But when the cars are charging the thermal
management system is disengaged.

This is dangerous because GM admits the batteries may have two
defects that cause battery fires: A torn adnode tab, and a folded
separator. A Bolt battery fire is possible if both defects exist at
the same time.

In addition to the inability to discharge the batteries below 30%,
Chevy Bolt owners have been told to charge the batteries to 90%
capacity. The plaintiff alleges Bolt customers didn't receive the
electric cars they were promised considering the Bolts have only
60% of the advertised range.

"GM and GM Canada have been aware of issues affecting the batteries
in the Class Vehicles since at least 2018. Nonetheless, GM and GM
Canada have marketed and sold Chevrolet Bolts with the knowledge
that they contain defective and potentially dangerous batteries
without warning customers or authorized dealerships of the issue."
-- Chevy Bolt class action lawsuit

General Motors finally did recall the electric vehicles, but only
after "several fires" occurred in the Bolts. The plaintiff claims
GM delayed the recall to avoid the financial consequences of
admitting the batteries are defective.

The automaker allegedly wasted time by offering software updates
for a problem that could only be fixed by replacing the entire
battery. In addition, the Canadian plaintiff alleges General Motors
repurchased Chevy Bolts in several areas of the U.S. but never made
the same offer to Canadian customers.

According to the class action lawsuit, "GM and GM Canada were
enriched by the inflated prices of the Class Vehicle and the
delayed recall which resulted in increased revenues for GM and GM
Canada."

The Chevrolet Bolt class action lawsuit was filed in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia: G. W. Kent Scarborough, v. General
Motors LLC, General Motors of Canada Company.

The plaintiff is represented by Klein Lawyers LLP. [GN]

GOLDMAN SACHS: Wants $7.5BB 401(k) Plan Class Action Trimmed
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Goldman Sachs
Group Inc. wants a 17,575-person class action challenging the
company's $7.5 billion 401(k) plan trimmed to remove class members
who signed separation agreements requiring them to arbitrate their
claims, a motion filed in Manhattan federal court shows.

The certified class includes 2,955 people who received valuable
severance benefits in exchange for their agreement to arbitrate any
dispute arising out of their employment, Goldman told the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. Goldman wants
these people excluded from the class and compelled to arbitrate
their claims. [GN]



GRAB HOLDINGS: ClaimsFiler Reminds of May 16 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors that they have until May 16, 2022 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Grab
Holdings Limited (NasdaqGS: GRAB, GRABW), if they purchased the
Company's securities between November 12, 2021 and March 3, 2022,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

Get Help

Grab investors should visit us at
https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nasdaq-grab/ or call toll-free (844)
367-9658. Lawyers at Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC are available to
discuss your legal options.

                     About the Lawsuit

Grab and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On March 3, 2022, the Company announced its 4Q2021 results,
disclosing "a 44% decline YoY" in revenue and a $1.1 billion loss
for the quarter due to "invest[ing] heavily" in driver incentives
and that it would take one or two quarters "to get that equilibrium
between drivers and riders, between supply and demand."

On this news, shares of Grab fell $2.04, or 37.3%, to close at
$3.28 per share on March 3, 2022, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

The case is Peccarino v. Grab Holdings Limited, et al., No.
22-cv-2189.

                       About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]

GRAB HOLDINGS: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of May 16 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Attention Grab Holdings Limited ("Grab Holdings") (NASDAQ: GRAB)
shareholders:

The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased between
November 12, 2021 and March 2, 2022.

If you suffered a loss on your investment in Grab Holdings, contact
us about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no
cost or obligation to you.

https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/grab-holdings-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=25745&wire=4

ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Grab Holdings includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Grab's
driver supply declined during the third quarter; (2) as a result,
Grab continued to invest heavily in driver and consumer incentives
to "preemptively recalibrate driver supply"; (3) as a result, the
Company's financial results would be adversely impacted, including,
among other things, a significant decline in revenue; and (4) as a
result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

DEADLINE: May 16, 2022

Aggrieved Grab Holdings investors only have until May 16, 2022 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not
required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any
recovery.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]

GRUBHUB INC: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Contracts
-----------------------------------------------------
Apex Insight reports that three major US restaurant delivery
companies, Grubhub, Just Eat and its subsidiary Postmates are
facing a class action lawsuit from former clients accusing them of
forcing their prices up due to unfair contracts. The suit was
originally filed in 2020 but a federal judge refused to dismiss the
case.

The three companies face an accusation that they are not allowed to
sell their food cheaper elsewhere, even from their physical
restaurants. This has forced their prices up to accommodate the
delivery companies fees.

"Defendants charge restaurants fees ranging from 13.5 percent to 40
percent of revenues, even though the average restaurant's profits
range from 3 percent to 9 percent of revenues," Frank LLP, the law
firm handling the suit, wrote on their website. "All of this harms
consumers and restaurants alike. Restaurants have to charge
consumers supra-competitive prices to those who do not buy their
meals through the delivery apps, so consumers are driven to
purchase meals through the apps. But because of defendants'
unjustifiably high fees, meals sold through the apps are more
expensive than they should be."

The three delivery companies had asked for the class action suit to
be dismissed but U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan
denied the application. He wrote the lawsuit "alleges plausibly
that restaurants cannot feasibly avoid doing business" with these
delivery companies and "that restaurants -- being foreclosed from
lowering prices in the direct markets to attract sales -- have had
no choice but to raise prices in both the platform and direct
markets."

In a comment sent to Bloomberg, a Grubhhub spokesperson stated that
the company is "disappointed in the decision and we will continue
to defend our business and the services we offer restaurants and
diners."

This doesn't come at a good time for Grubhub, which has been
reported to be aggressively cutting costs in recent weeks as it
struggles to achieve profitability. Just Eat and Postmates are also
known to be struggling to achieve profitability. [GN]

HAEMONETICS CORP: Loses Bid to Dismiss Crumpton's BIPA Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARY CRUMPTON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAEMONETICS CORPORATION, a
Massachusetts corporation, Defendant, Case No. 21 C 1402 (N.D.
Ill.), Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the
Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

I. Background

Defendant Haemonetics is a blood and plasma management company
incorporated and headquartered in Massachusetts. According to
Alexander Steffan (who has worked for Haemonetics for some 12
years, now as VP of Plasma Business Development), Haemonetics has
three business units: (1) a plasma division, which provides
"equipment, supplies, and software" to plasma donation centers; (2)
a blood center division, which provides the same to blood
collection centers; and (3) a hospital division, which provides "a
variety of blood management products" to hospitals.

Between June 2017 and August 2018, Plaintiff Crumpton, a citizen
and resident of Illinois, donated plasma at a plasma donation
center in Illinois. The donation center used donor management
software provided by Defendant Haemonetics -- meaning that whenever
she donated plasma, the Plaintiff was required to scan her
fingerprints; then, Haemonetics' software collected her biometric
data and sent it to be stored on Haemonetics-owned servers outside
Illinois. In February 2021, the Plaintiff filed a proposed class
action in state court, alleging that Haemonetics violated two
provisions of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
("BIPA").

The Plaintiff notes that, based on the way the eQue donor
management system operated, Haemonetics received and stored the
biometric data of Illinois residents, collected in Illinois. The
Plaintiff next points to evidence of Haemonetics' physical presence
in Illinois (not all of which appears to relate to the eQue
system). She also points to the contract governing eQue as evidence
of Haemonetics' connection to Illinois.

Haemonetics had extensive dealings with Octapharma's Illinois
plasma donation centers, only some related to eQue. Haemonetics,
for its part, has provided evidence that minimizes its eQue
activities in Illinois. Though Haemonetics "does business" in all
50 states (presumably meaning it ships products and software to
donation centers and hospitals all over the country), Steffan
explained that all of Haemonetics' customers for the eQue software
are incorporated and headquartered outside Illinois.

Haemonetics, a Massachusetts corporation, then removed to the
Court, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. It has moved to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state
a claim, and in addition seeks a stay pending several Illinois
state court decisions. The parties agreed to conduct limited
discovery on personal jurisdiction and to stay briefing on the
other motions, meaning only the issue of personal jurisdiction is
ripe for the Court's consideration.

II. Discussion

The parties focus their attention on several BIPA cases from
district courts in Illinois, which have considered when personal
jurisdiction over an out-of-state vendor of biometric-enabled
technology is appropriate. On one hand, several courts have
concluded there is no personal jurisdiction where the vendor simply
provides technology to its corporate customers outside of Illinois,
with limited or no knowledge on how the technology eventually winds
up in Illinois or is used by Illinois residents. But on the other
hand, where a biometric technology vendor has "direct contacts with
the forum state not enabled or created by a third party," those
contacts may support the exercise of personal jurisdiction, citing
King v. PeopleNet Corp., No. 21 CV 2774, 2021 WL 5006692, *6 (N.D.
Ill. Oct. 28, 2021).

In King, the defendant-vendor provided biometric timekeeping
devices to the plaintiff's Illinois-based employer; the devices
then transmitted plaintiff's biometric information to defendant's
servers. In finding personal jurisdiction, the court noted that the
defendant had a 15-year relationship with the plaintiff's employer,
shipped the devices to Illinois, did business with (and presumably
had contracts with) multiple Illinois customers, and "handled a
large quantity of biometric data from Illinois over a period of
years."

Judge Pallmeyer concludes that Haemonetics, too, had direct
contacts with Illinois, not just contacts created by the unilateral
actions of Octapharma or Octapharma's customers. Even if
Haemonetics did not directly send the software to Illinois (an
issue not clarified by the parties), its own actions in obtaining
the exclusive arrangement ensured that Illinois donation centers --
of which Haemonetics was well aware -- deployed that software.
Other aspects of Haemonetics' business dealings with Octapharma
confirm its deliberate effort to exploit the Illinois biometric
data market.

In response, Haemonetics argues that there is no "direct
connection" between Haemonetics' suit-related conduct and Illinois.
Relatedly, it suggests that because it does not directly interact
with Illinois residents, its suit-related contacts in Illinois are
solely through third parties—that is, Octapharma.

Judge Pallmeyer opines that her conclusion -- that these contacts
are sufficient to establish a prima facie showing of personal
jurisdiction -- is bolstered by evidence that Haemonetics may have
conducted eQue-related site visits to Octapharma's Illinois
locations. Regardless whether these contractual agreements alone
create a factual dispute about whether the site visits occurred, at
the least they demonstrate that Haemonetics created business
arrangements anticipating physical contact with Octapharma's
facilities.

Other contacts cited by the Plaintiff are less significant.
Similarly, though the Plaintiff notes that Haemonetics operated two
offices in Illinois, neither related to the eQue software or
biometric-enabled software. The Plaintiff's emphasis on the
execution of the eQue Master Agreement -- namely, that it was
executed by an Illinois resident and in Illinois -- is also
misplaced. Besides the LinkedIn profile, she provides no evidence
suggesting that Haemonetics' employees developed or worked on the
eQue software between the execution of the contract in 2008 and the
time she first donated plasma in 2017.

In sum, though not all of the Plaintiff's evidence is compelling,
she has made "a threshold showing of minimum contacts," Judge
Pallmyer opines. This showing, she says, is defeated only where the
defendant presents "a compelling case that the presence of some
other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable."
Haemonetics has offered no reason why litigating these claims in
Illinois would be unfair. The Plaintiff has therefore satisfied her
burden to establish a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction.

III. Conclusion

Haemonetics' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is
denied. As case law concerning BIPA is rapidly evolving, Judge
Pallmeyer recognized that the Defendant may wish to present
additional authority in support of its challenge to the adequacy of
the complaint or may wish to withdraw or amend its motion for stay.
Those motions are stricken without prejudice to reinstatement. The
parties are encouraged to discuss settlement and are directed to
submit a joint written status report by April 26, 2022.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4f2rfp2w from
Leagle.com.


HAWAII: 9th Circuit Reverses Decision in Title IX Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maui Now reports that the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed a lower court's decision and recognized class action
status of high school girls in a Hawai'i Title IX athletics civil
rights case.

The three-judge panel ruled in favor of four girls at Hawai'i's
largest public high school, James Campbell High School in Ewa Beach
on O'ahu. The girls sought the class action status in a lawsuit
against the Hawai'i Department of Education and the O'ahu
Interscholastic Association to eliminate blatant gender‐based
inequity faced by the female athletes.

The ruling comes during the 50th anniversary of Title IX, a
landmark civil rights law requiring gender equity in education that
applies to sports programs run by federally‐funded high schools
across the United States. The law was co-authored by Patsy T. Mink,
who served 13 sessions in the US House of Representatives for
Hawai'i.

The girls, on behalf of themselves and hundreds of girls at
Campbell High School, are seeking gender equity in all aspects of
the school's sports programs. The girls seek system‐wide change
and compliance with the school's obligations under Title IX to end
sex discrimination in athletics, according to a joint news release
from the girls' attorneys from Legal Aid at Work, the ACLU of
Hawai'i and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

Nanea Kalani, Communications Director for the Hawai'i State
Department of Education, said in an email: "This case is still
being actively litigated. The Department cannot comment on active
or pending litigation."

The case, which originally was filed in December 2018, will resume
in the U.S. District Court in Honolulu.

"The parties will be meeting to discuss how best to move forward,"
said ACLU of Hawai'i legal director Wookie Kim.

"We expect our school will finally treat girls fairly based on the
Court's ruling," said A.M.B., one of the four female athletes
representing the hundreds of girls at Campbell High School. "We're
relieved that the judges ruled in our favor and that girls who play
sports are now one giant step closer to having equality in our
school sports program when it comes to treatment, opportunities and
benefits."

In the original complaint, four girls -- who competed in water
polo, swimming and soccer -- filed the lawsuit on behalf of all
present and future female athletes at Campbell High School to
address systemic gender discrimination in athletics. The
discrimination includes the lack of a girls athletic locker room,
while the boys at the school have a stand‐alone, dedicated
athletic locker room.

The girls allege "female athletes, including plaintiffs, must carry
their athletic gear around with them all day and have resorted to
changing in teachers' closets, in the bathroom of the nearest
Burger King, and even on the practice field, potentially in full
view of bystanders."

The complaint also alleges female athletes have experienced a range
of gender inequities throughout the program, including inferior
practice and game facilities, the absence of coaches, unequal
access to athletic trainers, and less publicity and promotion for
girls' teams. The school also has provided girls with far fewer
athletic offerings compared to the boys.

In late 2019, the federal district court in Hawai'i denied the
girls class action status. The 2019 ruling ignored long‐standing
precedent and created an unfounded barrier for the girls to
overcome. Indeed, the district court ruling would have required
hundreds of separate lawsuits, which would have grossly burdened
the girls, the school and the courts, the press release said.

Immediately after the late‐2019 class certification denial, the
girls' attorneys appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals, the federal appellate court that covers Hawai'i.

On April 4, 2022, the three‐judge panel of the appeals court
resoundingly ruled in favor of the girls, recognizing that the
district court erred in denying class action status. The Court
acknowledged that, when girls seek equity under Title IX,
allegations of systemic discrimination favor class actions. The
Court also found that the girls' claim for class‐wide retaliation
could proceed because of the chilling effect retaliatory actions
have throughout the high school.

The retaliation claim stems from the school's threat to cancel the
girls' water polo program after girls and parents raised concerns
about gender‐based athletic inequities.

Elizabeth Kristen with Legal Aid at Work said: "When girls and
parents tried to solve problems on their own, the school
retaliated, leaving them with no other choice but to sue the school
to achieve the gender equity Title IX promised 50 years ago."

Kim said that Mink, the co-author of Title IX, "worked tirelessly
for education reform during her political career and overcame
gender and racial discrimination to become the first woman from
Hawai'i and first woman of color elected to Congress.

"It shouldn't take nearly half a century for schools like Campbell
to address obvious inequities such as the absence of locker rooms
for girls, and fewer athletic opportunities for girls. We look
forward to this ruling spurring immediate action at Campbell High
School and within the Hawai'i Department of Education and the O'ahu
Interscholastic Association." [GN]

HILLSBORO CLUB: Lugo Seeks to Collect Unpaid Wages Under WARN Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUGO, and other similarly situated individuals v. HILLSBORO
CLUB, INC., Case No. 0:22-cv-60705-AHS (S.D. Fla., April 11, 2022)
is a civil class action for collection of unpaid wages and benefits
for 60 calendar days pursuant to the United States Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act).

According to the complaint, the Defendant is liable under the WARN
Act for the failure to provide Plaintiff and other similarly
situated former employees at least 60 days advance notice of their
employment losses, as required by the WARN Act.

This is also a civil action for discrimination, on behalf of the
Plaintiff only, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA);
the Florida Civil Rights Act; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964; and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant in more than one period of time
over the last several years. In 2017, Plaintiff worked as
dishwasher for Defendant.

The Defendant is a private residence club for members and their
guests located in Broward County, Florida. At all times relevant,
Defendant is and was a business enterprise that employed 100 or
more employees, excluding part-time employees; or 100 or more
employees who in the aggregate work at least 4,000 hours per week
(exclusive of hours of overtime).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Tanesha W. Blye, Esq.
           R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
           SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
           20900 NE 30 th Avenue, Ste. 800
           Aventura, FL 33180
           Telephone: (305) 503-5131
           Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
           E-mail: tblye@saenzanderson.com

HILTON HOTELS: White Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial
---------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Valerie White, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled VALERIE R. WHITE, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. HILTON HOTELS RETIREMENT PLAN, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00856-CKK, in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia.

Plaintiffs bring this putative class action under the Employee
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") with respect to certain
vesting determinations made by the Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan.
This matter was noticed as related to Kifafi v. Hilton Hotels
Retirement Plan, an action over which the Court concluded its
jurisdiction in December 2015, after more than 17 years of
litigation. In Kifafi, the Court certified a benefit-
accrual class and certain vesting subclasses.

Plaintiff White was employed at the Washington Hilton between June
21, 1972 and March 26, 1982. Her service prior to Jan. 1, 1976 has
been calculated pursuant to the elapsed time method, and her claim
for retirement benefits was denied because she failed to meet the
minimum 10 years of vesting service required under the Plan for
employees who terminated their employment prior to 1989. The
Plaintiffs contend that it was improper for the Plan to use the
elapsed time method for pre-1976 service, and consequently, that
the denial of her benefits was in error.

Plaintiff Eva Juneau seeks retirement benefits for alleged
employment with Hilton properties between April 22, 1991 and Nov.
10, 2000. The Defendants informed Plaintiff Juneau by letter dated
Feb. 4, 2015 that a portion of her claimed employment was not
reflected in their records, and asked her to submit additional
evidence of that employment. Despite this and another opportunity
to do so, no additional evidence was provided, and the claim was
denied. The Plaintiffs allege, however, that records requested and
received from the Defendants do not identify any non-participating
property that is also not a Related Company.

Plaintiff Peter Betancourt seeks benefits as an alleged beneficiary
of his father, Pedro Betancourt, who worked for Hilton between 1947
and 1979, and died in 1985. His claim was denied by letter dated
June 3, 2015, which indicated that the applicable Plan document
does not provide for a death benefit to anyone other than the
surviving spouse, and because Defendants determined that his claim
was untimely. The Complaint alleges that Betancourt is vested.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 6, 2022, Judge
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia denied the Plaintiffs' Second Renewed Motion for Class
Certification.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly concluded that the Plaintiffs' proposed class
remains impermissibly "fail-safe," as presently defined. This
precludes certification. As the Court explained when confronting
the Plaintiffs' last proposed class definition, a fail-safe class
exists where the class definition "depends on the merits of the
underlying claim." Put otherwise, a fail-safe class arises where
the class "is defined so that whether a person qualifies as a
member depends on whether the person has a valid claim."

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Valerie White, et al.,
Case No. 22-8001, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit, filed on April 5, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Valerie R. White, Eva Juneau, and Peter
Betancourt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Stephen Robert Bruce, Esq.
          STEPHEN R. BRUCE LAW OFFICES
          1667 K Street, NW, Suite 410
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 371-8013
          E-mail: stephen.bruce@prodigy.net

Defendants-Respondents HILTON HOTELS RETIREMENT PLAN, et al., are
represented by:

          Andrew McHie Lacy, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT
          900 G Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 636-5500
          E-mail: alacy@stblaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017-3954
          Telephone: (212) 455-2000

HOLIDAY HAVEN: Fuerst Ittleman Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Molinaro, Esq., of Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph, in an
article for JD Supra, reports that on March 9, 2022, the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition for permission to appeal
an order remanding a case removed to federal court under the Class
Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). In its ruling denying the petition
for permissive appeal, the Court addressed the issue of whether an
appellate court has jurisdiction to review an order remanding a
case brought under CAFA when that order was issued by the district
court sua sponte. In holding that it lacked such jurisdiction, the
Eleventh Circuit has created a circuit split on the issue. The
Order of the Court in Ruhlen v. Holiday Haven Homeowners, Inc., No.
21-90022 (11th Cir. March 9, 2022) can be read here.

Ruhlen stems from an action initially brought in Florida state
court by a group of mobile homeowners and their association against
various defendants alleging violations of the Florida Antitrust Act
and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Plaintiffs filed
suit not as a class action under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure
1.220, but instead as a "representative action" under Florida Rule
of Civil Procedure 1.222 which allows for mobile homeowners
associations to file suits on behalf of homeowners concerning
matters of common interest. Defendants removed to the Middle
District of Florida based on the ADA and CAFA.

While the case was pending in the Middle District, Plaintiffs
amended their complaint to remove the ADA claim and added other
state-law based claims. Consequently, the Middle District sua
sponte issued an order remanding the case back to state court on
the basis that federal question jurisdiction no longer existed
because: i) only state-law claims remained; and ii) CAFA does not
provide for jurisdiction over these claims because they were
brought in a "representative capacity" under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.222.
The Middle District found that 1.222 representative claims are not
class actions, as the term is understood for CAFA jurisdiction.
Defendants then sought permission to appeal the sua sponte remand
to the Eleventh Circuit.

The appealability of class action remand orders is governed by CAFA
and codified at 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1453. Prior to CAFA, a district
court's order remanding a class action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction or a defect in the removal process typically was not
appealable. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(d). With CAFA's passage, "a court
of appeals may accept an appeal from an order of a district court
granting or denying a motion to remand a class action to the State
court from which it was removed if application is made to the court
of appeals not more than 10 days after entry of the order." 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1453(c)(1). Under CAFA, appellate review is
discretionary. Thus, a party seeking review of "an order of a
district court granting or denying a motion to remand a class
action" must file a petition for permission to appeal with the
circuit court under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 5. It is
through this vessel that the Eleventh Circuit analyzed its
jurisdiction.

While considering the Petition, the Court studied the phrase "an
order of a district court granting or denying a motion to remand a
class action" as used in 1453(c)(1) and examined whether it applies
in cases where a district court issues a sua sponte remand order.
In holding that it did not, the Court found that the word "motion",
as the term is ordinarily used, refers to a request made by a
party, not an action the court does on its own. The Court
considered that an action taken sua sponte is sometimes
"colloquially" described as a court acting "on its own motion" and
rejected this expansive logic apply to 1453(c)(1): "we find
ourselves constrained to conclude (colloquialisms aside) that when
a court sua sponte orders a remand, it is not 'granting' its own
'motion' within the meaning of Sec. 1453(c)(1)—any more than it
would be 'denying' its own motion in the absence of such an order."
The decision of the Eleventh Circuit was not unanimous, as Judge
Rosenbaum authored a dissent.

In her dissent, Judge Rosenbaum characterized the majority's
reading of Sec. 1453(c)(1) as "hypertechnical." Judge Rosenbaum
noted that both the Eleventh Circuit and the Supreme Court
characterized sua sponte actions as those being "on [the court's]
own motion." Thus, the dissent found that based on the Circuit's
own definition of the term "sua sponte", such an order would
qualify as reviewable under Sec. 1453(c)(1).

Judge Rosenbaum reasoned that the phase "granting or denying a
motion to remand" with in Sec. 1453(c)(1) was not meant to exclude
sua sponte remand orders but to ensure that all remand orders were
not subject to either the jurisdictional bar of Sec. 1447(d) or the
final judgment rule. Judge Rosenbaum further reasoned that, even if
the majority's textualism approach was correct, treating a sua
sponte remand order differently that a remand order granting or
denying a motion made by a party would be an absurd construction of
the CAFA immediate appealability provision of Sec. 1453(c)(1).

Judge Rosenbaum detailed how the decision of the Eleventh Circuit
is in conflict with how other circuits have expressly or implicitly
addressed whether sua sponte remand orders are subject to appellate
review under Sec. 1453(c)(1). The Ninth Circuit has expressly found
that an appellate court has jurisdiction under Sec. 1453(c)(1) to
review sua sponte orders of remand. Watkins v. Vital Pharms, Inc.,
720 F.3d 1179, 1181 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Kenny v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., 881 F.3d 786, 789 (9th Cir. 2018). Additionally,
although not expressly reaching the issue, the Seventh and Eighth
Circuits have both implicitly held that sua sponte remand orders
are reviewable under Sec. 1453(c)(1) because each Circuit has
accepted jurisdiction of appeals concerning such issues. See Fox v.
Dakkota Integrated Sys., LLC, 980 F.3d 1146, 1151 (7th Cir. 2020)
(reviewing a sua sponte CAFA remand); Dalton v. Walgreen Co., 721
F.3d 492, 494 (8th Cir. 2013) (same). Judge Rosenbaum also noted
that the D.C. Circuit acknowledged that a sua sponte remand order
was "properly before [the] court as the remand order falls within
section 1453(c)(1)." In re U-Haul Int'l, Inc., No. 08-7122, 2009 WL
902414, at *2 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 6, 2009) (Rogers, J., dissenting from
majority's decision to decline jurisdiction over appeal).

Judge Rosenbaum further noted that because of the decision, the
Eleventh Circuit is the first to hold that sua sponte orders
remanding CAFA cases are wholly insulted from appellate review.
Whether the issue is ultimately addressed by Congress in an
amendment of the statute, or the circuit split is resolved in an
appropriate case before the United States Supreme Court remains to
be seen. See generally, Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v.
Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89-90 (2014) (discussing Supreme Court
jurisdiction to review denials of petitions for permission to
appeal of CAFA cases). For now, practitioners in the Eleventh
Circuit must be aware of the Circuit's unique interpretation of its
jurisdiction. [GN]

HOMOLOGY MEDICINES: Hagens Berman Reminds of May 24 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Homology Medicines, Inc. (NASDAQ: FIXX)
investors who suffered significant losses to submit your losses
now. A securities fraud class action has been filed and investors
with significant losses may have the opportunity to lead the case.

Class Period: June 10, 2019 – Feb. 18, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 24, 2022
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/FIXX
Contact An Attorney Now: FIXX@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

Homology Medicines, Inc. (NASDAQ: FIXX) Securities Fraud Class
Action:

The lawsuit focuses on Homology's statements about the development
of its lead product candidate (HMI-102), a gene therapy intended to
treat adult patients with phenylketonuria ("PKU").

According to the complaint, Defendants misrepresented and concealed
that (1) Homology had overstated HMI-102's efficacy and risk
mitigation, and (2) accordingly, it was unlikely that the Company
would be able to commercialize HMI-102 in its present form.

The complaint alleges investors began to learn the truth on July
21, 2020, when Mariner Research published a report bringing
Homology's statements about the efficacy of HMI-102 into serious
question. Mariner concluded in part that the Company concealed data
showing HMI-102 is not efficacious for high dose Cohort 3 patients
and the program is likely worthless and unlikely to proceed to
commercialization. Mariner's report also cited an e-mail from the
Company's Chief Communications Officer indicating the company was
aware of a HMI-102 high dose patient's having posted the adverse
efficacy issue in social media during April 2020.

Then, on Feb. 18, 2022, Homology announced the FDA has notified it
that its pheNIX gene therapy trial for HMI-102 has been placed on
clinical hold due to the need to modify risk mitigation measures in
the study because of observations of elevated liver function
tests.

These events drove the price of Homology shares sharply lower.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Homology lied about
HMI-102 data and the therapy's commercial prospects," said Reed
Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.

If you invested in Homology Medicines and have significant losses,
or have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click
here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Homology Medicines should consider their options to help in the
investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.
Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original
information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any
successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call
Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email FIXX@hbsslaw.com.

                     About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law
firm focusing on corporate accountability through class-action law.
The firm is home to a robust securities litigation practice and
represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers
and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by
corporate negligence and fraud. More about the firm and its
successes can be found at hbsslaw.com.

Contact:
Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN]

HOMOLOGY MEDICINES: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of May 24 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attention Homology Medicines, Inc. ("Homology") (NASDAQ: FIXX)
shareholders:

The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on April 11 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased
between June 10, 2019 and February 18, 2022.

If you suffered a loss on your investment in Homology, contact us
about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost
or obligation to you.

https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/homology-medicines-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=25747&wire=4

ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Homology includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
Company had overstated the efficacy and risk mitigation of its lead
product candidate, HMI-102; (ii) accordingly, it was unlikely that
the Company would be able to commercialize HMI102 in its present
form; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

DEADLINE: May 24, 2022

Aggrieved Homology investors only have until May 24, 2022 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not
required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any
recovery.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]

HORNELL BREWING: Faces Class Action Over "All Natural" Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the maker of
Arizona-brand drinks faces a class action lawsuit for calling its
products "all natural."

Plaintiff Thomas Iglesias filed the lawsuit March 21 in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
Hornell Brewing, alleging violation of the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law and the
California Unfair Competition Law.

Iglesias has bought several bottles of Much Mango Fruit Juice
Cocktail since 2017 and says he wouldn't have or wouldn't have paid
as much had he known "all natural" claims weren't accurate.

His lawyers at The Clarkson Law Firm say Hornell is taking
advantage of consumers' desire for natural products. Ingredients
added for coloring prevent Hornell from claiming its drinks are all
natural under Food and Drug Administration rules, the suit says.

"Defendant's conduct stifles competition, has a negative impact on
the marketplace and reduces consumer choice," the suit says.

"There is no practical reason for the false or misleading labeling
and advertising of the products, other than to mislead consumers as
to the actual ingredients of the products being purchased by
consumers while simultaneously providing Defendant with a financial
windfall as a result of money saved from lower supply costs." [GN]

HOWARD BANK: Brasko's Bid to Certify Class and Subclasses Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD BRASKO, et al., Plaintiffs v. HOWARD BANK,
successor by merger to FIRST MARINER BANK, Defendant, Civil Case
No. 1:20-cv-3489-SAG (D. Md.), Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for certification of a class and two
subclasses.

I. Background

Plaintiffs Richard and Lori Brasko and Eric Rubinstein, on behalf
of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated
individuals, sued Howard Bank1 alleging violations of the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. Section
2607(a) and the Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. Section 1962. The Plaintiffs' claims arise out
of an alleged kickback scheme between Howard Bank's predecessor,
First Mariner, and All Star Title, Inc., a defunct title and
settlement services company, whereby First Mariner referred
residential mortgage loans to All Star for title and settlement
services in exchange for payments from All Star that were allegedly
laundered through third-party marketing companies.

The Plaintiffs are borrowers who currently have, or previously had,
a residential mortgage loan originated and/or brokered by First
Mariner. They allege an "illegal kickback agreement" between First
Mariner and All Star in which First Mariner allegedly accepted
kickbacks from All Star in exchange for referring its borrowers to
All Star for title and settlement services. The Plaintiffs allege
that, under this arrangement, All Star made kickback payments to
third-party marketing companies, who then funneled the money to
First Mariner, using sham invoices and payment records to make the
kickbacks appear to be legitimate payments for services. To fund
the kickbacks, they allege that All Star charged borrowers
"unnecessarily increased and higher fees for title and settlement
services." The charges included amounts that were, allegedly, not
associated with any legitimate title and settlement service and
were charged for the sole purpose of funding and ensuring the
continuation of the illegal kickbacks.

The Plaintiffs have now filed a motion for class certification,
seeking the certification of a class and two subclasses. First
Mariner opposed the motion, and the Plaintiffs filed a reply. Judge
Gallagher has reviewed all of these filings and their attached
exhibits. No hearing is necessary.

II. Analysis

A. Standing

As a preliminary matter, First Mariner asserts that the Plaintiffs
have not suffered a concrete injury and therefore lack Article III
standing. Standing is a doctrine rooted in the traditional
understanding of an Article III "case or controversy," citing
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016). Standing consists
of three elements: "the plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury
in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of
the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a
favorable judicial decision." The burden is on the plaintiffs to
establish these elements.

First Mariner argues that even if the Plaintiffs could show an
unlawful 'kickback' occurred in connection with their loan
transactions they still have not shown (and cannot show) that they
paid 'increased settlement costs' -- i.e. that All Star overcharged
them for settlement services -- as a result of a kickback.

As the Plaintiffs argue, however, First Mariner's argument is
predicated on a misapplication of RESPA's requirements. Judge
Gallagher opines that at this stage, the Plaintiffs have proffered
evidence sufficient to support their argument that "All Star and
First Mariner agreed to charge borrowers an amount not associated
with any legitimate settlement service and for the sole purpose of
funding illegal kickbacks." The Plaintiffs have presented evidence
that, at the time of their loans, First Mariner had "agreed to" All
Star's differential pricing scheme where it would charge borrowers
different prices for settlement services depending on whether the
borrowers were referred from lenders that received kickbacks from
All Star or from lenders that did not receive kickbacks. The
Plaintiffs' evidence supports its assertion that First Mariner and
All Star had even agreed to specific amounts that All Star would
charge First Mariner borrowers "to pay for the kickbacks."

Hence, combined with the evidence they have marshaled in support,
suffice to demonstrate that it is at least plausible that the
entire class has suffered an injury in fact and that the Plaintiffs
will ultimately be able to prove each class member's Article III
standing. At this point, the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate
that if the Plaintiffs' allegations prove true, the named
Plaintiffs have suffered a cognizable injury in fact that supports
their Article III standing.

B. Class Certification

i. Readily Identifiable

First Mariner does not specifically challenge the identifiability
of the putative class. However, the Plaintiffs have provided a
spreadsheet "drawn from All Star's business records and Title
Express loan processing data," that identifies each class member
and provides important information about each member's loan. The
putative class is, therefore, readily identifiable.

ii. Rule 23(b)(3)

The Plaintiffs have moved to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3),
which requires a finding that "the questions of law or fact common
to class members predominate over any questions affecting only
individual members." As a result, Rule 23(b)(3) class actions "must
meet predominance and superiority requirements not imposed on other
kinds of class actions.

Judge Gallagher holds that (i) while the Plaintiffs will ultimately
need to prove that each class member was injured, the fact that
they may have been overcharged by different amounts as a result of
the kickbacks at issue neither destroys their standing nor the
predominance of the common legal and factual issues related to
their claims; (ii) the commonality of the kickback scheme and its
alleged influence on borrowers' choice of title company and the
settlement costs they ultimately incurred predominates over any
potential individualized inquiries; (iii) any individualized
damages determinations may not require complex analysis or
fact-finding and, regardless, the potential need for such
determinations does not destroy predominance; and (iv) the
potential scope of borrowers is far more limited in time and
geography, and individual hearings will not be necessary to
determine whether class members encountered information that would
have prompted them to uncover the facts substantiating their RESPA
claims.

In sum, none of the issues raised by First Mariner destroys the
predominance of common questions pertinent to each class members'
claim. Indeed, some tend to identify more common questions. First
Mariner may ultimately prove that a common agreement and pattern of
practice, central to the Plaintiffs' theory of liability, did not
exist, or were not as pervasive as alleged, but doing so will
involve questions of law and fact common to all the class members.

In addition to finding that common questions predominate under Rule
23(b), Judge Gallagher holds that the class action vehicle is
"superior to other methods" of adjudicating this controversy. Based
upon the common questions that predominate, a class action is more
efficient than allowing potentially hundreds of individual claims
arising from this purported kickback arrangement.

Judge Gallagher finds that (i) the Plaintiffs have identified 258
loans that meet the objective class criteria, and First Mariner
does not dispute that the numerosity requirement is met; (ii) the
Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden, at this stage, to show that
the putative class members' claims are typical of one another, and
First Mariner's standing arguments do not defeat that showing; and
(iii) the Plaintiffs' counsel will adequately represent the
putative class.

C. Class Definition

First Mariner argues that the putative class should be limited to
borrowers for whom All Star provided settlement services between
March 2012 and April 2013 because the "Plaintiffs have not alleged,
let alone demonstrated, any unlawful joint marketing payments by
All Star after April 2013." The Plaintiffs have, however, alleged
that the First Mariner and All Star participated in the unlawful
kickback scheme between 2012-2016. And they have uncovered evidence
that, at least arguably, supports that position. To be sure, the
Plaintiffs have not "demonstrated" as a matter of fact that they
are correct, but that is not their burden at this stage. First
Mariner's argument is ultimately a merits-based question that is
best left for resolution following merits-based discovery.
Accordingly, at this early stage, Judge Gallagher declines to
narrow the putative class.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons she set forth, Judge Gallagher granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. A separate order
follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2022 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/2nk4c37w from Leagle.com.


HYATT HOTELS: Proposed Class-Action Alleges Pay, Tip Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Freishtat at Chicago Tribune reports that a former Chicago
Athletic Association employee alleges in a recent federal lawsuit
he and others were stiffed on overtime pay and tips by Hyatt
Hotels.

The former employee also alleges racial discrimination while he
worked at the downtown Chicago hotel and venue, saying in the suit
he was demoted "simply because of his race."

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago by former
employee Darren Sanders against Chicago-based Hyatt Hotels and
related companies, which operate the Chicago Athletic Association.
The lawsuit is seeking class-action status, alleging that a range
of employees were affected by "corporate practices" that included
improper credit for tips in calculating minimum wage and overtime;
"time shaving" that led to unpaid wages; "illegally retained" tips;
and other practices.

The company violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and the Illinois Human
Rights Act, the suit alleges.

An attorney for Sanders did not immediately respond to a request
for comment. Hyatt and the Chicago Athletic Association also did
not respond to requests for comment.

In the lawsuit, Sanders said he worked for the Chicago Athletic
Association from June 2015 to March 2020, first as lead bartender
and then as on-call server.

During that time, Sanders lost money to "time shaving," where a
30-minute meal break was taken out of his hours "despite that fact
that he did not take such break because he was too busy and asked
by defendants to perform various tasks," he said in the lawsuit.

Sanders was paid an improper rate for overtime, he said in the
suit. He was regularly paid $7.69 an hour plus tips and his
overtime was calculated as 1 ½ times his paid rate, when his
overtime rate should have been based on the actual minimum wage,
the suit alleges.

For some employees, including Sanders, tips should not have been
factored into the calculation of their wages and overtime because
the company failed to follow proper tip documentation and notice
rules, had tipped employees spend more than 20% of their hours on
non-tipped duties, and retained part of employees tips, Sanders
alleges in the lawsuit.

In his case, the company factored tips into Sanders's wages for all
the hours he worked, even though he spent more than 20% of his time
on non-tipped duties, according to the lawsuit. That included jobs
such as folding tablecloths, breaking down beer bins and setting up
silverware, centerpieces and tables.

The hotel also had a 21% service charge, yet tipped employees kept
18%, he alleges in the lawsuit. The director of catering kept 2% of
banquet tips, according to the lawsuit.

Hyatt failed to reimburse Sanders for uniforms that once were free.
Other employees faced many of the same circumstances, the lawsuit
said.

In addition to the wage violations, Sanders, who is Black, also
alleges discrimination in the lawsuit. He was demoted from lead
bartender to on-call server and faced difficulty advancing in the
workplace because of his race. When he was demoted, a director told
him she was eliminating the position, according to the lawsuit, and
hired a white man for the role two months later.

The demotion caused Sanders to lose hours, and his gross earnings
fell from $1,700 biweekly to $500, he said in the lawsuit. Other
Black workers lost hours too, according to the suit.

Sanders is seeking rulings declaring that Hyatt's practices are
illegal and preventing the company from continuing them. He is also
seeking payment to make up for what he described as time shaving,
improper credit for tips, failure to reimburse for uniform costs,
and withheld tips, among other payments, penalties and damages.
[GN]

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Wilson Sues Over Defect in Vehicle Engines
---------------------------------------------------------
RYAN WILSON, KRISTEN LEANNE WILSON, BETHANY DORSEL, MARK MEACHUM,
and DIANE KOONTZ on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, HYUNDAI MOTOR
COMPANY, KIA AMERICA, INC., and KIA CORPORATION, Defendants, Case
No. 8:22-cv-00771 (C.D. Cal., April 6, 2022) seeks to redress
Defendants' alleged violations of the federal Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, the consumer protection statutes of California, Ohio,
Maryland, and New Jersey, and also seeks recovery for Defendants'
breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, breach of
the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and common law fraudulent
concealment.

This is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of
themselves and a national class of current and former owners and
lessees with Lambda MPI and Lambda GDI engines installed in Model
Year 2010-2020 Hyundai Santa Fe and Santa Fe Sport, 2008-2010
Hyundai Sonata, 2011-2015 Hyundai Equus, 2008-2016 Hyundai Genesis,
2009-2015 Hyundai Genesis Coupe, 2017-present Hyundai Genesis G70,
2016-2020 Hyundai Genesis G80, and 2015-2021 Hyundai Genesis G90
vehicles, as well as Model Year 2011-2020 Kia Sorento and
2017-present Kia Stinger vehicles.

The complaint arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to
disclose to Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers, despite
their longstanding knowledge, that the engines in the Class
Vehicles contain, inter alia, a latent manufacturing defect that
causes the engine's rotating assembly, inclusive of the connecting
rod bearings and engine block, to prematurely wear to the point
that the internal engine components become seized and/or pierce the
engine block, which causes the engine to suddenly stop while the
vehicles are being operated. The defect may cause the engines in
the Class Vehicles to experience sudden and unexpected vehicle
stalling during operation, as well as catastrophic engine failure.
Moreover, as many consumers have reported, the defect can also
result in engine compartment fires, the complaint says.

As a result of the defect and the monetary costs associated with
attempting to repair the defect, Plaintiffs and the Class Members
have suffered injury in fact, incurred damages, and have otherwise
been harmed by Defendants' alleged conduct, asserts the complaint.

Hyundai Motor America manufactures and retails automobiles.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
          Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
          1109 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 200-0581
          E-mail: mds@sstriallawyers.com
                  jbk@sstriallawyers.com

               - and -

          Bonner Walsh, Esq.
          WALSH PLLC
          1561 Long Haul Road
          Grangeville, ID 83530
          Telephone: (541) 359-2827
          Facsimile: (866) 503-8206
          E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com

               - and -
  
          Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ADAM R. GONNELLI, L.L.C.
          707 Alexander Road Building 2, Suite 108
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (917) 541-7110
          Facsimile: (315) 446-7521
          E-mail: adam@arglawoffice.com

               - and -

          Alison M. Bernal, Esq.
          NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER, LLP
          33 West Mission Street, Suite 201
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 963-2345
          Facsimile: (805) 284-9590
          E-mail: alison@nshmlaw.com  

ILLINOIS INSTITUTE: Court Dismisses Hernandez Suit With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OMAR HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ILLINOIS INSTITUTE of
TECHNOLOGY, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-3010 (N.D. Ill.), Judge
Franklin U. Valderrama of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, dismissed the Plaintiff's
Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.

I. Background

Plaintiff Hernandez, a student at Defendant Illinois Institute of
Technology (IIT), brought a five-count SAC, individually and as a
class action, against IIT following IIT's decision to transition to
remote instruction in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

IIT is a nonprofit higher education institution with a campus in
Chicago, Illinois. In Spring 2020, Hernandez was enrolled as a
full-time student at IIT, and had paid his Spring 2020 tuition and
mandatory fees for the semester.

On March 9, 2020, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, in response to
the COVID-19 pandemic, issued a disaster proclamation for the State
of Illinois. On March 20, 2020, Governor Pritzker issued Executive
Order 2020-10. The March 20 Executive Order, among other things,
ordered citizens to stay at home, prohibited public gatherings, and
closed public schools.

In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, on March 12, 2020, IIT, along
with most universities and colleges across the United States, moved
from in-person to online instruction. Specifically, IIT told its
students that all classes would be moving to an on-line only format
following spring break and strongly encouraged all students to
"make plans not to return to campus until further notice and finish
the semester from home, if at all possible." That same week, IIT
closed all its libraries and the SportsCenter.

On March 20, 2020, students were prohibited from returning to
campus absent extraordinary circumstances, and those who had
returned to campus were restricted to their dorms, dining halls,
and travel for essential services only. During the campus closure,
Hernandez and other IIT students continued to receive academic
instruction online, but did not have access to campus facilities or
other in-person campus events and opprotunities.

On May 20, 2020, Hernandez, individually and on behalf of others,
brought a five-count complaint against IIT. Hernandez subsequently
filed a first amended complaint (FAC). IIT moved to dismiss the FAC
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (R. 35), which the Court granted in a
Memorandum Opinion and Order (FAC Order). The Court allowed
Hernandez leave to file a second amended complaint.

Hernandez filed a SAC, once again asserting five counts against IIT
in an individual and class action lawsuit. Count I alleges breach
of contract (Tuition Class); Count II asserts an unjust enrichment
claim in the alternative (Tuition Class); Count III asserts a
breach of implied contract in the alternative (Tuition Class);
Count IV alleges a breach of contract (Fees Class): and Count V
asserts unjust enrichment in the alternative (Fees Class). IIT
moves to dismiss the SAC pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).

II. Analysis

IIT advances three arguments in support of dismissal of Hernandez's
SAC. First, IIT maintains that Hernandez seeks damages for academic
malpractice, a claim not recognized under Illinois law. Second,
even if Hernandez's academic malpractice claim is a recognized
cause of action, IIT contends that Hernandez fails to allege a
breach of contract. Third, Hernandez does not and cannot establish
that IIT was unjustly enriched or breached an implied contract.

A. Educational Malpractice

IIT argues that the SAC should be dismissed in its entirety because
Hernandez's breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of
implied contract claims are actually claims for educational
malpractice, and such claims are not recognized in Illinois.
Hernandez denies that his claims allege educational malpractice
because he is not asking the Court to evaluate whether IIT provided
Hernandez and other students with an effective education. Instead,
Hernandez contends that his breach of contract and unjust
enrichment claims are based on IIT's failure to provide on-campus,
in-person instruction and services, which Hernandez and other
students paid for.

Judge Valderrama agrees with Hernandez. However, as the Court
previously held, "this is a classic breach of contract case." He
opines that IIT has not advanced any arguments in its motion to
dismiss the SAC that change the Court's analysis that "IIT's
attempts to recast Hernandez's claim as one for educational
malpractice fails." Therefore, for the reasons stated and
articulated in the FAC Order, Judge Valderrama finds that Hernandez
does not allege a noncognizable educational malpractice claim in
his SAC. He now turns to whether Hernandez has sufficiently alleged
claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of
implied contracts.

B. Breach of Contract

In Counts I and IV, Hernandez asserts breach of contract claims. He
asserts Count I on behalf of the Tuition Class and alleges that in
exchange for tuition, IIT would enroll the students and grant them
full access to campus activities and live, in-person instruction.
He maintains that IIT breached this contract when it moved to
online-only learning platforms without reducing or refunding
tuition. Count IV is brought on behalf of the Fees Class and
alleges that students paid IIT certain mandatory fees in exchange
for certain on-campus services and activities. Hernandez alleges
that IIT similarly breached this contract when IIT closed most
campus buildings and canceled most student activities without
refunding students pro-rata shares of fees paid.

Judge Valderrama holds that just as other courts in the District
have dismissed nearly identical breach of contract claims for
failure to identify a specific contractual for in-person classes,
activities, and services, so too must the Court. He finds, in
viewing allegations of the SAC in the light most favorable to
Hernandez, as he must, that the SAC fails to sufficiently plead a
breach of contract action based on the payment of tuition and
mandatory fees. Accordingly, IIT's Motion to Dismiss Counts I and
IV is granted.

C. Unjust Enrichment

In Counts II and V, Hernandez asserts claims for unjust enrichment
in the alternative to his breach of contract claims. To state an
unjust enrichment cause of action under Illinois law, Hernandez
must allege that IIT has unjustly retained a benefit to its
detriment and that IIT's retention of the benefit violates the
fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. IIT
argues that Hernandez's claim for unjust enrichment must be
dismissed because the incorporation of express contractual terms,
alone, mandates dismissal of an unjust enrichment claim.

Judge Valderrama agrees. Like Hernandez's breach of contract
claims, he says, nearly identical unjust enrichment claims have
been considered and dismissed by other courts in the District
because each unjust enrichment claim was also premised on the
defendant-university's failure to fulfill contractual terms. All in
all, Judge Valderrama finds that Hernandez fails to state a claim
for unjust enrichment. Accordingly, he dismisses Counts II and V.

D. Breach of Implied Contract

In Count III, Hernandez asserts a breach of implied contract claim,
again in the alternative to his breach of contract claims. The
elements of both an implied and express contract are the same under
Illinois law: Offer, acceptance, and consideration. IIT contends
that, consistent with the Court's ruling in its FAC Order, that a
cause of action for implied contract is not permitted in the
educational setting.

As the Court previously noted, IIT's marketing materials, residency
requirements, and registrar descriptions do not identify a specific
contractual promise for in-person education. Hernandez cannot use
implied contract theory as an end-run around his obligation to
identify a specific contractual promise from IIT for in-person
classes and on-campus activities and services. Thus, the facts
alleged in the SAC cannot support a claim for breach of contract.
Hernandez does not even attempt to respond to this argument in his
Response. As such, he waives any response.

The only argument he makes that can be read as one supporting this
breach of implied contract claim is a statement of law in support
of his contract claims more generally: "Because the existence of an
implied contract depends on facts, circumstances, and expressions
by the parties" where the facts are disputed, "the existence of a
contract is a question for the trier of fact to decide."

Not only does this argument fail to explain why the Court should
change its holding from the FAC and find that Hernandez can state a
cognizable claim for breach of implied contract, but it also
includes inapplicable language from Trapani. Trapani also holds
that "generally, whether a contract implied in fact exists is a
question of law" and states that only when "facts are disputed is
the existence of a contract a question for the trier of fact to
decide." But once again, neither IIT nor Hernandez dispute that a
contract existed between them. As such, Count III must also be
dismissed.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Valderrama granted IIT's Motion to
Dismiss Hernandez's SAC. Given that it is Hernandez's third
pleading attempt, the dismissal is with prejudice. The civil case
is terminated.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3vbcuk56 from
Leagle.com.


INT'L BUSINESS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of June 6 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM" or the
"Company") IBM between April 4, 2017 and October 20, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York and
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants fraudulently shifted billions of
dollars in revenues from IBM's mainframe line of business to its
Strategic Imperatives and Cloud, Analytics, Mobile, Security, and
Social ("CAMSS") line of business. Defendants thus propped up
revenues for these lines, increased their long-term incentive
compensation, and appeased the investing community while waiting
for the Company's new business model to come to fruition.

Plaintiff alleges that IBM partially disclosed evidence of this
fraud after the close of the market on October 16, 2018, when
Defendants revealed a shortfall in revenue and disappointing 3Q2018
growth associated with the Company's Strategic Imperatives and
CAMSS lines of business, particularly its Cloud business line.
IBM's stock price fell approximately $11 per share by the close of
trading on October 17, 2018.

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 the 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 $191
million shortfall was attributable to the Company's Cloud &
Cognitive Software segment - where most of the strategic revenue
produced by the fraudulent scheme and wrongful reclassification of
revenues from non-strategic to strategic historically went.

On this news, the price of IBM common stock fell more than 9%,
closing at $121.07 per share on October 21, 2021.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 6, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased IBM securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit International Business
Machines Corporation Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact
Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or pallocco@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact Information:

Peter Allocco
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(212) 951-2030
pallocco@bernlieb.com [GN]

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Rosen Law Reminds of June 6 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of International Business Machines Corporation (NYSE:
IBM) between April 4, 2017 and October 20, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 6, 2022.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the IBM class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5104 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 6, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Strategic Imperatives Revenue
and growth, CAMSS (the sectors of "Cloud," "Analytics," "Mobile,"
"Security," and "Social") and CAMSS Components' revenue and growth,
and the Company's Segments' revenue and growth were artificially
inflated as a result of the wrongful reclassification of revenues
from non-strategic to strategic to make those revenues eligible for
treatment as Strategic Imperatives Revenue; (2) IBM's present
success and positive future growth prospects concerning its
Strategic Imperative business strategy were being fueled by the
wrongful reclassification of revenues from non-strategic to
strategic to make those revenues eligible for treatment as
Strategic Imperative Revenue; (3) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants misled the market by portraying IBM's Strategic
Imperative's financial performance and future prospects more
favorable than they actually were as a result of the fraudulent
scheme and/or the wrongful reclassification of revenues from
non-strategic to strategic to make those revenues eligible for
treatment as Strategic Imperatives; and (4) Total Revenue and IBM's
Segments' revenue and growth were artificially inflated as a result
of the fraudulent scheme and/or the wrongful reclassification of
revenues from non-strategic to strategic and/or the wrongful
recognition of revenue. When the true details entered the market,
the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the IBM class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5104 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Vincent Wong Reminds of June 6 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attention International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM")
(NYSE: IBM) shareholders:

The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on April 11 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased
between April 4, 2017 and October 20, 2021.

If you suffered a loss on your investment in IBM, contact us about
potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/international-business-machines-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=25750&wire=4

ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against IBM includes allegations
that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Strategic Imperatives Revenue
and growth, CAMSS and CAMSS Components' revenue and growth, and the
Company's Segments' revenue and growth were artificially inflated
as a result of the wrongful reclassification of revenues from
non-strategic to strategic to make those revenues eligible for
treatment as Strategic Imperatives Revenue; (ii) the Company's
present success and positive future growth prospects concerning its
Strategic Imperative business strategy were being fueled by the
wrongful reclassification of revenues from non-strategic to
strategic to make those revenues eligible for treatment as
Strategic Imperative Revenue and, as a result (iii) the Company
misled the market by portraying the Company's Strategic
Imperative's financial performance and future prospects more
favorable than they actually were as a result of the wrongful
reclassification of revenues from non-strategic to strategic to
make those revenues eligible for treatment as Strategic
Imperatives.

DEADLINE: June 6, 2022

Aggrieved IBM investors only have until June 6, 2022 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required
to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Cream Contains Toxic Chemicals, Horowitz Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN HOROWITZ and DALIT COHEN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. JOHNSON AND JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC.,
Case No. 2:22-cv-02432 (C.D. Cal., April 11, 2022) is a civil class
action brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of all consumers who
purchased Neutrogena Healthy Skin Firming Cream with Broad Spectrum
(SPF 28) for normal, household use.

The Product is allegedly defective because, undisclosed to
consumers, it contains benzophenone, a harmful chemical, known
carcinogen, and endocrine disruptor. Benzophenone's presence in
food products or food packaging is banned in the United States.
Similarly, under California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic
Enforcement Act of 1986, benzophenone is "listed as causing
cancer," and there is no safe harbor for benzophenone in any
personal care products, including sunscreens, anti-aging creams,
and moisturizers.

The Defendant formulates, designs, tests, manufactures, markets,
advertises, distributes, and sells the Product to consumers
throughout the United States, including California and New York.
The Product is available for purchase online and at thousands of
retail locations throughout the United States, including big box
stores and drug stores in California and New York.

The Defendant allegedly failed to detect or prevent the
benzophenone contamination in its Products, and Plaintiffs and
consumers were harmed as a result of Defendant's failure.

According to the complaint, the Defendant represents that the
Product is safe for its intended use, but it actually contains
benzophenone at the time of purchase, and prospective consumers are
unaware of this fact because the chemical is not included on the
Products' ingredients list or packaging.

The Plaintiffs seek damages and equitable remedies for themselves,
and for Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, and
distributes the Product throughout the United States. The Defendant
created and/or authorized the false, misleading, omitting, and
deceptive advertisements, packaging, and labeling of the Product.

Neutrogena has been a top-selling cosmetic brand since it was
founded in 1930, and its products are available for purchase at
major retail stores throughout the United States, including
Walmart, Target, Walgreens, and CVS stores.

Neutrogena has consistently positioned itself as "the Dermatologist
Recommended skincare brand." Similarly, the Product's package
states that it is "Dermatologist Recommended" and
"Hypo-allergenic."

Benzophenone is associated with a wide range of toxicities,
including genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, and endocrine disruption.
12 It is also notorious for inducing dermatological pathologies,
including contact dermatitis, erythema, urticaria, and photoinduced
dermatitis.

The United States prohibits the use of benzophenone in food
products and food packaging. In California, "benzophenone is on the
Proposition list because it can cause cancer," and there is no
"safe harbor" for benzophenone in any personal care products,
including sunscreens, anti-aging creams, and moisturizers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex R. Straus, Esq.
          Nick Suciu, III, Esq.
          Jennifer Czeisler, Esq.
          Russell Busch, Esq.
          Virginia Ann Whitener, Esq.
          Alex Honeycutt, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
          280 S. Beverly Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (917) 471-1894
          Facsimile: (615) 921-6501
          E-mail: astraus@milberg.com
                  nsuciu@milberg.com
                  jczeisler@milberg.com
                  rbusch@milberg.com
                  gwhitener@milberg.com
                  ahoneycutt@milberg.com

KDVH ENTERPRISES: Wins Bid to Dismiss & Arbitrate in Cooley Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TASHA COOLEY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KDVH ENTERPRISES, LLC D/B/A BENTON
NISSAN OF HOOVER, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-802-AMM (N.D. Ala.),
Judge Anna M. Manasco of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama, Southern Division, granted the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss and to Compel Arbitration.

I. Background

On June 14, 2021, Plaintiff Cooley filed the class action complaint
against Benton, alleging that Benton "initiated non-emergency
telephone calls to the cellular telephones of Ms. Cooley and other
members of the Class to deliver prerecorded messages for the
purpose of telemarketing" without "obtaining prior express written
consent to initiate the calls" in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sections 227, et seq. ("the
TCPA"). Ms. Cooley alleges that the "prerecorded message calls were
intended to promote Benton's business, goods and services, and/or
sell Ms. Cooley a vehicle." Ms. Cooley asserts that those
"unsolicited prerecorded messages caused her harm, including
invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on
seclusion, trespass, and conversion," as well as "inconvenienced
Ms. Cooley and caused disruption to her daily life."

On July 14, 2021, Benton filed its Motion to Dismiss and to Compel
Arbitration. On July 28, 2021, Ms. Cooley filed her Response in
Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and to Compel
Arbitration. On July 30, 2021, Benton filed its reply.

II. Analysis

The Federal Arbitration Act ("the Act") applies to a written
contract "evidencing a transaction involving commerce" and provides
that an arbitration clause within the contract "shall be valid,
irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at
law or in equity for the revocation of any contract."

Benton asserts that, "in connection with her purchase of a motor
vehicle on March 13, 2014 from Crown Nissan, Inc. ('Crown'), Ms.
Cooley signed an Arbitration Agreement." Benton asserts that Crown
"is a predecessor in interest to Benton" because, "on April 29,
2014, after Ms. Cooley's purchase, Benton entered into an agreement
with Crown for Benton to purchase substantially all of the assets
of Crown," including "Crown's right, title and interest in Crown's
sales records, customer lists and other customer data including
deal jackets."

Benton asserts that "the deal file for the transaction between Ms.
Cooley and Crown is part of what was sold and assigned to Benton by
Crown." Benton asserts that the deal file contained the purchase
agreement between Ms. Cooley and Crown, which agreement contains
the Arbitration Agreement. Accordingly, "Benton contends that it,
as an assignee of Crown, was given by Ms. Cooley the right to
contact her as alleged in the Complaint."

In response, Ms. Cooley asserts that Benton's motion should be
denied because "Benton has not supported its argument that it is
entitled to enforce a Purchase Agreement between Plaintiff and
Crown." Specifically, she asserts that "Benton does not actually
submit the agreement between it and Crown Nissan, and only submits
a portion of the Purchase Agreement between Ms. Cooley and Crown
Nissan." According to Ms. Cooley, "without both entire agreements,
it is impossible for the Court to determine whether Ms. Cooley's
TCPA claims against Benton should be sent to arbitration." Ms.
Cooley asserts that "Benton simply concludes that it can enforce
the agreements, relying solely on the self-serving statement of one
of its employees."

Judge Manasco finds that Benton has established that an enforceable
arbitration agreement exits between it and Ms. Cooley. Other than
asserting that Benton failed to produce the assignment agreement
between it and Crown, Ms. Cooley does not present evidence or
argument that contradicts Ms. Reeves' testimony that Benton was
assigned the purchase agreement. Nor does Ms. Cooley assert that
the arbitration agreement itself is invalid. Accordingly, "as an
assignee, Benton simply stepped into the shoes of the assignor,
Crown, a signatory to the arbitration agreement," and that valid
assignment gives Benton the same rights, benefits, and remedies
that Crown possesses, including "the right to compel arbitration."

Next, Benton must prove "that the underlying contract evidences a
transaction affecting interstate commerce." Benton asserts that Ms.
Cooley's "purchase of a motor vehicle involved and affected
interstate commerce." Ms. Cooley has not contested Benton's
assertion. Accordingly, Judge Manasco holds that their transaction
involved commerce.

Because Benton has met its burden of proving the existence of an
enforceable arbitration agreement and that the underlying contract
affects interstate commerce, "the burden shifts to Ms. Cooley to
present evidence either that the arbitration agreement is not valid
or that it does not apply to the dispute in question."

Judge Manasco finds that the arbitration provision delegates
disputes involving "the terms of the purchase agreement and all
clauses therein contained, their breadth and scope, and any term of
any agreement contemporaneously entered into by the parties" to the
arbitrator. And Ms. Cooley does not challenge the delegation
provision directly. Because this delegation provision clearly and
unmistakably evinces the parties' agreement to arbitrate the
gateway questions of arbitrability, the arbitrator must determine
the scope of the agreement.

Because Ms. Cooley has not cited any support for her waiver
argument, and in light of the parties' ability to state alternative
defenses under Rule 8(d), Judge Manasco cannot conclude that Benton
has waived its right to assert enforcement of the delegation clause
by merely presenting an argument that Ms. Cooley's claims are
within the scope of the arbitration agreement. She already has held
that Benton has sufficiently shown that it is a
successor-in-interest to the purchase agreement between Ms. Cooley
and Crown, and that Ms. Cooley does not contest that she is a
signatory to that agreement.

Finally, Benton requests that the action "be dismissed without
prejudice, or stayed pending the completion of arbitration." Ms.
Cooley does not take a position on whether the case should be
dismissed or stayed pending arbitration. Accordingly, Judge Manasco
dismisses Ms. Cooley's claims without prejudice.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Manasco granted Benton's motion to
dismiss and compel arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2022 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p97bths from Leagle.com.


KELLOGG CO: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Strawberry Pop-Tarts
---------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a New York
federal judge has tossed a proposed class action lawsuit that
complained the strawberry filling in Pop-Tarts contains other
fruits and dyed red to mislead customers.

"To the extent the label contains any ambiguity about the presence
or amount of strawberries in the product, in the Second Circuit,
courts are to consider 'disclaimers and qualifying language,'"
Judge Andrew Carter wrote on March 31.

"Here, the reasonable consumer would overcome any confusion by
referring to the unambiguous ingredient list on the packaging."

New York attorney Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates sued
Kellogg in New York federal court in September 2020, claiming
consumers wouldn't know from glancing at the label that Strawberry
Pop-Tarts contain pears and apples, as disclosed in the ingredients
list on the package.

He also claimed red dye only increased the confusion, leading
consumers to believe Pop-Tarts are healthy snacks containing fresh
strawberries.

Kellogg's lawyers filed a motion to dismiss refuting each of
Sheehan's claims. The confusion he says named plaintiff Kelvin
Brown suffered "does not pass the straight face test," Kellogg
said, let alone the standard the U.S. Supreme Court laid down in
its landmark Ashcroft v. Iqbal decision, which requires plaintiffs
to present facts supporting the plausibility of their claims.

"No reasonable consumer equates a Pop-Tart to a bushel of
strawberries, and it strains credulity to believe that a consumer
would purchase Frosted Strawberry Pop-Tarts because they provide
Vitamin C, antioxidants, or other `health-related benefits,'"
Kellogg's lawyers at Jenner & Block said

Sheehan failed to state a claim under the New York General Business
Law, Judge Carter wrote, because he failed to prove a reasonable
consumer would be misled by the packaging.

"Courts typically find misleading representations about ingredients
when the product label explicitly asserts that is made with a
specific ingredient or specifies the quantity of an ingredient when
the ingredient is not predominant in the product," he wrote.

"No reasonable consumer would see the entire product label, reading
the words 'Frosted Strawberry Pop-Tarts' next to a picture of a
toaster pastry coated in frosting, and reasonably expect that fresh
strawberries would be the sole ingredient in the product." [GN]

KISLING NESTICO: Class Certification in Williams Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MEMBER WILLIAMS, et al., Appellees v. KISLING,
NESTICO, & REDICK, LLC., et al., Appellants, C.A. Nos. 29630, 29636
(Ohio App.), the Court of Appeals of Ohio for the Ninth District,
Summit County, affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment
granting in part and denying part the motion to certify class.

Appellants Dr. Sam Ghoubrial and the law firm of Kisling, Nestico,
and Redick ("KNR") appeal the judgment of the Summit County Court
of Common Pleas.

I. Background

The instant appeal arises out of a class action lawsuit alleging
unlawful business practices by KNR and several healthcare
providers. The trial court ultimately certified two classes
pursuant to Civ.R. 23, one involving an alleged price-gouging
scheme and the other involving an alleged bogus investigation fee
charged by KNR.

The matter was pending in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas
for several years before the sixth amended complaint was filed with
leave of court in 2019. A number of defendants and claims were
added as the litigation progressed over time. In the sixth amended
complaint, the named class representatives were Member Williams,
Thera Reid, Monique Norris, and Richard Harbour, all of whom were
KNR clients who sought treatment from healthcare providers
recommended by the firm. The named defendants were Dr. Ghoubrial,
Dr. Minas Floros, and KNR, as well as Alberto Nestico and Robert
Redick in their capacities as owners of KNR. Dr. Ghoubrial is a
medical doctor who operates a pain management clinic. Dr. Floros is
a chiropractor who frequently treats individuals involved in car
accidents. KNR is a law firm with a large personal injury
practice.

The sixth amended complaint alleged three fraudulent schemes
perpetrated by KNR.

The first set of claims involved an alleged price-gouging scheme
between KNR and certain healthcare providers. Specifically, the
Plaintiffs sought to pursue claims of fraud, breach of fiduciary
duty, unjust enrichment, unconscionable contract, and violations of
the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act on behalf of KNR clients who were
allegedly charged "exorbitantly inflated prices for medical
treatment and equipment provided by KNR's 'preferred' healthcare
providers pursuant to a price-gouging scheme by which the clients
were pressured into waiving insurance benefits that would have
otherwise protected them." The named Plaintiffs for these claims
were Reid, Norris, and Harbour, in addition to Class A.

The second set of claims involved an allegedly fraudulent charge
imposed on KNR clients that served as a kickback to chiropractors
in KNR's referral network. The Plaintiffs sought to pursue claims
of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment on behalf
of KNR clients who were allegedly charged "a sham narrative fee
that KNR paid as a kickback to select chiropractors as compensation
for referrals and participation in the price-gouging scheme." The
named Plaintiffs for these claims were Reid and Norris, in addition
to Class B.

The third set of claims involved an allegedly bogus fee charged to
KNR clients for investigative services. The Plaintiffs sought to
pursue claims of fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary
duty, and unjust enrichment on behalf of former KNR clients who
were allegedly charged "a bogus 'investigation' fee deducted from
their settlement to pay so-called 'investigators' whose job was
primarily to chase new clients down to sign them up before they
could sign with a competing firm." The named Plaintiffs for these
claims were Williams, Reid, Norris, Harbour, in addition to Class
C.

With respect to the definition of classes pursuant to Civ.R. 23,
the Plaintiffs sought to certify the following three classes:

     a. Class A: All current and former KNR clients who had
deducted from their settlements any fees paid to Defendant
Ghoubrial's personal-injury clinic for trigger-point injections,
TENS units, back braces, kenalog, or office visits, billed pursuant
to the clinic's standard rates from the date of its founding in
2010 through the present.

     b. Class B: All current and former KNR clients who had
deducted from their settlements a narrative fee paid to (1) Dr.
Minas Floros of Akron Square Chiropractic, (2) all other
chiropractors employed at clinics owned by Michael Kent Plambeck,
and (3) certain other chiropractors identified in KNR documents as
automatic recipients of the fee, from KNR's founding in 2005 to the
present.

     c. Class C: All current and former KNR clients to whom KNR
charged sign-up fees paid to AMC Investigations, Inc., MRS
Investigations, Inc., or any other so called investigators or
investigation company, from 2008 to the present.

The Defendants denied the allegations in their respective answers
and asserted a number of affirmative defenses. The parties
submitted a bevy of evidence and engaged in extensive briefing on
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The trial court
permitted supplemental briefing on several issues and held oral
arguments.

On Dec. 17, 2020, the trial court issued a journal entry granting
the motion to certify in part and denying it in part. As to Class
A, the trial court found that the claims of fraud, breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and unconscionable contract "are
appropriate claims for class action against all Defendants except
Dr. Floros, and the breach of fiduciary duty claim as to Dr.
Ghoubrial." The trial court also found there was no evidence to
support the claim alleging violations of the Ohio Corrupt Practices
Act claim against any defendant named in regard to Class A. The
trial court denied the motion to certify as it pertained to Class
B. The trial court granted the motion to certify Class C against
KNR, and its individually named owners.

KNR has appealed and raises two assignments of error. Dr. Ghoubrial
raises one assignment of error. The Court consolidates certain
assignments of error to facilitate review.

II. Discussion

A. KNR's First Assignment of Error & Dr. Ghoubrial's Assignment of
Error

KNR's First Assignment of Error: The trial court erred in
certifying class A -- the price-gouging class on claims one
(fraud), two (breach of fiduciary duty), three (unjust enrichment),
and four (unconscionable contract) of the Sixth Amended Complaint.

Dr. Ghoubrial's Assignment of Error: The trial court erred in
certifying class A, the price gouging-class on claims one for
fraud, three for unjust enrichment, and four for unconscionable
contract from the Sixth Amended Complaint.

KNR and Dr. Ghoubrial have raised assignments of error arguing that
the trial court abused its discretion in certifying Class A, the
price-gouging class, because it failed to conduct a rigorous
analysis as required by Civ.R. 23. KNR and Dr. Ghoubrial maintain
that it is not possible for the Plaintiffs to establish liability
or damages in regard to Class A in a single adjudication with
evidence common to all class members.

The Court of Appeals holds that while the trial court carefully
identified many of the arguments advanced by the parties with
respect to the certification of Class A, it failed to ultimately
resolve some of the foremost evidentiary conflicts regarding
whether the Plaintiffs' claims could be resolved by evidence common
to all parties in a single adjudication. Perhaps most notably, the
trial court failed to undertake a rigorous analysis of how the
Plaintiffs could prove liability with common evidence when the
evidence showed that the individual class members were not
similarly situated with respect to health insurance coverage.

Furthermore, in addressing the contention by KNR and Dr. Ghoubrial
that the Plaintiffs could not satisfy the predominance requirement
regarding the payment plan because some patients received
significant reductions in their charges for medical care, the trial
court simply found that this argument was "not persuasive" and
cited a number of cases in support of the proposition that
individual differences among class members with respect to damages
will not defeat class certification. Finally, the trial court did
not conduct a rigorous analysis when it summarily concluded that
disgorgement was an appropriate remedy.

Finally, the trial court did not conduct a rigorous analysis when
it summarily concluded that disgorgement was an appropriate
remedy.

B. KNR's Second Assignment of Error

KNR's Second Assignment of Error: The trial court erred in
certifying class c (the investigative fee class) on claims nine
(fraud), ten (breach of contract), eleven (breach of fiduciary
duty), and twelve (unjust enrichment) of the Sixth Amended
Complaint.
KNR raises a second assignment of error wherein it challenges the
trial court's certification of Class C, the investigative fee
class. KNR maintains that the trial court ignored the fact that
KNR's standard attorney-client contract contained a provision that
allowed the firm to seek reimbursement for reasonable expenses. KNR
further argues that resolving the controversy in a single
adjudication with common evidence would be highly difficult given
that the extent of investigative services performed varied from
case to case, meaning that an individual analysis of each case
would be required in order to determine whether the investigative
fee charge was reasonable.

The Court of Appeals holds that KNR's argument that the trial court
abused its discretion by disregarding the terms of the contractual
relationship between the parties is without merit. There is no
dispute that the class members entered into an agreement with KNR
for legal services and agreed to have certain expenses deducted
from their settlements. While KNR emphasizes that all of its
clients agreed to be responsible for reimbursement of "reasonable
expenses," the gravamen of the alleged fraud is that the
investigative fee charge was a sham and bore no rational
relationship to any investigative services provided, meaning the
clients could not have agreed to the charge. The claims with
respect to the investigative fee class are based upon a
standardized charge that applied to all class members as well as an
alleged common misrepresentation as to the basis for that charge.

To the extent that KNR would seek to defend against those claims by
demonstrating that the charge was duly incorporated into its
standard attorney-client agreement, it has failed to demonstrate on
appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding
that the issue could be resolved with evidence common to all class
members in a single adjudication. Finally, where the alleged fraud
involved standardized charges and misrepresentations common to all
class members, the Court of Appeals cannot say that the trial
court's decision to certify the investigate fee class was
unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.

Hence, KNR'S second assignment of error is overruled.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court of Appeals KNR's sustained the
first assignment of error. Dr. Ghoubrial's sole assignment of error
is also sustained. KNR's second assignment of error is overruled.
The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed
in part and reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings
consistent with the decision.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

The Court of Appeals ordered that a special mandate issue out of
the Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit,
State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified
copy of the Journal Entry will constitute the mandate, pursuant to
App.R. 27.

Immediately upon the filing thereof, the document will constitute
the journal entry of judgment, and it will be file stamped by the
Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review
will begin to run. The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed
to mail a notice of entry of the judgment to the parties and to
make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R.
30.

Costs taxed equally to both parties.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2022 Decision & Journal
Entry is available at https://tinyurl.com/3zsnvxn2 from
Leagle.com.

BRADLEY J. BARMEN -- brad.Barmen@lewisbrisbois.com -- Attorney at
Law, for the Appellant.

JAMES M. POPSON -- jpopson@sutter-law.com -- Attorney at Law, for
the Appellants.

THOMAS P. MANNION -- Tom.Mannion@lewisbrisbois.com -- Attorney at
Law, for the Appellants.

R. ERIC KENNEDY and DANIEL P. GOETZ, Attorneys at Law, for the
Appellants.

PETER PATTAKOS -- info@pattakoslaw.com -- and RACHEL HAZELET --
rhazelet@matasarjacobs.com -- Attorneys at Law, for the Appellees.


KNOX COUNTY, TN: Law Firm Filed Motion to Get Mask Mandate Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Satterfield, writing for Tennessee Lookout, reports that Knox
County taxpayers were at risk of footing the legal bills of a San
Francisco law firm their elected leaders didn't hire or approve to
fight a judicial mask mandate their own government is already
fighting on their dime -- until the Tennessee Lookout asked their
mayor about it.

The Tennessee Lookout on April 7 asked Knox County Mayor Glenn
Jacobs to comment on the Dhillon Law Group's request in U.S.
District Court for legal fees from Knox County taxpayers in a
lawsuit filed on behalf of a "nonincorporated nonprofit
association" over a judicial mask mandate for school children.

Jacobs, via spokesman Mike Donila, asked for time to respond. Soon
after, the Dhillon Group filed a motion to withdraw its request for
legal fees. Jacobs' office then issued a written response to the
Tennessee Lookout, with the newly-filed motion attached.

"Taxpayers are not on the hook for legal fees of any kind other
than those being paid to the elected law director and his staff,"
Donila wrote on behalf of the mayor.

Jacobs and State Rep. Jason Zachary, R-Knoxville, in March posted a
video on Twitter in which the pair touted the firm's work in COVID
litigation and urged citizens to donate money to pay the firm to
fight masking students.

The firm filed notice in U.S. District Court of its demand for
legal fees from taxpayers two days after the video was posted.

Knox County Deputy Law Director David Sanders had sounded the alarm
on the firm's bid to recoup legal fees from taxpayers, court
records show, with no response from the Dhillon Law Group or the
mayor's office.

Sanders noted in a motion filed April 1 that he is already being
paid by taxpayers to fight a judicial mask mandate for Knox County
students. He said in the motion that the law firm should be barred
from collecting money from Knox County taxpayers and called the
firm's lawsuit demands a "fruitless, circuitous remedy."

"(Knox County) has vigorously opposed the court's order mandating
masks," Sanders wrote in an April 1 motion. "(The lawsuit) asks
this court to enjoin (the Knox County Board of Education) from
complying with the Court's own injunction."

The judicial mask mandate, meanwhile, was lifted March 14.

Donila said in a follow-up response on April 7 that Jacobs
contacted the Dhillon Law Group after receiving the Tennessee
Lookout's request for comment and had been unaware the firm was
seeking to bill Knox County for its legal fees.

Masks, courts and politics

The Knox County Board of Education voted down a mask mandate for
students last September. The parents of three Knox County students
followed up that vote with a proposed class-action lawsuit filed in
U.S. District Court.

The lawsuit argued the lives of students with pre-existing health
conditions were at risk from COVID unless U.S. District Judge
Ronnie Greer stepped in with a temporary judicial mask mandate
order. Sanders quickly filed a motion on behalf of Knox County
against a mandate.

"(The Knox County Board of Education) submits that (a) decision
regarding whether to impose a mask mandate is a political one that
the court should not intervene in," Sanders wrote. "Ultimately, the
elected members of the (school board) will have to answer to the
voters."

Greer sided with the students' mask-seeking parents in late
September and issued a mask mandate for students attending Knox
County Schools. He amended his order a month later to allow school
officials to consider and, in some cases, grant medical exemptions
from the mandate.

Sanders appealed Greer's ruling on behalf of Knox County in late
October, but the mandate remained in effect pending the outcome of
that appeal. The school board was required to enforce it and did
so.

Four months later, Jacobs and Zachary posted a video on Twitter in
which both made a pitch for donations to an organization they
identified as Unmask Knox County Kids to help pay the Dhillon Law
Group to challenge the judicial mask mandate.

"It's incredible the work this firm has done over the last couple
of weeks in preparation for this suit in defense of Knox County
children," Zachary said in the March 1 video. "But we can't do this
with just our donations. We need you to join us. This is going to
be a community effort."

Raising cash

The Unmask Knox County Kids organization is not registered with the
IRS or any government agency. The Dhillon Law Group firm said in a
court motion that the group is a "nonincorporated nonprofit
association" made up of 1,063 Knox County parents, teachers and
"concerned" taxpayers.

The group has a website that lists Knox County parents Angie
Goethert and Andrew Schoenecker as president and treasurer,
respectively, and "constitutional rights activist" Laura Branson as
secretary. The group did not respond to requests for comment.

Its website says the group wants to raise $250,000 to pay the
firm's legal bills and had raised $40,231 as of March 10.

The only requirement for membership in Unmask Knox County Kids, the
group's website says, is the filing of an online form, attesting to
an interest either as a Knox County parent, school employee or
taxpayer. There is no verification process, according to the
website.

The website has an "update and news" section. All items in that
section are news releases by and about the Dhillon Law Group and
its work for the group.

Jacobs and Zachary donated $5,000 each to pay the firm, according
to their Twitter video. Zachary did not respond to requests for
comment on whether he knew the Dhillon Law Group would seek to hold
Knox County taxpayers responsible for the firm's legal bills when
he donated to the group.

Greer lifted his mask mandate March 14 at the request of Sanders
and the mask-seeking parents in the original lawsuit, court records
show. The two sides are working with a federal mediator and must
report back to Greer within 60 days. Meanwhile, the 6th Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals has set a hearing in May to consider whether
Greer was wrong to issue a mask mandate in the first place. [GN]

LIBERTY MUTUAL: Court Dismisses Safeco & LMG From Suber Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIC SUBER, et al., on their own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE GROUP,
et al., Civil Action No. 21-4750 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Gerald Austin
McHugh of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania:

   (i) granted in part and denied in part Defendants Liberty
       Mutual Insurance Co., Liberty Mutual Group, and Safeco
       Insurance Co.'s motion to dismiss the Complaint; and

  (ii) denied the Plaintiffs' motion to strike.

I. Background

The lawsuit is an action seeking class relief related to the denial
of auto insurance claims subject to an exclusion related to racing
events. Plaintiffs Eric Suber and Mary Lynne Forrey-Suber filed a
complaint seeking individual and class relief after their auto
insurance claims were denied for an accident involving Mr. Suber's
2021 Porsche 718. LM General Insurance Co. concedes that it issued
the auto insurance policy in question.

According to letters submitted with the Complaint from agents of LM
General and its parent company, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.
("LMIC"), coverage was denied because the accident was subject to
an exclusion for losses that occur when the vehicle is being used
for "a. competing in; or b. practicing or preparing for any
organized racing, speed, demolition, stunt or performance contest
or related activity whether or not for pay." The Plaintiffs contend
that participation in certain programs where individuals receive
some classroom instruction and then are permitted to drive at high
speeds on closed racetracks, which they define as "High-Performance
Driving Education" courses, should not be subject to this exclusion
because it is not a racing contest nor is it practice for a racing
contest.

On the basis of this denial, the Plaintiffs bring a class action
alleging an illegal scheme to systematically deny otherwise
eligible claims from accidents arising at High-Performance Driving
Education courses. They allege a breach of contract claim (Count
I), violations of the Pennsylvania UTPCPL and other state consumer
protection statutes (Count II), assert a bad faith claim (Count
III), and seek a declaratory judgment as to the scope of the
exclusion (Count IV).

In addition to filing suit against carrier LM General, the Subers
have also filed suit against the parent company LMIC; the holding
company which owns LMIC, Liberty Mutual Group Inc. ("LMG"); and a
sister insurance company, also owned under the LMG/LMIC umbrella,
Safeco Insurance Company of America. These three Defendants all
joined the Motion to Dismiss.

Regarding subject matter jurisdiction, the Moving Defendants argue
that Plaintiff is unable to establish causation because they did
not issue the relevant policy and as a matter of law cannot be held
liable for policy-related injuries. They also argue that
Pennsylvania Plaintiffs lack standing to bring claims on behalf of
a nationwide class. Finally, they argue that the Court lacks
personal jurisdiction over the Moving Defendants because they are
foreign corporations that are not subject to the Court's general or
specific jurisdiction because they are not "at home" here and
because the Plaintiffs' claims do not arise out of the Defendants'
contacts with Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiffs filed responses to the motion, where they point to
various correspondence as well as a website to suggest that the
individual Moving Defendants had some involvement with the denial
of their claims such that dismissal would be inappropriate. With
respect to the nationwide class issue, the Plaintiffs argue that it
would be inappropriate to make a class standing determination prior
to a class certification motion.

II. Discussion

A. Defendants' Causation Arguments Are Improperly Raised Under Rule
12(b)(1)

The Moving Defendants, none of which directly issued the
Plaintiffs' policy, argue that because they are not the issuing
carriers for the Plaintiffs' policy, they could not have caused
their injuries with the result that the Plaintiff lack standing to
sue them for the denial of coverage.

Judge McHugh finds that this argument suffers from a conceptual
flaw. He explains that in Davis v. Wells Fargo, 824 F.3d 333, 338
(3d Cir. 2016), the Court of Appeals observed that the real gist of
the motion to dismiss centered on a merits question: Whether the
plaintiff's "claims against parent defendant are actually without
merit because parent defendant has done nothing wrong." It
concluded that to address the argument as a jurisdictional question
improperly "raises both the factual and legal burden on the
plaintiff."

Such a motion is properly brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim, which the Defendants have not done in the
instant case, Judge McHugh holds. For purposes of Rule 12(b)(1), he
says, the Plaintiffs have alleged injury, causation, and remedy in
that they were denied coverage, they were monetarily injured by
that denial, and damages would constitute a remedy. The Defendants'
factual submissions regarding their corporate structure and
identity have no bearing on whether the Plaintiffs have a right to
bring an action related to the denial of their insurance claims.
Therefore, both Defendants' facial and factual challenges to the
Court's subject matter jurisdiction fail.

B. Personal Jurisdiction over the Individual Defendants

The Defendants argue that the Court lacks both general and specific
personal jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs effectively concede the
Defendants' arguments as to general jurisdiction but argue that
specific jurisdiction exists. To establish specific jurisdiction, a
defendant must have "certain minimum contacts such that the
maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair
play and substantial justice," citing International Shoe Co. v.
Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). This Circuit has distilled
International Shoe's standard, as later narrowed by other Supreme
Court decisions, into a three-part test: "First, the defendant must
have purposefully directed its activities at the forum. Second, the
litigation must arise out of or relate to at least one of those
activities. And third, the exercise of jurisdiction must comport
with fair play and substantial justice." As the Supreme Court has
emphasized, the second part of that test requires "a connection
between the forum and the specific claims at issue."

Judge McHugh states that the relevant issue in the present case is
whether any alleged conduct that the Moving Defendants directed at
Pennsylvania is connected to the Plaintiffs' specific claims. He
finds that at its core, though couched in terms of jurisdiction,
the Defendants' motion advances the argument that where the
"Plaintiffs' claims revolve around the terms of their policy and
the coverage they were allegedly denied," only the carrier can be
held liable as the but-for cause of the Plaintiffs' injuries. He
says, while it is a reasonable presumption that an insurer will
bear primary responsibility for injuries that derive from decisions
to deny claims based on policy exclusions, it is not clear to me
from current law that a per se rule exists -- or should exist -- to
shield entities related to the issuing insurer from liability,
without regard to their possible involvement in a decision to issue
a denial of coverage.

Judge McHugh is particularly reluctant to endorse a per se rule in
the context of a parent-subsidiary relationship where a parent
company may have financial incentives to orchestrate the actions of
subsidiaries directly involved in administering the policy. And any
analysis is obviously complicated by the modern disaggregation of
business functions into multiple legal entities with complicated
and overlapping agents and agency relations. In their briefs, the
parties cite a plethora of cases that largely turn on the
underlying factual allegations and do not represent binding
precedent. Judge McHugh's inquiry is limited to whether the Moving
Defendants have directed sufficient activities towards Pennsylvania
related to the Plaintiffs' claims, without resort to any special
rules or immunities applying to insurance carriers.

The Plaintiffs also fail to identify any conduct on the part of
Safeco directed at Pennsylvania that is connected to the denial of
their insurance claims under their policy. Safeco is not mentioned
in any of their policy documents or otherwise elsewhere identified
as a provider of their coverage. The Plaintiffs make two factual
allegations that they believe supports an inference that "the
Subers reasonably believed that Safeco was their insurance company
and that Safeco denied their claim," but the allegations in the
Complaint and attached exhibits do not plausibly or reasonably
support such a belief. Judge McHugh therefore concludes that the
Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Safeco because, even
assuming the facts as alleged by the Plaintiffs as true, the
Plaintiffs have not established "with reasonable particularity
sufficient contacts between Safeco and the forum state" that are in
any way connected to the claims at issue.

The Plaintiffs' claims against LMG, the holding company that owns
LM General's parent, LMIC, fail for similar reasons, Judge McHugh
finds. They have not plausibly alleged any conduct on the part of
LMG or any agents acting on behalf of LMG that might give rise to
the injuries alleged or ground sufficient contacts to establish the
Court's jurisdiction over them. The Plaintiffs' Complaint and the
related exhibits fail to establish any plausible inference that LMG
was meaningfully involved in activities directed at Pennsylvania
related to the Plaintiffs' claims. Judge McHugh, therefore,
concludes that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over LMG.

Finally, Judge McHugh finds that in the exhibits on which the
allegations of their Complaint are based, the Plaintiffs include
documents reflecting two discrete communications made to them where
individuals involved in the investigation and denial of their
insurance claims expressly identified themselves as agents of
"Liberty Mutual Insurance Company." He says, it is sufficient
evidence of contacts directed towards Pennsylvania connected with
the denial of the Plaintiffs' insurance claims to ground the
Court's personal jurisdiction over LMIC.

C. Nationwide Class Claims

The Defendants also argue that the Plaintiffs' nationwide class
claims must be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. Their
standing objection here appears to be a facial challenge, focused
on the allegations in the Complaint. The Plaintiffs have alleged
that they hold a Pennsylvania auto-insurance policy and that the
"racing exclusion" under which they were denied coverage is
utilized nationwide. They claim to represent a nationwide class of
Liberty Mutual policyholders who were denied coverage under that
exclusion, and contend that such denials violate state common law
of contracts, state unfair trade practices laws, and state common
law of bad faith.

The Defendants argue that although the Plaintiffs may have standing
to bring a Pennsylvania class action, they are unable to establish
standing for related injuries suffered by residents of other states
under other state laws. They appear to presume the existence of a
per se rule applied by some district courts that, in cases
proposing a nationwide class based on state law causes of action,
the court must dismiss for want of standing prior to class
certification.

Judge McHugh holds that while the Plaintiffs' Complaint lacks some
specificity as to the consumer protection laws of other states
being violated, the nature of their claims as to breach of
contract, unfair trade practices, and bad faith suggest that the
"success on the claim under one state's law will more or less
dictate success under another state's law" sufficient to ground
representative class standing. The class certification motion will
provide Defendants ample opportunity to contest the adequacy of
named Plaintiffs to represent the class, the typicality of their
claims, and the predominance of common questions of law or fact,
with the burden of persuasion on the Plaintiff to make such
showings. Further, given the highly specific nature of the racing
exclusion at issue, Judge McHugh anticipates that the Rule 16
conference and the additional grant of discretion to the Court
under Rule 23(d) to manage the class action will prove salutary to
ensuring that the scope of discovery does not prove overly
burdensome.

D. The Motion to Strike

The Plaintiffs also move to strike portions of the Answer on the
basis that Defendant LM General's affirmative defense raising any
defenses available under the contract and a request for attorneys'
fees are "vague and conclusory." "Striking a pleading is a 'drastic
remedy' to be used sparingly because of the difficulty of deciding
a case without a factual record."  Judge McHugh finds no reason to
grant relief. The legal sufficiency of the Defendant's affirmative
defenses and request for attorneys' fees should be adjudicated on
the merits based upon a review of the facts at issue in the case.
The Plaintiffs have the relevant contracts in hand and suffer no
prejudice from the Defendant's reliance on such contracts to
vindicate their own legal rights.

III. Conclusion

For these reasons, Judge McHugh granted in part and denied in part
the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and denied the Plaintiffs'
motion to strike. The Complaint will be dismissed against
Defendants Safeco and LMG. An appropriate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2022 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/49jn4bmc from Leagle.com.


LOUISIANA: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Giroir v. DOC Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOEL GIROIR v. JAMES LeBLANC, ET AL., Civil Action No.
21-108-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La.), Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Dooms of
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana
granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss.

I. Background

The matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss filed by
Defendants LeBlanc and the Louisiana Department of Public Safety &
Corrections ("DPSC" or "DOC").

The civil rights action arises from a claim of over-detention of an
inmate in the DOC's custody. Between 2018 and 2021, the Plaintiff
was incarcerated at the St. Tammany Parish Jail and in DOC custody
at the Concordia Parish Jail in connection with other criminal
matters. On Jan. 26, 2021, while still incarcerated at St. Tammany
Parish Jail, the Plaintiff appeared for a probation revocation and
resentencing hearing and was sentenced to one year in DOC custody.
At that time, however, the Plaintiff "had served at least 192 days
in jail," such that "he was eligible for immediate release" under
Louisiana's "good time" law.

According to the Complaint, in accordance with Louisiana's "good
time" law, because of the Plaintiff's good behavior and because he
was not convicted of a crime of violence, he was only required to
serve 35% of his one-year sentence, or 128 days. Thus, at the time
of the Plaintiff's revocation and resentencing hearing on Jan. 26,
2021, he had already served 64 days beyond his one-year sentence.
Nevertheless, the Plaintiff remained in DOC custody. Three days
after filing the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff was released from
DOC custody on Feb. 22, 2021.

The Plaintiff avers that his experience is not an aberration. On
the contrary, the Complaint alleges that the DOC has a known
pattern and practice of overdetaining people in its custody. In the
Complaint, the Plaintiff details the findings of an investigation
conducted by the DOC in 2012, which uncovered that the DOC "was
overdetaining over 2,000 people each year, with an average of 71.69
'overdue days' per person who was overdetained." This investigation
also revealed that the DOC took "an average of approximately 79
days to calculate sentences" after receiving sentencing documents
from the clerks' and sheriffs' offices. Moreover, "the DOC waits
nearly 11 days on average to even begin calculating a person's
time" once that paperwork is received, according to the Complaint.

On Feb. 19, 2021, while still in DOC custody, the Plaintiff filed
the class action suit against the DOC and LeBlanc, in his official
capacity as Secretary of the DOC. His Complaint "proposes a class
defined as all persons who have been, or will be, sentenced to the
custody of the Louisiana DOC, and who were, or will be, entitled to
release at the time of their sentencing, but who nevertheless
remain in custody, now or in the future, for more than 48 hours
past their sentencing dates."

The Plaintiff asserts a claim on behalf of himself and the proposed
class under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violating the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Count
I). He also asserts state law claims on behalf of himself and the
proposed class for violating Article One, Section Two of the
Louisiana Constitution (Count II); false imprisonment (Count III);
negligence (Count IV); and intentional infliction of emotional
distress (Count V). The Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees and costs, and any other relief the Court
deems proper.

The Defendants now move to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

II. Discussion

In support of their motion, the Defendants assert three grounds for
dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims. First, the Defendants argue
that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim for prospective relief
concerning past harms. Second, they assert that the Plaintiff fails
to state a claim for injunctive relief because the relief sought is
fatally overbroad. Third, the Defendants alternatively seek
dismissal of any claim that arose more than one year before the
Plaintiff filed suit, contending that such claims have prescribed.

In response, the Plaintiff rejects the Defendants' arguments as
ill-founded and urges the Court to deny the Defendants' motion.
First, the Plaintiff responds to the Defendants' contentions
regarding standing and prescription, asserting that the Defendants
misconstrue his proposed class. Second, he asserts that the
Defendants' overbreadth argument is flawed in multiple respects.
Finally, the Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' argument
regarding the class action allegations rely on misapplied case law.

In their reply, the Defendants mostly re-urge the main arguments
raised in their original memorandum. First, they maintain that the
Complaint could be construed as requesting prospective relief for
past harms, notwithstanding the Plaintiff's concession that he is
not seeking such relief. Second, they maintain that the Plaintiff
fails to state a claim for injunctive relief because the relief
sought is fatally overbroad. Lastly, the Defendants reassert their
prescription argument and contend that the Plaintiff's "admission
that he is not seeking relief for an individual who has been
released does not obviate the need for dismissal of claims arising
more than one year before suit was filed" based on prescription.

A. Claims for Prospective Relief Concerning Past Harm

The Defendants' motion seeks dismissal of any claims for
prospective relief asserted on behalf of individuals who were
released before the instant suit was filed because there is no
likelihood of future injury as to those claims concerning past
harms.

Considering the foregoing and viewing the Complaint's allegations
in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Judge Wilder-Dooms
does not find that the Plaintiff is asserting claims for injunctive
or declaratory relief on behalf of any individual who was
overdetained in DOC custody and released before the Plaintiff filed
the lawsuit. Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss as to
these claims is denied as moot.

B. Prescription

As previously noted, the Plaintiff's Complaint asserts
overdetention claims on behalf of all persons "who were, or will
be, entitled to release at the time of their sentencing, but who
nevertheless remain in DOC custody, now or in the future, for more
than 48 hours past their sentencing dates." This includes
individuals sentenced in the past, as the Plaintiff notes, so long
as those individuals currently remain in custody or will be in
custody in the future. Again, the Plaintiff filed suit on Feb. 19,
2021.

Based on the allegations of the Complaint, Judge Wilder-Dooms holds
that it is theoretically possible that an individual's
overdetention claim could have accrued before Feb. 19, 2020. For
instance, if the individual's sentencing occurred before Feb. 17,
2020, and following the 48-hour period after their sentencing date,
they remained in custody for an additional year, the one-year
limitations period would have run by the time the Plaintiff filed
the action on Feb. 19, 2021. Accordingly, insofar as the Plaintiff
seeks to bring claims of overdetention on behalf of proposed class
members whose sentencings occurred before Feb. 17, 2020, such
claims are time-barred under the applicable limitations period, and
the Defendants' motion is granted as to these claims.
C. Injunctive Relief

Construing the Plaintiff's allegations in the light most favorable
to him and taking all facts pleaded in the Complaint as true, Judge
Wilder-Dooms finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a
plausible entitlement to the injunctive relief sought, based on the
underlying Section 1983 action for the Defendants' violations of
the proposed class's Fourteenth Amendment right to Due Process. She
finds that, at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, the Plaintiff has satisfied
his pleading requirement under Rule 8 with respect to his request
for injunctive relief. Therefore, she denies the Defendants' motion
as to the Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief.

D. Leave to Amend

Having carefully considered the matter, Judge Wilder-Dooms grants
the Plaintiff leave to amend to cure the deficiencies with respect
to prescription. She does so for a couple of reasons. First, it is
possible that such issues can be cured, at least in part. Second,
even if amendment were likely futile, the Court would still act in
accordance with the above "wise judicial practice" and grant the
Plaintiff another opportunity to plead these claims, particularly
since these claims have not been previously dismissed in response
to a ruling by the Court. Consequently, those claims deemed
prescribed will be dismissed without prejudice, and the Plaintiff
will have an opportunity to cure the deficiencies.

III. Conclusion

Judge Wilder-Dooms granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. She granted the Defendants' motion
seeking dismissal of claims on the basis of prescription, and
dismissed without prejudice any such claims. The Plaintiff will
have 28 days to amend the operative complaint to cure the above
deficiencies. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of his
claims with prejudice. Judge Wilder-Dooms denied the Defendants'
motion in all other respects.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2022 Ruling & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ye2386mm from Leagle.com.


LUCID GROUP: Howard G. Smith Reminds of May 31 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on April 4 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Lucid Group, Inc. ("Lucid" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LCID) common
stock between November 15, 2021 and February 28, 2022, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Lucid investors have until May 31, 2022 to
file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Lucid investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

On February 28, 2022, Lucid disclosed that it had only delivered
approximately 125 EVs in 2021 -- 452 less than expected -- and
would only produce between 12,000 and 14,000 EVs in 2022, despite
previous claims that it would produce 20,000. The Company also
announced that it would delay the launch of its Lucid Gravity SUV
from 2023 to 2024, citing "the extraordinary supply chain and
logistics challenges" as the cause.

On this news, Lucid's common stock fell $3.99, or 13.8%, to close
at $24.99 per share on March 1, 2022, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants 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.

If you purchased Lucid common stock, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contacts
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]

LUCID GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of May 31 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Lucid Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: LCID)
between November 15, 2021, and February 28, 2022, inclusive (the
'Class Period'), of the important May 31, 2022 lead plaintiff
deadline.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Lucid class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=4992 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 31, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business and operations. Specifically, Defendants
overstated Lucid's production capabilities while concealing that
'extraordinary supply chain and logistics challenges' were already
significantly hampering the Company's operations.

To join the Lucid class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=4992 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Food Products Contains PFAS, Collora Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH COLLORA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-01904 (N.D. Ill., April 13, 2022) is an action by the
Plaintiff and the Class who purchased for personal, family, or
household use, certain of Defendant's Products - namely,
Defendant's Chicken McNuggets, Cookies, and French Fries (the
"Products"), which are unfit for human consumption because the
packaging in which it is contained -- and is essential and integral
to delivering the Product to the consuming public contains unsafe
per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").

Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that he purchased the
Defendant's Products, which are unfit for human consumption because
the packaging in which it is contained and is essential and
integral to delivering the Product to the consuming public-
contains unsafe per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS
are a group of synthetic chemicals known to be harmful to both the
environment and humans. PFAS have been shown to have a number of
toxicological effects in laboratory studies and have been
associated with thyroid disorders, immunotoxic effects, and various
cancers in epidemiology studies.

MCDONALD'S CORPORATION franchises and operates fast-food
restaurants in the global restaurant industry. The Company's
restaurants serves a variety of value-priced menu products in
countries around the world. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Brian M. Hogan, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          Email: bhogan@fkmlaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          923 Fayette Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 234-6487
          Email: jjagher@fkmlaw.com


MCDONALD'S USA: DOJ's Request to File Statement of Interest Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan P. Levine, Esq., Barbara T. Sicalides, Esq., A. Christopher
Young, Esq., and Robert Austin Jenkin, II, Esq., of Troutman
Pepper, disclosed that the Biden administration's Department of
Justice, Antitrust Division (DOJ) continues a practice largely
begun under the Trump administration of intervening in private
litigation and requesting permission to file statements of
interest. Courts have typically granted the requests, perceiving
the DOJ's viewpoint to be helpful to the resolution of the pending
matter before the court. Recently, a DOJ request garnered
significant attention for what it portends about the Biden
administration's changing views of traditional antitrust principles
and because the court denied the request.

Deslandes v. McDonalds

The DOJ's efforts to express its views were thwarted in a franchise
no-poach antitrust class action in federal court in Chicago. In
Deslandes v. McDonald's USA LLC, et al., McDonald's moved for
judgment on the pleadings and/or for summary judgment on the
plaintiffs' Sherman Act Section 1 claims. In its motion, McDonald's
argued it was entitled to judgment on the pleadings because the
plaintiffs had not pled a rule of reason claim, and in denying
class certification, the court had previously held that it would
not use the less rigorous, quick-look standard. McDonald's argued
the plaintiffs could not establish that its employee no-poach
agreements with its franchisees constituted a horizontal conspiracy
subject to per se liability because the vertical agreements between
a hub and its spokes "has no rim."[1]

DOJ's Prior Position

In its motion for summary judgment, McDonald's cited the DOJ's
March 2019 Statement of Interest in Stigar v. Dough Dough Inc, No.
18 C 00244 (E.D. Wash. Mar. 7, 2019), another franchise no-poach
antitrust class action, for the proposition that parallel signing
of franchise agreements even with "'knowledge of others' agreement
does not establish a hub and spoke conspiracy."[2]

In Stigar, the plaintiffs -- former employees of franchisees of
Auntie Anne's, Arby's, and Carl's Jr. -- alleged that the no-poach
provisions contained within the franchise agreements for all three
of the franchises violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by
depressing employee wages and restricting competition within the
labor market. The plaintiffs alleged that hub-and-spoke horizontal
conspiracies existed among the franchisees and franchisors, and
therefore, the per se rule applied.[3] In its Stigar Statement of
Interest, the DOJ's position substantially aligned with the
franchisors' argument that the plaintiffs had not alleged
sufficient facts to plead a per se illegal hub-and-spoke conspiracy
because there were no horizontal agreements among the franchisees.
The DOJ argued that the rule of reason governed most franchise
agreement provisions because they are vertical agreements.[4]
Further, the DOJ rejected the plaintiffs' suggestion that the less
rigorous quick-look analysis is applicable because, in its view,
the court should weigh the procompetitive benefits of the no-poach
restraint against its anticompetitive effects. The DOJ also stated
"allegations of parallel conduct alone do not suffice to satisfy
the requirements" of a hub-and-spoke conspiracy and that "the mere
fact that one franchisee may enforce no-hire provisions of a
vertical franchise agreement against another franchisee does not
create an actual agreement among competing franchisees" for
purposes of Section 1 liability.[5] The parties in Stigar
ultimately settled their dispute before the court ruled on the
motion to dismiss.

Court Denies DOJ's Request

On February 17, after the briefing closed on McDonald's motion, the
DOJ sought permission to file its Statement of Interest to set
forth the government's position on "the implications of the Supreme
Court's decision in NCAA v. Alston, 141 U.S. 2141 (2021)." The DOJ
also contended that its Statement of Interest in Stigar "… does
not fully and accurately reflect the United States' current views."
McDonald's opposed the DOJ's request, mostly to avoid further delay
in the case.

On March 3, the court denied the DOJ's request based on separation
of powers concerns and to avoid further delay. The court's denial
prevented the DOJ from publicly expressing its "current" views on
the standards that should be applied to a franchisor's no-poach
agreements and leaves the new position of the DOJ subject to much
speculation.

DOJ's Possible New Position

Given the court's refusal of the DOJ's request, it is impossible to
know exactly what the "United States' current views" on Section 1
conspiracies in franchising are. But it is not difficult to predict
that the DOJ intends to advocate a broader view of antitrust
liability on the buy-side markets consistent with the Biden
administration policy priority of protecting employee wages.[6] As
such, the DOJ could try to push the bounds of traditional antitrust
principles by arguing that even vertical arrangements like
franchise relationships qualify as horizontal conspiracies worthy
of per se scrutiny subject to an ancillary restraint defense. This
is a sea change from the views expressed in Stigar, but it is
consistent with what the DOJ argued in a statement of interest
filed in Nevada state court on February 25. In that statement, the
DOJ contended that the state court could treat non-competes found
in separate agreements between employees and an employer,
traditionally viewed as vertical arrangements, as horizontal and
subject to per se illegality.

In Beck v. Pickert Group, the DOJ argued that the two-year,
post-employment agreement non-competes at issue could be considered
to be horizontal territorial allocations because the employer and
employees were competitors when they signed their respective
employment agreements. If the restraint was a horizontal
territorial allocation, the burden would shift to the employer to
assert the ancillary restraint defense by showing the restraint is
"(1) 'subordinate and collateral to a separate, legitimate
transaction,' and (2) 'reasonably necessary' to achieving that
transactions' pro-competitive purpose." In Beck the DOJ also seems
to suggest that courts should consider using the quick look, or
truncated rule-of-reason analysis more broadly.

Analogizing the non-competes to franchise no-poach agreements,
could the DOJ have suggested in its statement of interest that
separate agreements between the franchisor and franchisees not to
poach each other's employees are horizontal territorial allocations
subject to the per se rule if, at the time they signed the
agreements, the franchisor and franchisee competed with each other
for employees? Even if it was to articulate such a position,
significant factual distinctions exist between the employee
anesthesiologists in Beck and the franchisees in Deslandes. For
one, the employee anesthesiologists were a significant number of
competitors in the relevant interbrand geographic market. That
stands in contrast to the McDonald's franchisees in Deslandes that
may compete with the franchisor, if at all, only on the buy-side
labor market or the intrabrand sell-side market.

Conclusion

Because the court did not allow the DOJ's statement of interest to
be filed, it is impossible to know what would have been in the
filing. However, it is clear the DOJ wanted to deviate from its
expressed position in Stigar. Based on the Biden administration's
priorities, we can surmise the new statement may have taken a
harder line on no-poach agreements in traditionally vertical
arrangements like franchise systems. Businesses should continue to
stay up to date on these issues as no-poach provisions continue to
be a hot button topic in 2022. Members of the Troutman Pepper team
are available to advise further on these issues as they develop.
[GN]

MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION: Appeals District Court Ruling in Harris
---------------------------------------------------------------
MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT, INC. filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ISAAC HARRIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-01371 (APM), in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia.

The lawsuit seeks unpaid wages with liquidated damages, penalties,
treble damages, post-judgment interest at the statutory rate,
attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements and further legal and
equitable relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Columbia's
Minimum Wage Act, Living Wage Act and Wage Payment and Collection
Law, D.C.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on December 3, 2021, Judge
Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia denied Medical Transportation Management, Inc. ("MTM")'s
motion for interlocutory review of an order.

Defendant MTM sought interlocutory review of the Court's refusal to
decertify a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"). MTM also requested a stay of discovery pending a decision
from the D.C. Circuit on whether to review a separate but related
decision by the Court to certify an issue class. The D.C. Circuit
has deferred its decision pending a ruling by the Court on MTM's
motion for interlocutory review.

Judge Mehta opined that these essentially boil down to one
overarching question: Can the question of joint-employer status be
the basis for a collective action under the FLSA? In its August
2021 opinion, the Court concluded that it could. The Court reasoned
that MTM's role in devising each driver's terms of employment is
likely to be defined by policies and practices that are broadly
applicable to all TSPs, and that MTM is likely to be a joint
employer for all drivers or for none at all based on common
evidence.

MTM, by contrast, has consistently argued that there must be
evidence of a common FLSA-violating policy or practice to satisfy
the similarly situated standard, and it now contends that the
question of joint-employer status as the basis for a collective
action warrants interlocutory review.

The Court disagreed saying that even if this is a "controlling
question of law," MTM has failed to demonstrate that it satisfies
the remaining elements justifying interlocutory review. The Court
is not convinced that there is substantial ground for difference of
opinion as to this question. MTM also has not demonstrated that
interlocutory review will materially advance the disposition of the
litigation, it added.

The Defendant now seeks a review of Judge Mehta's order.

The appellate case is captioned as HARRIS et al. v. MEDICAL
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 22-7033, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, filed on
March 24, 2022.[BN]

MIDLAND CREDIT: 7th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of FDCPA Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
Ryli Wallace Leader, Esq., and Alan Leeth, Esq., of Burr & Forman,
in an article for JDSupra, report that in Pierre v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., -- F.4th --, 2022 WL 986441 (7th Cir. Apr. 1,
2022), the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a claim under
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), finding that the
plaintiff and the putative class which she represented suffered no
concrete injury and therefore lacked Article III standing under the
framework set out in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016)
and TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021). Plaintiff
Renetrice Pierre filed a class action lawsuit, seeking to represent
a class of Illinois residents who had received letters from the
defendant offering to resolve debts long after the statute of
limitations on the debt had run. The letters at issue notified the
consumers that the time to sue on the debt had passed, and that "we
will not sue you for it, we will not report it to any credit
reporting agency, and payment or non-payment of this debt will not
affect your credit score." The District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois had denied dismissal, finding a risk of "real
harm to the interests that Congress sought to protect with the
FDCPA." After the court certified the class and entered summary
judgment for the plaintiffs, a jury awarded statutory damages of
$350,000.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded the case,
directing the district court to dismiss the case due to a lack of
Article III standing. The plaintiff argued that the letter she
received created a risk that she might make a payment on a
time-barred debt, which could restart the statute of limitations.
However, because the plaintiff sought monetary damages rather than
injunctive relief, the Seventh Circuit stated that such a risk was
insufficient to create a legally cognizable harm. Critically, the
plaintiff had not made a payment in response to the letter and had
not taken any action in response to the letter other than
contacting a lawyer and filing the present lawsuit, which was not a
sufficient harm to create standing. Further, the Seventh Circuit
rejected the plaintiff's claim that the letter caused her
confusion, stating that such confusion was insufficient under the
Spokeo and TransUnion analysis.

Judge Hamilton filed a lengthy dissent, asserting that the
plaintiff's confusion and emotional harm was sufficient to create
Article III standing. He analogized the plaintiff's claim to those
under the common law for defamation and invasion of privacy, and
further compared it to the difference between assault and battery,
which he characterized as "fear and emotional distress." Judge
Hamilton also raised concerns about the separation of powers,
stating that the courts should grant "due respect" to Congress and
the policy choices that were made in providing for private
enforcement of technical violations of the FDCPA.

Pierre is only one of a series of recent cases grappling with the
standing doctrine in the wake of the recent TransUnion opinion. As
a circuit split begins to emerge, the question arises of whether
the Supreme Court will consider clarifying the standing doctrine in
the wake of TransUnion so soon after the opinion was published.
Until there is further clarification, we will likely continue to
see more developments of this doctrine as it pertains to technical
violations of the consumer protection statutes in the near future.
[GN]

MITSUI SUMITOMO: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Thermoflex Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THERMOFLEX WAUKEGAN, LLC, an Illinois limited
liability company, Plaintiffs, v. MITSUI SUMITOMO INSURANCE USA,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 21 C 788 (N.D. Ill.), Judge John Z. Lee
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting
Mitsui's motion for summary judgment as to certain policies.

I. Background

Plaintiff Thermoflex purchased a number of insurance policies from
Defendant Mitsui related to its business operations. While those
policies were in effect, a former worker sued Thermoflex, alleging
that it had violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
("BIPA"), 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 14/1 et seq., by requiring him to
scan his handprint to check in and out of work. Thermoflex, in
turn, notified Mitsui of the lawsuit and requested that Mitsui
defend Thermoflex and indemnify it for any damages arising from the
suit. Mitsui responded that the insurance policies it issued to
Thermoflex did not cover BIPA claims, and the instant suit
followed.

Now Thermoflex and Mitsui have cross-moved for summary judgment as
to whether Mitsui has a duty to defend and indemnify Thermoflex
under certain commercial general liability policies, as well as
excess and umbrella insurance policies. Because the Court concludes
that at least one of the exclusions contained in the commercial
general liability policies applies to the underlying claims,
Mitsui's motion is granted as to these policies, and Thermoflex's
cross-motion is denied as to these policies.

II. Analysis

Mitsui insures Thermoflex under a series of commercial general
liability policies ("CGL Policies"). In them, Mitsui agreed to "pay
those sums that Thermoflex becomes legally obligated to pay as
damages because of 'personal and advertising injury' to which this
insurance applies." The CGL Policies define "personal and
advertising injury" as "injury arising out of one or more of"
certain enumerated offenses, including the "oral or written
publication, in any manner, of material that violates a person's
right of privacy." They also require Mitsui to defend Thermoflex
when it is named in a suit seeking damages for such injuries.

The CGL Policies contain three pertinent exclusions. The first,
entitled "Access Or Disclosure Of Confidential Or Personal
Information." The second, entitled "Recording And Distribution Of
Material Or Information In Violation Of Law." The third,
"Employment-Related Practices," reads that the insurance does not
apply to "personal and advertising injury to a person arising out
of any." The issue is whether any of these exclusions precludes
coverage for Gates' lawsuit.

Judge Lee explains that it is uncontested that the claims Gates
asserts in the underlying lawsuit allege "personal and advertising
injury," which, in turn, triggers coverage. As a result, to avoid
coverage, Mitsui must establish that at least one of the exclusions
precludes its duty to defend.

As noted, the exclusion in the CGL Policies entitled "Access Or
Disclosure Of Confidential Or Personal Information"
("Access/Disclosure exclusion") states: "This insurance does not
apply to damages arising out of any access to or disclosure of any
person's or organization's confidential or personal information,
including patents, trade secrets, processing methods, customer
lists, financial information, credit card information, health
information or any other type of nonpublic information."

Judge Lee opines that the first clause in this provision is
unequivocal. Because the language in the exclusion is clear and
unambiguous, he ascribes to it its plain and ordinary meaning. The
only readily discernible resemblance here is that several of the
items, such as trade secrets, processing methods, customer lists,
financial information, credit card information, and health
information, denote certain categories of information about which
individual and companies have a heightened interest in keeping from
third-parties or the public at large, whether for financial reasons
or otherwise. The biometric data that BIPA protects certainly falls
within this category.

But, Access/Disclosure exclusion not only applies to "confidential"
information, but to an individual's "personal" information as well,
and Thermoflex does not explain why biometric information would not
constitute "personal" information as that term appears in the
exclusion. Furthermore, although BIPA provides that "biometric
identifier" information does not include a person's health
care-related information, it does not expressly exclude "biometric
identifier" information from the definition of "confidential and
sensitive information." Finally, it is not at all clear whether and
to what extent statutory definitions should bear on the present
inquiry at all. For all of these reasons, Thermoflex's statutory
arguments are unpersuasive.

Judge Lee next turns to the allegations in the underlying
litigation to determine whether they clearly fall within the
Access/Disclosure exclusion. Gates alleges, among other things,
that Thermoflex owes damages for disclosing Gates's hand-scan
information to an out-of-state, third-party vendor without Gates's
consent. Thermoflex argues that any construction that excludes
coverage for damages based on the access to or disclosure of
biometric information would consume the coverage grant for
"personal and advertising injury," making the coverage illusory.

The exclusion at issue does not render coverage for "personal and
advertising injury" meaningless, Judge Lee opines. He says, claims
for false light invasion of privacy seek damages arising out of a
publication of material that violates a person's right of privacy,
and, therefore, would satisfy the definition of "personal and
advertising injury" in the CGL Policies. Yet, such claims would not
fall under the Access/Disclosure exclusion because they would not
seek damages arising out of any access to or disclosure of any
person's confidential or personal information. Therefore, contrary
to Thermoflex's contention, the Court's construction of the
Access/Disclosure exclusion would not render coverage illusory.

For all of these reasons, Judge Lee holds that the
Access/Disclosure provision in the CGL Policies precludes coverage
of the Gates lawsuit.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Lee granted Defendant Mitsui's
motion for summary judgment as to the CGL Policies, and Plaintiff
Thermoflex's motion for summary judgment is denied as to the CGL
Policies.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/37vdcev8 from
Leagle.com.


MONEYLION INC: Bragar Eagel Investigates Potential Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, is investigating potential claims against
MoneyLion, Inc. (NYSE: ML), Cronos Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: CRON),
Agrify Corporation (NASDAQ: AGFY), and CareDx, Inc. (NASDAQ: CDNA).
Our investigations concern whether these companies have violated
the federal securities laws and/or engaged in other unlawful
business practices. Additional information about each case can be
found at the link provided.

MoneyLion, Inc. (NYSE: ML)

On March 10, 2022, MoneyLion disclosed in a filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that "the Company's management
has noted errors related to operating expenses, net loss and basic
and diluted earnings (loss) per share in the condensed consolidated
statements of operations for the three and nine months ended
September 30, 2021 and additional paid-in capital and retained
earnings in the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of
September 30, 2021, along with related impacts to the condensed
consolidated statement of cash flows for the nine months ended
September 30, 2021 and the condensed consolidated statements of
redeemable convertible preferred stock, redeemable noncontrolling
interests and stockholders' deficit for the three and nine months
ended September 30, 2021." MoneyLion further disclosed that "the
Company's management identified a second error . . . as the
denominator of the diluted net income per share calculation for the
three months ended September 30, 2021 did not include the impact of
dilutive securities" and that "[t]he Company's management, in
consultation with its advisors, has determined that the calculation
of diluted net income per share included within the condensed
consolidated statement of operations for the three months ended
September 30, 2021 should have included the impact of dilutive
securities." Accordingly, the Audit Committee of MoneyLion's Board
of Directors determined that the financial statements in question
"should no longer be relied upon and should be restated in order to
correct the errors described above."

On this news, MoneyLion's stock price fell $0.18 per share, or
7.11%, to close at $2.29 per share on March 10, 2022.

For more information on the MoneyLion investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/ML

Cronos Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: CRON)

On November 9, 2021, Cronos filed a Form 8-K with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, stating that "[o]n November 8,
2021, Cronos Group Inc. . . . determined that it will be required
to restate its previously issued unaudited interim financial
statements for the three and six months ended June 30, 2021
previously filed on Form 10-Q on August 6, 2021" and advising that
"[t]he Company's financial statements for this period should
therefore no longer be relied upon." Cronos further stated that
"[t]he Company concluded that it should have recorded an impairment
charge of not less than $220 million on goodwill and
indefinite-lived intangible assets in its U.S. reporting unit for
the three and six months ended June 30, 2021. The Company will
restate its unaudited interim financial statements for the three
and six months ended June 30, 2021, accordingly." According to
Cronos, the Company "is also evaluating whether to record an
additional impairment in the three and nine months ended September
30, 2021."

On this news, Cronos's stock price fell $1.01 per share, or 15.05%,
to close at $5.70 per share on November 9, 2021.

For more information on the Cronos Group investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/CRON

Agrify Corporation (NASDAQ: AGFY)

On December 16, 2021, during trading hours, market analyst Bonitas
Research published a report regarding Agrify which alleges several
issues at the Company including that "[w]e believe that Agrify
created artificial demand for its product by financing undisclosed
Company insiders to act as independent customers." Further the
report alleges that "Agrify insiders lied to investors about the
independence of its customer base in order to execute a dubious
stock promotion for self-enrichment at the expense of minority
shareholders[,]" and that "[e]vidence showed that five (5) of
Agrify's eight (8) customer announcements in 2021 are either with
undisclosed Company insiders or with unlicensed unproven
operators."

On this news, Agrify's common stock price fell sharply during
intraday trading on December 16, 2021.

For more information on the Agrify investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/AGFY

CareDx, Inc. (NASDAQ: CDNA)

advertisement
On January 25, 2021, the Company sold 1,923,077 shares of its
common stock through an underwritten public offering at a public
offering price of $91.00 per share.

On October 28, 2021, after the market closed, CareDx released Q3
2021 financial results in which the Company disclosed that the U.S.
Department of Justice ("DOJ") had recently served a civil
investigatory demand requesting documents in connection with a
False Claims Act investigation. The DOJ is investigating business
practices related to CareDx's kidney testing and phlebotomy
services. The Company also disclosed that it received a subpoena
from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") for
similar issues as well as certain accounting and public reporting
practices, and the Company received an information request from an
unnamed state agency.

On this news, the Company's share price declined by $19.34 per
share, or approximately 27.5%, from $70.34 per share to close at
$51.00 per share on October 29, 2021.

For more information on the CareDx investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/CDNA

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

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

Contact Information:

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

MONSANTO CO: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ted A. Warpinski, Esq., and M. Andrew Skwierawski, Esq., of The
National Law Review, report that a Central District of California
Judge has preliminarily approved a class action settlement in City
of Long Beach, et al. v. Monsanto Company, et al., that will
resolve claims by various municipalities against Monsanto Company,
Solutia, Inc. and Pharmacia for environmental damages related to
PCBs. The underlying basis for the claims are allegations that PCBs
are present at sites and public properties, including in
stormwater, storm and wastewater systems, water bodies, sediment,
natural resources, fish and wildlife. The Defendants agreed to pay
$550 million to be distributed to 2,528 initial class members
across the United States.

While none of the named plaintiffs in the case are from Wisconsin,
there are 135 Wisconsin Municipalities identified as Class Members
who will be impacted by this settlement. Eighteen Wisconsin
Municipalities are projected to be eligible for a combined total of
over $11 million from a "TMDL Fund." The TMDL payments range from
as low as $5,404 to a high of $4,034,109 and are intended to be
used for "restitution and remediation including mitigation of
contaminated property, stormwater, and/or stormwater systems,
including compliance with a TMDL." The other 117 municipalities are
purportedly eligible to receive payments ranging from $17,024.47 to
$32,024.47 from a "monitoring fund." The total projected payout to
these Wisconsin Municipalities from the monitoring fund is just
under $720,000.

In exchange for accepting payments as class members, the
municipalities will be forever barred from making any claim against
these manufacturers for PCB related environmental impairments,
including impairments to water bodies, sediment cleanups, public
properties, including stormwater and wastewater systems.

Notice of the preliminary approval will be mailed to the identified
135 Wisconsin Municipalities in the coming days. Once the notice
has been mailed, municipalities have 60 days from the date of
mailing to decide if they want to (1) accept the settlement, remain
in the class and file a claim; (2) remain in the class and object
to the settlement; or (3) opt out of the settlement to pursue
claims separately. [GN]

MONTANA UNIVERSITY: Seeks Denial of Cole Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE COLE, BARBARA
KOOSTRA, MARY-ANN SONTAG BOWMAN, and RHONDIE VOORHEES, v. MONTANA
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA–MISSOULA, and JOHN DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-50, Case No. 9:21-cv-00088-BMM (D. Mont.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order denying class
certification in this matter.

The Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs fail to establish a
sufficiently numerous class, lack common questions of law or fact,
the named Plaintiffs’ claims are not typical of the class claims,
and the class is not adequately represented due to conflicts
between class members under Rule 23(a). Additionally, the class
certification is inappropriate under all three elements of Rule
23(b). Class certification risks putative class members' rights and
remedies and would result in a highly inefficient and unfocused
trial forum.

The Montana University System was created on July 1, 1994, when the
Montana Board of Regents of Higher Education restructured the
state's public colleges and universities, with the goal of
streamlining the state's higher education in the wake of decreased
state funding.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 25, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JDe0JP at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Susan Moriarity Miltko, Esq.
          James David Johnson, Esq.
          Hannah I. Higgins, Esq.
          WILLIAMS LAW FIRM, P.C.
          235 E. Pine, P.O. Box 9440
          Missoula, MT 59807-9440
          Telephone: (406) 721-4350
          E-mail: susan@wmslaw.com
                  james@wmslaw.com
                  hannah@wmslaw.com

MORGAN STANLEY: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $60MM
----------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Morgan Stanley agreed to a $60
million settlement to resolve a class action lawsuit regarding its
2016 and 2019 data breaches.

The settlement benefits consumers with existing or closed Morgan
Stanley accounts who received notices in July 2020 and/or June 2021
about the 2016 and/or 2019 data breaches.

Morgan Stanley is an investment advisory company that provides
wealth management services. The company also provides market
insights and analysis to the financial world.

In 2016 and 2019, two separate data breaches compromised 15 million
Morgan Stanley customers. The breaches included sensitive personal
information such as social security numbers. According to a 2021
class action lawsuit, these data breaches were a direct result of
Morgan Stanley's negligence.

Both data breaches were allegedly caused by a failure to properly
dispose of IT assets containing sensitive data. Even today, there
are thousands of pieces of unsecured IT equipment containing
unencrypted information on Morgan Stanley customers, the class
action lawsuit contends. When an unauthorized third party gained
access to some of these assets, they allegedly gained access to
consumer data.

To make matters worse, Morgan Stanley failed to manage the data
breaches once they were discovered, the plaintiff contends. In
fact, affected consumers were not informed about the 2016 and 2019
data breaches until 2020 and 2021, respectively, despite allegedly
having knowledge of the issues for years.

Morgan Stanley has not admitted any legal wrongdoing but agreed to
pay $60 million to resolve the class action lawsuit. This civil
settlement is separate from the $60 million in penalties the
company paid in 2020 to the Office of the Comptroller of Currency.

The settlement provides several benefits including fraud insurance
coverage, cash reimbursement for losses, and injunctive relief.

Under the settlement terms, Class Members are eligible for two
years of complimentary access to Aura's Financial Shield insurance
coverage. Class Members can redeem this benefit using the code
provided on their mailed notice and by registering at the provided
website.

The settlement also allows Class Members to collect up to $10,000
in reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses related to the data
breaches. Eligible expenses include unreimbursed fraudulent
charges, fees for professional services (attorneys, accountants,
credit repairs, etc.), miscellaneous costs, and lost time (up to
four hours at a rate of $25 per hour).

Morgan Stanley also agreed to injunctive relief in the settlement.

For one year, the company will hire a third party to investigate
and retrieve any devices fraudulently sold to third parties. This
aims to prevent further data incidents in connection with these
devices.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is May 3, 2022.

The settlement's final approval hearing is scheduled for June 8,
2022.

In order to receive a settlement payment, Class Members must submit
a valid claim form by June 2, 2022.

Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits consumers with existing or closed Morgan
Stanley accounts who received notices in July 2020 and/or June 2021
about the 2016 and/or 2019 data breaches.

Potential Award
Varies

Proof of Purchase
Any available documentation of the potential fraud and/or identity
theft that made your expenditure of time necessary (i.e. letter
from IRS or bank; police report). If you took unpaid time off from
work, please provide documentation of the number of hours that you
took off from work, and your hourly wage.

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

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

Claim Form Deadline
06/02/2022

Case Name
In re: Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation, Case No.
1:20-cv-05914-AT in the U.S. District Court Southern District of
New York

Final Hearing
06/08/2022

Settlement Website
MorganStanleyDataSecuritySettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Morgan Stanley Data Security Settlement
Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 6758
Portland, OR 97228-6758
info@MorganStanleyDataSecuritySettlement.com
855-604-1744

Class Counsel
Jean S Martin
MORGAN & MORGAN

Linda P Nussbaum
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP PC

Defense Counsel
Jane B O'Brien
Brad S Karp
Susanna M Buergel
PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON LLP [GN]

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Ex-Coaches Join Racial Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Keech, writing for OnFocus, reports that former Arizona
Cardinals head coach Steve Wilks and former NFL assistant coach Ray
Horton, who are both Black, have joined a federal class-action
lawsuit filed earlier this year by former Miami Dolphins coach
Brian Flores, alleging racial discrimination in hiring practices by
the NFL and its member teams.

The amended complaint, filed on April 7 in the Southern District of
New York, includes new allegations of discrimination against the
Cardinals, Tennessee Titans and Houston Texans. The complaint also
outlined eight proposals for change within the NFL "to create a
future with equal opportunity for Black candidates," including the
promotion of Black ownership, increased transparency in the hiring
and termination process, increased visibility for Black assistant
coaches and an increased pipeline for Black coaches.

An NFL spokesperson declined to comment on the amended complaint.

In the amended complaint, Horton alleges the Titans conducted a
"sham interview" with him for their head coach vacancy in January
2016 when the team had already decided to hire Mike Mularkey. At
the time, Horton was the Titans defensive coordinator and Mularkey,
who is white, was the team's interim head coach.

Horton alleges that his interview for the team's head-coaching
position was conducted so the Titans could make it appear that they
had complied with the Rooney Rule and had "given an equal
opportunity to Black candidates" before announcing the "pre-made
decision to hire [Mularkey] as head coach."

The complaint goes on to cite a 2020 podcast interview in which
Mularkey said he regretted the process that led to him becoming the
Titans head coach.

"I allowed myself at one point when I was in Tennessee to get
caught up in something I regret, and I still regret it, but the
ownership there, Amy Adams Strunk and her family, came in and told
me I was going to be the head coach in 2016, before they went
through the Rooney Rule," Mularkey said. "And so I sat there
knowing I was the head coach in 2016, as they went through this
fake hiring process knowing, knowing a lot of the coaches that they
were interviewing, knowing how much they prepared to go through
those interviews, knowing that everything they could do and they
had no chance to get that job."

Horton said in a statement on April 7 he was "devastated and
humiliated" when he learned that his interview with the Titans was
a sham.

"By joining this case, I am hoping to turn that experience into a
positive and make lasting change and create true equal opportunity
in the future," he said.

In a statement on April 7, the Titans defended their search process
for a new head coach in 2016.

"Our 2016 head coach search was a thoughtful and competitive
process fully in keeping with NFL guidelines and our own
organizational values," the team said. "We conducted detailed,
in-person interviews with four talented individuals, two of whom
were diverse candidates. No decision was made, and no decision was
communicated, prior to the completion of all interviews. While we
are proud of Our Commitment to Diversity, we are dedicated to
continued growth as an organization to foster diversity and
inclusion in our workplace and community."

Flores' original lawsuit included an allegation against Dolphins
owner Stephen Ross that Ross told Flores he would pay him $100,000
for every loss during the coach's first season in 2019 in an effort
to obtain the No. 1 pick in the 2020 NFL Draft. Ross has denied the
allegations.

According to the April 7 court filing, Flores, now the Pittsburgh
Steelers senior defensive assistant/linebackers coach, allegedly
sent a memo on Dec. 4, 2019, to Dolphins GM Chris Grier, CEO Tom
Garfinkel and senior executive Brandon Shore on Ross' desire to
lose games and the "toxicity that existed within the
organization."

NFL.com has reached out to the Dolphins for comment.

The amended complaint also included an allegation of "retaliation"
by the Texans against Flores, as a result of his initial lawsuit.
Flores alleges that he was not hired to replace David Culley, who
is Black and was fired after he went 4-13 in his lone season as the
Texans' head coach, because Flores was suing the league and
"speaking publicly about the systemic racism in the NFL."

The complaint cites a report from Feb. 6 that Flores and former NFL
quarterback Josh McCown were the apparent finalists for the Houston
head-coaching job, and alleges that the team was "concerned" that
if it hired McCown, who is white, "it would bolster Flores'
allegations of systemic discrimination against Black candidates."
On Feb. 8, the Texans hired Lovie Smith, who is Black and served as
the team's defensive coordinator under Culley, to be their next
head coach.

"The search for our head coach was very thorough and inclusive,"
the Texans said in a statement on April 7. "Due to his previous
success as a coach in the NFL, Brian Flores was among the first
candidates we held a formal interview with for the position and he
remained a candidate until the very end. We have a lot of respect
for Brian both personally and professionally; he has been a
competitive coach in the league for a number of years and his
resume speaks for itself. We enjoyed our multiple conversations
with Brian regarding his vision for our organization, which
included an in-person meeting with the McNair family and general
manager Nick Caserio. In the end, we made the decision to hire
Lovie Smith as our head coach and we believe he is the best fit for
our team moving forward. It was a very fluid process that allowed
us to spend time with a number of quality candidates. We are proud
of our decision and will vigorously defend our process."

In joining the lawsuit, Steve Wilks alleges he was hired as a
"bridge coach" by the Arizona Cardinals in 2018 and was "unfairly
and discriminatorily fired" after one season with the club. Wilks
alleges differences in how he was treated in comparison to GM Steve
Keim, who is white. Wilks describes being at a "severe
disadvantage" in his first season as a head coach due to Keim's
five-week suspension resulting from a DUI arrest, which caused Keim
to miss the Cardinals' training camp and much of their preseason.
Wilks alleges that while Keim was suspended, the GM participated in
contract negotiations for running back David Johnson. In addition,
Wilks said in the complaint that he preferred the Cardinals trade
up to select Josh Allen in the 2018 NFL Draft, while Keim preferred
a trade to select Josh Rosen. Allen has made one Pro Bowl so far in
his career and has emerged as one of the league's better
quarterbacks, while Rosen lasted one season in Arizona.

Wilks drew a distinction to how he was fired after going 3-13 in
his one season in Arizona, while Keim received a four-year contract
extension one month later. He also noted the Cardinals' current
coach, Kliff Kingsbury, who is white, has had "a much longer leash"
to succeed after going 5-10-1 in his first season.

"The decisions we made after the 2018 season were very difficult
ones," the Cardinals said in a statement on April 7. "But as we
said at the time, they were entirely driven by what was in the best
interests of our organization and necessary for team improvement.
We are confident that the facts reflect that and demonstrate that
these allegations are untrue."

Wilks, currently a defensive assistant coach with the Carolina
Panthers, said in a statement on April 7 he hoped the lawsuit would
help bring racial equality to the league.

"When Coach Flores filed this action, I knew I owed it to myself,
and to all Black NFL coaches and aspiring coaches, to stand with
him," he said. "This lawsuit has shed further important light on a
problem that we all know exists, but that too few are willing to
confront. Black coaches and candidates should have exactly the same
ability to become employed, and remain employed, as white coaches
and candidates."

During his Super Bowl news conference in February, NFL Commissioner
Roger Goodell said the league would reevaluate everything it is
doing as it pertains to diversity and the hiring of minority head
coaches. The NFL announced on March 28 that teams are now required
to hire at least one minority or woman as an offensive assistant,
and Goodell acknowledged last month the new mandate gives the
league an opportunity to develop a more diverse candidate pool from
that side of the ball for potential head-coaching positions. [GN]

NEW YORK JETS: Fans Drop NFL League Teams Relocation Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
Max Jaeger, writing for Law360, reports that fans suing the New
York Jets and New York Giants for false advertising over the fact
they play in New Jersey have dropped their bid to relocate the
National Football League teams and are instead demanding they
change their names and scrub images of the Big Apple skyline from
marketing material, according to an amended class action filed on
April 11. [GN]


NEW YORK: Fired Yankees Stadium Waitress Files Vaccine Mandate Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Asher Notheis at washingtonexaminer.com reports that a former
waitress at Yankees Stadium who refuse to play ball with the Big
Apple's COVID-19 vaccine mandate filed a complaint against the
mayor.

Her complaint, which seeks to become a class-action lawsuit, argues
that Mayor Eric Adams's order March 24 allowing athletes and
performers to be the only workers exempt from getting the COVID-19
vaccine is "arbitrary and capricious" and criticizes the lack of
science to back it up. The complaint was submitted on behalf of
Virginia Alleyne, the now-fired worker at Yankees Stadium, and "all
other Individuals similarly situated" to ask for a declaratory
judgment that Adams's order violates the plaintiffs' rights and
should no longer be enforced unless it applies to all city
employees.

"Thousands of firemen, policemen, teachers, sanitation workers,
restaurant workers and other private sector workers have been fired
as a result of this mandate," reads the complaint filed in New York
court, which was obtained by the Washington Examiner. "Has the
mayor asked the aforementioned terminated NYC employees if they
care if the Nets, Knicks, Yankees or Mets are at a competitive
disadvantage when they can no longer support their families?"

Alleyne was employed at Yankee Stadium for 17 years as a waitress
at the Legends Club and was fired Sept. 12, 2021, because she
refused to get vaccinated, according to the complaint. Adams, a
Democrat, did not become mayor until the beginning of this year,
but he is the one who announced in March that the mandate for
unvaccinated athletes and performers had been lifted.

"A small number of people have an outsized impact on our economy,"
Adams said at the time.

The lawyer filing the complaint, James Mermigis, told the
Washington Examiner the case is intended to exempt all workers from
being required to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Mermigis said he
currently has 781 plaintiffs ready to go for the class-action
lawsuit, with more expected to join. All of them have lost their
jobs, he claimed. The complaint argues that class action "is
superior to any other method for the resolution of this dispute."

The lawsuit also seeks an immediate injunction against the order
unless the exemptions are lifted, the payment of legal fees, and
"any other such further relief to which Petitioners may be entitled
as a matter of law or equity, or which the Court determines to be
just and proper."

A total of 86.6% of New York City's population has received at
least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, with 77.8% fully
vaccinated. Additionally, 36.9% of residents have received a
booster shot, according to NYC Health.

Adams's office and the New York Yankees have not yet responded to
the Washington Examiner's requests for comment. [GN]

NEWPORT CORP: Summary Judgment Order in Shareholder Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: NEWPORT CORPORATION SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION.
HUBERT C. PINCON; INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS-EMPLOYERS CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY RETIREMENT TRUST, LOCAL
302; AND INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS-EMPLOYERS
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY RETIREMENT TRUST, LOCAL 612, Appellants v.
ROBERT J. PHILLIPPY; KENNETH F. POTASHNER; CHRISTOPHER COX;
SIDDHARTHA C. KADIA; OLEG KHAYKIN; AND PETER J. SIMONE,
Respondents, Case No. 80636 (Nev.), the Supreme Court of Nevada
affirmed the district court's orders granting the Respondents
summary judgment, denying the Appellants' motion to amend, and
striking the Appellants' jury demand in a breach-of-fiduciary-duty
action.

I. Background

Newport, a once publicly traded Nevada corporation, was a global
provider of technology products and systems. The Appellants are a
class of former shareholders of Newport common stock (collectively,
shareholders). The Respondents are the individual members of
Newport's former board of directors (collectively, the Board).

Amidst a market downturn and several years of lackluster financial
results, the Board turned to strategic alternatives for Newport,
specifically, a merger-of-equals or acquisition transaction. The
Board engaged financial and legal counsel, and merger discussions
ensued over nine months with nine potential parties.

To guide the discussions, Newport's management created two sets of
five-year financial forecasts -- the "base case" and the
"acquisition case." The base case assumed an organic 3 percent
compound annual growth rate, while the acquisition case assumed a
more aggressive 10 percent compound annual growth rate based on a
mix of organic and acquisition-based growth. The Board also
directed its financial counsel (J.P. Morgan) to conduct a market
check to evaluate Newport's current market value.

During this process, MKS Instruments, Inc. contacted Newport about
a potential transaction and eventually offered to acquire Newport
for $23 per share in cash. Meanwhile, Newport continued to explore
transactions with other interested parties. At Newport management's
direction, J.P. Morgan used the base case to value Newport, and
based on this evaluation, J.P. Morgan delivered an opinion that
MKS's offer was fair to Newport's shareholders. The Board then
entered a brief period of exclusivity with MKS before unanimously
approving the merger agreement, under which MKS agreed to purchase
all of Newport's common stock at $23 per share in cash. The deal
represented a 53% premium over Newport's closing share price of
$15.04.

A group of plaintiffs different from those in the case filed, then
abandoned, a class action seeking to enjoin the merger. Ninety-nine
percent of shareholders approved the merger transaction. The
shareholders then initiated the class action suit underlying
theappeal, alleging that the board members breached their fiduciary
duties, causing the merger share price to be undervalued. Several
years later, shareholders moved to amend their second-amended
complaint, which the district court denied.

While the shareholders' motion to amend was pending, the Board
moved for summary judgment on all claims, and the district court
granted their motion. Shareholders appeal the district court's
summary judgment decision and its order denying their motion to
amend.

II. Discussion

In granting the Board's motion for summary judgment, the district
court concluded that shareholders could not rebut the business
judgment rule as applied to the MKS acquisition because the Board
exercised due care during the nine-month sale process and
shareholders otherwise failed to show that self-interest or fraud
motivated a voting majority of the Board when it approved the
transaction.

The Supreme Court affirms for two reasons. First, summary judgment
was proper because shareholders failed to produce sufficient
evidence to rebut the business judgment rule. Second, summary
judgment was proper because, even if shareholders raised a material
issue of fact as to whether Phillippy was compromised, and assuming
that Phillippy's self-interest called the other board members'
judgment into question sufficient to set aside the business
judgment rule, shareholders still do not show an actionable injury
-- i.e., that the board members breached their fiduciary duties and
that those breaches involved intentional misconduct, a knowing
violation of law, or fraud.

III. Conclusion

The Supreme Court concludes that the shareholders fail to rebut the
business judgment rule as a matter of law, and the presumption that
the Board acted in good faith when it approved the MKS acquisition
remains in place. Shareholders further fail to raise a material
issue of fact as to the board members' breach of their fiduciary
duties. Summary judgment was therefore proper. Further, the
district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
shareholders' motion to amend their second-amended complaint.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the
district court.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/dm7yx2mb from Leagle.com.


NOVO NORDISK: June 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

In Re Novo Nordisk
Securities Litigation

No. 3:17-cv-209-ZNQ-LHG

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF
ALLOCATION; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES

This notice is for all persons or entities who purchased the
American Depository Receipts of Novo Nordisk A/S ("Novo Nordisk")
between February 3, 2015 and February 2, 2017, inclusive, and who
were damaged thereby (the "Class").

Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class by
definition and others are excluded pursuant to request. The full
definition of the Class including a complete description of who is
excluded from the Class is set forth in the full Settlement Notice
referred to below.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey (the "Court"), that co-lead
plaintiffs and class representatives Lehigh County Employees'
Retirement System, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System, Boston Retirement System, Employees' Pension Plan of the
City of Clearwater, and Central States, Southeast and Southwest
Areas Pension Fund (collectively, "Lead Plaintiffs"), on behalf of
themselves and the Court-certified Class in the above-captioned
securities class action (the "Action"), have reached a proposed
settlement of the Action with defendants Novo Nordisk, Lars Rebien
Sørensen, Jesper Brandgaard, and Jakob Riis (collectively,
"Defendants") for $100,000,000 in cash that, if approved, will
resolve all claims in the Action.

A hearing will be held on June 27, 2022 at 11:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Zahid N. Quraishi, by videoconference to, among other
things: (i) determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms
and conditions provided for in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated November 23, 2021 (the "Stipulation") is fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the Class, and should be finally
approved by the Court; (ii) determine whether the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases
specified and described in the Stipulation and the Settlement
Notice should be granted; (iii) determine whether the proposed Plan
of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; (iv)
determine whether Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
Litigation Expenses (including awards to the Lead Plaintiffs)
should be approved; and (v) consider any other matters that may
properly be brought before the Court in connection with the
Settlement.

If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net
Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the full printed
Notice of (I) Proposed Settlement and Plan of Allocation; (II)
Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Litigation Expenses (the "Settlement Notice") and the Proof of
Claim and Release Form (the "Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of
these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Novo
Nordisk Securities Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O.
Box 91154, Seattle, WA 98111, by telephone at 1 (833) 674-0167, or
by email at info@NovoNordiskSecuritiesLitigation.com. Copies of the
Settlement Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the
website for the Action, www.NovoNordiskSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a Class Member, in order to be eligible to receive a
payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form
postmarked (if mailed), or online through the case website,
www.NovoNordiskSecuritiesLitigation.com, no later than July 27,
2022. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim
Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the
net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound
by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees
and expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead
Counsel and counsel for Defendants such that they are received no
later than June 6, 2022, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Settlement Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Novo Nordisk,
any other Defendants in the Action, or their counsel regarding this
notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement,
or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be
directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel. Or you may
visit www.NovoNordiskSecuritiesLitigation.com or toll-free at 1
(833) 674-0167.

Requests for the Settlement Notice and Claim Form should be made
to:

Novo Nordisk Securities Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91154
Seattle, WA 98111
1 (833) 674-0167
info@NovoNordiskSecuritiesLitigation.com
www.NovoNordiskSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Settlement Notice and Claim
Form, may be made to Lead Counsel:

Luke O. Brooks, Esq.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-8498
1 (800) 449-4900
rickn@rgrdlaw.com

Katherine M. Sinderson, Esq.
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
1 (800) 380-8496
settlements@blbglaw.com

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
District of New Jersey [GN]

OJ INSULATION: Carrillo Class Suit Sues Over Wage & Hour Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE CARRILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. OJ INSULATION, L.P.; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Case No. 22STCV12226 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 11,
2022) alleges that the Defendants engaged in a systematic pattern
of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and
Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Orders, all of which
contribute to Defendants' deliberate unfair competition.

The Plaintiff alleges, that Defendants have increased their profits
by violating state wage and hour laws by, among other things:

   (a) failing to pay all wages (including minimum wages and
       overtime wages);

   (b) failing to provide lawful meal periods or compensation in
       lieu thereof;

   (c) failing to authorize or permit lawful rest breaks or provide

       compensation in lieu thereof;

   (d) failing to reimburse necessary business-related costs;

   (e) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements;

   (f) failing to pay wages timely during employment; and

   (g) failing to pay all wages due upon separation of employment.

OJ Insulation operates as an insulation contractor. The Company
provides attic, wall, crawl space, floor, ceiling, warehouse, and
soundproofing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
          AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
          9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 379-6250

OREGON: Lawyer Discusses Lawsuit Over Prison COVID-19 Response
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Notarianni, writing for OPB, reports that Attorney Juan
Chavez's legal career focuses on gaining justice for people who've
been injured by systems that are supposed to help keep us safe. As
project director for the Civil Rights Project and a prison and
police accountability lawyer with the Oregon Justice Resource
Center, he's won six-figure settlements in wrongful death lawsuits
against the Portland Police Bureau.

His next case could potentially be worth millions of dollars for
people incarcerated in Oregon and their families.

Last year, a report from the Prison Policy Initiative found that
the COVID-19 mortality rate for incarcerated Oregonians was five
times higher than it was for the state's general population. Since
the beginning of the pandemic, 45 people in the custody of the
Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC) have died after testing
positive for COVID-19. Another 5,000 people have tested positive
for the virus while in custody.

A federal judge approved a class-action lawsuit over the state's
response to the pandemic inside Oregon's prisons. Chavez is one of
the attorneys representing the prisoners in that lawsuit. He
recently spoke with OPB Weekend Edition host John Notarianni about
the case.

John Notarianni: This lawsuit initially began way back in April of
2020, actually. That's when a group of people who contracted
COVID-19 in custody decided to sue the state. What were they
alleging?

Juan Chavez: At the beginning of the pandemic, I think we
understood that this was a communicable disease. I don't know if we
knew precisely how communicable, how it was transmitted, but the
best we could understand was it was transmitted by being in close
proximity to each other.

That became an immediate concern given what prisons are: these
folks can't leave. They're not going to be able to be distant from
one another, they can't stay at their homes, they can't limit their
exposure to other folks. So, a few of these folks, all of whom had
some pre-existing condition that would make them medically
vulnerable to COVID-19, decided that they needed to act now and get
the protections ordered by a federal court so that they could be
safe.

Notarianni: Broadly speaking, how has the Oregon Department of
Corrections response to this pandemic stacked up against what's
been happening in other states?

Chavez: The Oregon Department of Corrections, during the height of
the pandemic in the winter of 2020 into 2021, was one of the worst
states for [COVID-19 related] deaths and transmission across the
country. I think we were, at its height, the third-worst per capita
on death. And so, a lot of folks were suffering, and it was just
not being abated. We brought an injunction that we were hoping the
court would order the department of corrections to institute some
measure of social distancing, masking rules, and other protections
that we knew folks needed. Unfortunately, the court rejected that
motion for an injunction, and that's why we filed the damages class
action in addition to this.

Notarianni: Yeah, and there are a number of criteria that need to
be met for a class-action suit to be able to go forward. U. S.
Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman issued a ruling on April 1st and
said that it has a green light; that this class-action suit can go
forward. What was she looking to establish in order to permit this
lawsuit to move ahead?

Chavez: Well, the biggest question in every class action is whether
everybody's more or less in the same boat, in terms of what kind of
claims can they bring and what kind of defenses the will defendants
use. In this case, we were very particular with who it is that we
were suing and what it is that we were saying was the problem. We
sued the top-level officials for DOC, and we sued them because they
did indeed have a heavy hand in how it is that the pandemic
response was managed in DOC. They weren't shy about saying that on
a number of occasions. The problem started at the top; if the
problem started at the top, it affected everybody downwards. So,
the only way that this case could properly be managed would be
through a class action. Otherwise, the courts would also be facing
5,000 separate lawsuits.

Notarianni: What could this lawsuit eventually mean for the
plaintiffs: those thousands of Oregonians who contracted COVID-19
while they were incarcerated and for the families of people who
died in state custody?

Chavez: You know, this is a remarkable thing to say after two
years, but it might be too early to tell, to be honest. It's
probably the biggest unknown right now, whether or not the state
will seek an appeal on this. Most cases can't be appealed until the
case is entirely done, but there are some rules that could allow
the state to try to seek an appeal. If this is appealed, then that
puts things on pause for a very long time, more than likely.

Notarianni: Well, even with all of those unknowns in place, legal
experts are saying this could be a first-of-its-kind class-action
suit. So, putting aside what we know right now, looking towards a
hypothetical future, do you have a sense of what implications this
could have nationwide?

Chavez: I think what courts have done in the past, and what
certainly departments of corrections across the country have done,
is the strategy of divide and conquer amongst prisoners themselves.
There's a federal law called the Prison Litigation Reform Act that
Congress passed in the nineties, during the 'tough on crime'
period. That was solely focused on diminishing the ability for
prisoners to bring lawsuits, and it was definitely effective. But,
I think more importantly, what it did was discourage prisoners from
asserting their rights. What I think this class action does is give
the power back to the people who are being harmed, which is
prisoners in this context. So, if in the future there are these
mass harms that are caused by administrators in departments of
corrections, this could be a big game-changer. [GN]

PATTERN ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE PATTERN ENERGY GROUP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
C.A. No. 20-275 (MN) (JLH) (D. Del.), Judge Maryellen Noreika of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied the
Pattern Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts I and II of the Second
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.

I. Background

Presently before the Court are the objections of the Pattern Energy
Defendants to Magistrate Judge Hall's Report and Recommendation.
The Report recommends granting-in-part and denying-in-part the
Pattern Energy Defendants' motion to dismiss the SAC and granting
the Riverstone Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Pattern Energy
Defendants only object to those portions of the Report denying
their motion to dismiss as to Counts I and II of the SAC.

The dispute arises from an agreement between Defendant Pattern
Energy and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) to
merge Pattern Energy with a subsidiary of CPPIB. That agreement was
announced on Nov. 4, 2019. The Plaintiffs are investment funds that
owned Pattern Energy stock at the time of the merger. They were all
advised by their investment advisor, Water Island Capital, LLC.

According to the SAC, Riverstone Holdings and its affiliates
(collectively, Riverstone) held a controlling 70% equity interest
in Pattern Development before the merger. The remaining equity
interest of Pattern Development was owned as follows: Pattern
Energy held a 29% equity stake, and most of the remaining 1% was
held by Pattern Development's management, many of whom also had
high-level management roles at Pattern Energy. At the time of the
merger, Pattern Development had a consent right that limited
Pattern Energy's ability to transfer its interest in Pattern
Development to any third party without the consent of Pattern
Development. Because Riverstone held a controlling equity stake in
Pattern Development, Riverstone controlled the consent right.

The Plaintiffs' federal claims are all based on their contention
that the proxy materials sent to Pattern Energy shareholders in
connection with its merger with CPPIB contained material
misrepresentations and omissions.

The Plaintiffs filed the action on Feb. 25, 2020, two weeks before
the merger was approved via shareholder vote. On May 22, 2020, the
Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint,
alleging violations of federal securities laws and state law. The
Defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint. Judge Noreika recommended that the Court grants the
motions to dismiss. On Feb. 26, 2021, the Court adopted her report
and recommendation and dismissed the Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint over the Plaintiffs' objections.

On March 29, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed the SAC. The SAC adds new
factual allegations supporting the Plaintiffs' claims. Count I
alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. Section 78n(a), against Pattern
Energy, the Board Defendants, and the Officer Defendants. Count II
alleges violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 78t(a), against the Board Defendants and the Officer
Defendants. Count III is a state law breach of fiduciary duty claim
against the Board Defendants and the Officer Defendants. Count IV
alleges that Riverstone is liable for aiding and abetting the
breaches of fiduciary duties.

The Defendants again filed motions to dismiss. Both motions are
fully briefed. Judge Hall heard oral argument on Sept. 2, 2021. On
Jan. 27, 2022, Judge Hall issued the Report recommending, inter
alia, that Pattern Energy's requests to dismiss Counts I and II be
denied. Pattern Energy timely objected.

II. Discussion

The Pattern Energy Defendants object to the Report's findings that
1) "the SAC adequately alleged facts to support a plausible
inference that the Special Committee did not sincerely believe that
the CPPIB offer represented the 'best value' and 'highest price
reasonably available' to PEGI stockholders"; 2) "the Report failed
to consider whether the opinions were objectively false, as
required by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Omnicare (which
the Report does not cite)"; and 3) "the Section 20(a) claim is
adequately pled against the Individual Defendants."

A. Inferences Regarding the Special Committee

The Report determined that the Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that
the proxy materials contained at least two false statements. The
first is in the Proxy Statement, which provided: "Following
extensive negotiations, the Special Committee was able to increase
the per share Merger Consideration offered by CPPIB to $26.75 in
cash, which, after consultation with its financial advisors, the
Special Committee believed was the highest that CPPIB would be
willing to pay and represented the best value reasonably available
to our stockholders."

The second is in the Feb. 26, 2020 Form 8-K, which represented that
"the Special Committee sought and believes it obtained the highest
price reasonably available for Pattern Energy." As the Report
noted, the SAC alleges that those statements were false because the
Special Committee did not actually hold a sincere belief that
CPPIB's offer represented the best reasonably available price for
Pattern Energy. The Pattern Energy Defendants disagree.

Drawing all inferences in favor of the non-moving party as required
at this stage, Judge Noreika agrees with the Report that the SAC
plausibly alleges that those two statements of opinion were false:
It contains factual content that gives rise to a reasonable
inference that the Special Committee did not sincerely believe that
CPPIB's offer represented the "best value" and "highest price"
reasonably available to shareholders. Among other things, the SAC
alleges facts that suggest that the Special Committee and its
advisors acknowledged that Brookfield's bid offered a better value
and a higher price compared to the CPPIB deal. The SAC also alleges
facts -- not disclosed in the proxy materials -- permitting a
reasonable inference that, at the time the Board voted to approve
the deal with CPPIB, Brookfield remained willing to engage on more
favorable terms.

B. Omnicare Issues

The Pattern Energy Defendants argue that the Report failed to
consider Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Industrial
Pension Fund, 575 U.S. 175 (2015). They, however, did not raise the
Omnicare decision before Judge Hall: They did not cite Omnicare in
their briefing, nor raise it oral argument. Judge Noreika not hear
arguments made for the first time in objections to a Report when
those objections could have and should have been made in the motion
addressed by the Magistrate Judge.

C. Individual Defendants

The Pattern Energy Defendants object to the Report's conclusion
that the Section 20(a) claim is adequately pleaded against the
Individual Defendants, arguing that the Plaintiffs cannot allege a
predicate Section 14(a) violation and because the Plaintiffs fail
to adequately allege that each Individual Defendant was a "control
person" with respect to the challenged statements.

Judge Noreika disagrees. She says, the Court has already found that
the SAC plausibly alleges a Section 14(a) violation. Moreover,
after reviewing the entirety of the record, she agrees that this
argument was not fairly raised in the briefing on the motion and
the Magistrate Judge properly declined to entertain the argument.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons she stated, Judge Noreika overruled the Pattern
Energy Defendants' objections to the Report and adopted the Report.
She granted in part and denied the Pattern Energy Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss and granted Riverstone's Motion to Dismiss. A
form of order will follow.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2022 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/25vssp68 from Leagle.com.

Sue L. Robinson -- srobinson@farnanlaw.com -- Brian E. Farnan,
Michael J. Farnan, FARNAN LLP, Wilmington, DE; Andrew J. Entwistle
-- aentwistle@entwistle-law.com -- ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP,
Austin, TX; Vincent R. Cappucci, Arthur V. Nealon, Brendan J.
Brodeur, Jonathan H. Beemer, Jessica A. Margulis, ENTWISTLE &
CAPPUCCI LLP, in New York City -- Lead and Liaison Counsel for the
Lead Plaintiffs and the Class.

Marc M. Seltzer, Krysta Kauble Pachman, SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P., in
Los Angeles, California 90067 -- Of Counsel for the Class.

A. Thompson Bayliss -- Bayliss@AbramsBayliss.com -- April M. Kirby,
ABRAMS & BAYLISS LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware; Alan S. Goudiss --
agoudiss@shearman.com -- K. Mallory Brennan --
mallory.brennan@shearman.com -- SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP, New York,
NY; Christina E. Myrold, SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP, in San Francisco,
California -- Attorneys for Defendants Pattern Energy Group Inc.,
Alan R. Batkin, Edmund John Philip Browne, Richard A. Goodman,
Douglas G. Hall, Patricia M. Newson, Mona K. Sutphen, Michael
Garland, Hunter Armistead, Daniel Elkort, Michael Lyon, Esben
Pedersen, and Christopher Shugart.


PEPSICO INC: Faces Class Action Following Kronos Payroll Hack
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pan Demetrakakes, writing for Food Processing, reports that PepsiCo
is being sued in three states by workers charging that they were
shorted on wages following a cyberattack against a payroll service
used by the company.

The situation came about because of a ransomware attack on Kronos,
one of the world's biggest third-party payroll and human-resources
services. The attack last December shut off access for several
weeks to Kronos Private Cloud, used by thousands of employers to
manage their payrolls.

In the wake of the attack, half a dozen lawsuits were filed against
different companies that use Kronos, charging them with pay
violations. PepsiCo has been sued in New York, New Jersey and
Virginia. The New York suit claims that when the Kronos service
went down, PepsiCo had no backup plan to manage payroll and started
issuing paychecks with "estimated weekly pay" that did not reflect
actual hours worked.

The suits are asking for class-action status, back pay and damages.
[GN]

PETSMART LLC: Suit Accuses Retailer of Mishandling Employees' Data
------------------------------------------------------------------
retailtouchpoints.com reports that a former Illinois-based employee
of PetSmart has filed a putative class action against the pet goods
retailer, accusing the company of violating the state's Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by collecting employees' voiceprints
in ways that could leave them open to identity theft.

According to the 2008 Illinois BIPA law, the "collection, use,
safeguarding and storage of biometrics" - such as voiceprints - by
a private entity must be regulated due to the access they afford to
sensitive personal and financial information, including genetic
markers and testing information, accounts, PIN codes, driver's
licenses and social security numbers.

The case of Steven Stegmann v. PetSmart LLC alleges that Stegmann
and other employees were not provided written notice prior to using
the technology, nor were they afforded the opportunity to sign a
written release. Stegmann also alleges that PetSmart did not
provide a written policy outlining a retention schedule of
guidelines for permanently destroying the biometric information.

It is alleged that PetSmart required more than 700 employees to use
technology over the course of five years that preceded the filing.
While technology that collects biometric information can include
fingerprinting, facial recognition and eye scans, the system used
by PetSmart relies on collecting voiceprints of users. The lawsuit
notes that through a headset worn by the employee, workers received
orders from a central worker management computer. Tasks would be
completed by the employee through interacting with the
voice-recognition software.

The individual voice template is added to the employee's data file,
which connects the voiceprint to the worker's identifying
information such as name and employee number. By not being informed
of the entire process, in addition to storage and disposal of the
data, the Stegmann lawsuit argues that employees were unknowingly
made vulnerable to cyber threats.

The law requires entities that utilize biometric identifiers to
develop a written policy regarding intentions of usage, a retention
schedule and how the information will be destroyed. Prior to
collecting biometric identifiers, subjects must be informed by the
entity gathering the information regarding its collection; how it
will be used, collected and stored; and the purpose of the
collection. Entities must also receive a written release from
subjects.

"The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act is a very important
law," said David Fish of Fish, Potter Bolanos P.C., an employment
legal firm representing the plaintiff, in an email to Retail
TouchPoints. "We look forward to litigating this cutting edge and
important case in court."

Parties that violate the law could be responsible for damages of up
to $1,000 for negligent infractions and $5,000 per violation for
incidents that are found to be intentional, in addition to
attorney's fees. The plaintiff's proposed class includes "[a]ll
persons, within the applicable statute of limitations, who had
their voiceprint collected, captured, received, otherwise obtained,
or disclosed by Defendant in Illinois, without their consent,
and/or who failed to have their voiceprint timely deleted."

PetSmart responded to Retail TouchPoints' request for comment
regarding the filing by noting, "Out of respect for all parties
involved, as a practice, we do not comment on pending litigation."

The original Jan. 20, 2022, filing of the lawsuit was made through
the LaSalle County Circuit Court. It was removed to the Illinois
Northern District Court on March 4, 2022. [GN]

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES: Fails to Provide Full Refunds, Flores Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
GEMNAIKA FLORES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. and PAL HOLDINGS, INC., Case
No. 4:22-cv-02281 (N.D. Cal., April 12, 2022) is a class action
lawsuit regarding Defendants' failure to provide full refunds to
customers whose flights were canceled or were subject to a
significant schedule change and not refunded as a result of the
COVID-19 pandemic.

Given the outbreak of the coronavirus, PAL have canceled a vast
percentage of their international and U.S. flights. However, PAL
have refused to issue refunds for flights that they canceled or
significantly altered.

On December 17, 2019, the Plaintiff purchased two roundtrip tickets
departing on April 22, 2020, from San Francisco to Manila, the
Philippines for $1,356.08. However, on April 5, 2020, PAL canceled
Plaintiff's flights. The Plaintiff immediately attempted to secure
a voucher. But after realizing that she would be unable to fly
during the COVID-19 pandemic, Plaintiff requested that PAL issue
her a refund. On July 30, 2020, Plaintiff received a confirmation
email from a PAL representative, Cecilia A. Murillo, that her
refund request had been filed and that she should "allow 3-6 months
processing."

After nearly six months, Plaintiff emailed Ms. Murillo on December
10, 2020 to request the status of her refund. Ms. Murillo responded
on December 10, 2020 stating that "all refunds are being handled by
our head office" and that Plaintiff should allow for additional
processing. All told, Plaintiff sent a total of 8 emails and called
10 times.
PAL's representations to Plaintiff never materialized, says the
suit.

Philippine Airlines, a trade name of PAL Holdings, Inc. and also
known historically as Philippine Air Lines until 1970, is the flag
carrier of the Philippines.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of June 6 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on April 10 disclosed that a MYPS class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Playstudios, Inc. (MYPS) (a) purchased, or otherwise acquired
securities of Playstudios between June 22, 2021, and March 1, 2022,
both dates inclusive, 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); (b) held common stock of Acies as of May 25, 2021, and
were eligible to vote at Acies' June 16, 2021, special meeting who
exchanged their shares of Acies stock for shares of Playstudios
stock pursuant to the merger of Acies and Old Playstudios (the
"Merger"); and/or (c) purchased or otherwise acquired Playstudios
common stock pursuant to or traceable to Acies' documents issued in
connection with the June 2021 Merger. For more on the MYPS Lawsuit
please contact us today.

According to the Playstudios lawsuit, throughout the Class Period
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Playstudios was having significant problems with
its flagship game, Kingdom Boss; (ii) Playstudios would not be
releasing Kingdom Boss as expected; and (iii) Playstudios had not
revised its financial projections to account for the problems it
had encountered with Kingdom Boss. As a result of the defendants'
wrongful conduct, Class members paid artificially inflated prices
for their Playstudios securities and suffered substantial losses
and damages.

If you suffered a loss in Playstudios you have until June 6, 2022,
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

CONTACT:

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

PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of June 6 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that the
Playstudios class action lawsuit seeks to represent investors who:
(1) purchased Playstudios, Inc. (NASDAQ: MYPS; MYPSW) securities
between June 22, 2021 and March 1, 2022, 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); (2) held
common stock of Acies Acquisition Corp. as of May 25, 2021 and were
eligible to vote at Acies' June 16, 2021 special meeting who
exchanged their shares of Acies stock for shares of Playstudios
stock pursuant to the merger of Acies and Old Playstudios (defined
below); and (3) purchased or otherwise acquired Playstudios common
stock pursuant to or traceable to Acies' Registration Statement and
Proxy Statement issued in connection with the June 2021 merger.
Investors have until June 6, 2022 to seek appointment in the
Playstudios class action lawsuit. Commenced on April 5, 2022, the
Playstudios class action lawsuit - captioned Felipe v. Playstudios,
Inc., No. 22-cv-02164 (N.D. Cal.) - charges Playstudios, its CEO,
and others with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and/or
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you suffered significant losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Playstudios class action lawsuit, please provide
your information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney
J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via
e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the
Playstudios class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no
later than June 6, 2022.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Acies is a "blank check" special purpose
acquisition company ("SPAC") formed in October 2020. On February 1,
2021, Acies announced that it had reached a merger agreement with
Playstudios, a privately-held gaming company ("Old Playstudios").
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 of Acies common stock, worth $10 per share, up
to $150 million in cash, and a $250 million investment PIPE of
common stock of Acies.

The Playstudios class action lawsuit alleges that Playstudios made
misleading statements and omissions regarding the true state of
Playstudios' development of its flagship game Kingdom Boss and
about its financial projections and future prospects in the
Registration Statement and Proxy Statement and subsequent
statements. The projections were expressly premised on a successful
and timely launch of Kingdom Boss. For example, in the Registration
Statement and Proxy Statement, Playstudios told investors that
"Kingdom Boss, which began development in 2020, will launch as
expected in the second half of 2021." The Playstudios class action
lawsuit further alleges that, at the same time the projections of
revenue and profits were being publicly made, Playstudios knew that
Kingdom Boss had encountered difficulties in its design and
implementation that would cause the launch to be substantially
delayed.

On August 11, 2021, 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
declined by approximately 13%.

Then, on February 24, 2022, Playstudios' CEO, defendant Andrew
Pascal, disclosed that Kingdom Boss would not be launched at all:
"As I've shared, [Kingdom Boss] has struggled to achieve all the
criteria that were established for a full-scale launch even after
making the game available in North America late in the fourth
quarter. And while Boss Fight [the developer] has consistently
assured us that based on their experience, the product is on a
constructive path, currently, we've elected to suspend development
and reevaluate our options." On this news, Playstudios' stock price
fell by approximately 5%.

Since the merger, and as a result of the disclosures of material
adverse facts omitted from the Registration Statement, Playstudios'
stock price has traded approximately 60% below the $10 per share
price upon the closing of the merger.

Robbins Geller has launched a dedicated SPAC Task Force to protect
investors in blank check companies and seek redress for corporate
malfeasance. Comprised of experienced litigators, investigators,
and forensic accountants, the SPAC Task Force is dedicated to
rooting out and prosecuting fraud on behalf of injured SPAC
investors. The rise in blank check financing poses unique risks to
investors. Robbins Geller's SPAC Task Force represents the vanguard
of ensuring integrity, honesty, and justice in this rapidly
developing investment arena.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who: (1) purchased
Playstudios securities during the Class Period; (2) held common
stock of Acies as of May 25, 2021 and was eligible to vote at
Acies' June 16, 2021 special meeting who exchanged its shares of
Acies stock for shares of Playstudios stock pursuant to the merger;
and (3) purchased or otherwise acquired Playstudios common stock
pursuant to or traceable to Acies' Registration Statement and Proxy
Statement issued in connection with the June 2021 merger to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff in the Playstudios class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest
financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who
is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm
of its choice to litigate the class action lawsuit. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery of the class
action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

                   About Robbins Geller

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading
complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities
fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for
investors last year alone - more than triple the amount recovered
by any other plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices,
Robbins Geller's attorneys have obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest securities class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in
In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.com
for more information. [GN]

PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Robbins LLP Discloses Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Class: Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP reminds
investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of
three classes of persons and entities:

those that purchased or otherwise acquired Playstudios, Inc.
(NASDAQ: MYPS) securities between June 22, 2021 and March 1, 2022,
including Playstudios securities acquired pursuant to the offering
of the public investment in public equity offering;

held common stock of Acies Acquisition Corp. as of May 25, 2021,
and were eligible to vote at Acies' June 16, 2021 special meeting
who exchanged their shares of Acies stock for shares of Playstudios
stock pursuant to the merger of Acies and Old Playstudios; or

purchased or otherwise acquired Playstudios common stock pursuant
to the Acies' Offering documents in connection with the June 2021
merger.

What is this Case About: Playstudios, Inc. (MYPS) Misled Investors
in its Offering Documents in Support of its SPAC Merger

According to the complaint, throughout the class period, including
at the time of the merger between Acies Acquisition Corp. and
Playstudios, the Company repeatedly represented to investors that
Kingdom Boss - Playstudios' highly anticipated flagship game - was
"on track" for release in 2021 and that Playstudios would enjoy
substantial revenue and profits as a result of the game's launch
and subsequent sales.

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 5%, to close at $4.86 per
share on February 25, 2022. Then, on February 26, 2022, Playstudios
CEO attributed the failure to meet the projections made for revenue
and earnings to the failure to launch Kingdom Boss and revealed
that Kingdom Boss was indefinitely "suspended."

Next Steps: If you acquired shares of Playstudios, Inc. (MYPS)
pursuant to one of the classes listed above, contact us to discuss
the opportunity to act as lead plaintiff for the class. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate
in the case to be eligible for a recovery.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses. [GN]

PLAYSTUDIOS, INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of June 6 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on April 10
disclosed that the Playstudios class action lawsuit seeks to
represent investors who: (1) purchased Playstudios, Inc. (NASDAQ:
MYPS; MYPSW) securities 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); (2) held common stock of Acies Acquisition Corp.
as of May 25, 2021 and were eligible to vote at Acies' June 16,
2021 special meeting who exchanged their shares of Acies stock for
shares of Playstudios stock pursuant to the merger of Acies and Old
Playstudios (defined below); and (3) purchased or otherwise
acquired Playstudios common stock pursuant to or traceable to
Acies' Registration Statement and Proxy Statement issued in
connection with the June 2021 merger. Investors have until June 6,
2022 to seek appointment in the Playstudios class action lawsuit.
Commenced on April 5, 2022, the Playstudios class action lawsuit --
captioned Felipe v. Playstudios, Inc., No. 22-cv-02164 (N.D. Cal.)
-- charges Playstudios, its CEO, and others with violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and/or Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you suffered significant losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Playstudios class action lawsuit, please provide
your information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney
J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via
e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the
Playstudios class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no
later than June 6, 2022.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Acies is a "blank check" special purpose
acquisition company ("SPAC") formed in October 2020. On February 1,
2021, Acies announced that it had reached a merger agreement with
Playstudios, a privately-held gaming company ("Old Playstudios").
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 of Acies common stock, worth $10 per share, up
to $150 million in cash, and a $250 million investment PIPE of
common stock of Acies.

The Playstudios class action lawsuit alleges that Playstudios made
misleading statements and omissions regarding the true state of
Playstudios' development of its flagship game Kingdom Boss and
about its financial projections and future prospects in the
Registration Statement and Proxy Statement and subsequent
statements. The projections were expressly premised on a successful
and timely launch of Kingdom Boss. For example, in the Registration
Statement and Proxy Statement, Playstudios told investors that
"Kingdom Boss, which began development in 2020, will launch as
expected in the second half of 2021." The Playstudios class action
lawsuit further alleges that, at the same time the projections of
revenue and profits were being publicly made, Playstudios knew that
Kingdom Boss had encountered difficulties in its design and
implementation that would cause the launch to be substantially
delayed.

On August 11, 2021, 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
declined by approximately 13%.

Then, on February 24, 2022, Playstudios' CEO, defendant Andrew
Pascal, disclosed that Kingdom Boss would not be launched at all:
"As I've shared, [Kingdom Boss] has struggled to achieve all the
criteria that were established for a full-scale launch even after
making the game available in North America late in the fourth
quarter. And while Boss Fight [the developer] has consistently
assured us that based on their experience, the product is on a
constructive path, currently, we've elected to suspend development
and reevaluate our options." On this news, Playstudios' stock price
fell by approximately 5%.

Since the merger, and as a result of the disclosures of material
adverse facts omitted from the Registration Statement, Playstudios'
stock price has traded approximately 60% below the $10 per share
price upon the closing of the merger.

Robbins Geller has launched a dedicated SPAC Task Force to protect
investors in blank check companies and seek redress for corporate
malfeasance. Comprised of experienced litigators, investigators,
and forensic accountants, the SPAC Task Force is dedicated to
rooting out and prosecuting fraud on behalf of injured SPAC
investors. The rise in blank check financing poses unique risks to
investors. Robbins Geller's SPAC Task Force represents the vanguard
of ensuring integrity, honesty, and justice in this rapidly
developing investment arena.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who: (1) purchased
Playstudios securities during the Class Period; (2) held common
stock of Acies as of May 25, 2021 and was eligible to vote at
Acies' June 16, 2021 special meeting who exchanged its shares of
Acies stock for shares of Playstudios stock pursuant to the merger;
and (3) purchased or otherwise acquired Playstudios common stock
pursuant to or traceable to Acies' Registration Statement and Proxy
Statement issued in connection with the June 2021 merger to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff in the Playstudios class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest
financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who
is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm
of its choice to litigate the class action lawsuit. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery of the class
action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading complex class action firms
representing plaintiffs in securities fraud cases. The Firm is
ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50
Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for investors last year
alone – more than triple the amount recovered by any other
plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller's
attorneys have obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history, including the largest securities class
action recovery ever – $7.2 billion – in In re Enron Corp. Sec.
Litig. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.

Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.

Contacts:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]

POST ALARMS: Fails to Pay All Final Wages Due, Lopez Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SERENA LOPEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public v. POST ALARMS
SYSTEMS, a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 22STCV12380 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
April 12, 2022) is a Representation Action, pursuant to Labor Code
Sections 2698, 2699 et seq., on behalf of Plaintiff and certain
individuals who are employed by, or were formerly employed by, Post
Alarms Systems, and any subsidiaries or affiliated companies within
California.

For at least one year prior to the filing of this action and
continuing to the present, the Defendants have had a consistent
policy of failing to pay all final wages due at termination or
within 72 hours after separation to all employees in California,
and failing to provide employees with accurately itemized wage
statements.

The Plaintiff and Defendant's California employees were routinely
unable, and not authorized to take their 10 minute rest periods and
were also unable to take an uninterrupted 30 minute meal break for
every shift they worked.

Specifically, the Plaintiff and other California employees were
further forced to keep their walkie talkies on during their meal
and rest breaks in case of emergencies or to address the needs of
Defendants' personnel. Because of this, the Plaintiff and
Defendant's California employees were unable to take their required
meal and rest breaks. Moreover, Defendants failed to pay premium
wages of one hour's pay for each missed meal and rest break to
Plaintiff and Defendants' California employees who were denied
timely meal and rest breaks, in violation of Labor.

The Plaintiff also claims that Defendant has failed to pay all
overtime wages due to non-10 exempt employees. As a result,
employees are not properly compensated for work performance in 11
excess of eight hours in a workday and work performed in excess of
40 hours in a workweek at a rate of no less than one and one-half
times the regular rate of pay.

Ms. Lopez is a resident of Pasadena, California. She was employed
by Defendants in Los Angeles County, California. The Plaintiff was
employed by Defendants as a non-exempt, hourly employee in
California, including in and around the city of Arcadia, County of
Los Angeles.

Post Alarm Systems is a full service commercial and residential
security company provides best security solutions, installation and
service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Otkupman, Esq.
          OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION
          5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 123
          Westlake Village, CA, 91362
          Telephone: (818) 293-5623
          Facsimile: (888) 850-1310
          E-mail: Roman@OLFLA.com

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Court Narrows Claims in Corbitt Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDRE CORBITT, Individually and on behalf of a Class
of Similarly Situated Individuals, Plaintiff v. TRUSTEES OF
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 21-899
(E.D. Pa.), Judge Cynthia M. Rufe of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims in
their entirety.

I. Background

Plaintiff Corbitt brings the putative class action against the
Trustees of Princeton University, the Princeton University Benefits
Committee (together, the "Princeton Defendants"), Aetna Life
Insurance Co., and the Rawlings Co., LLC, for allegedly violating
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and
New Jersey law by demanding reimbursement for benefits the
Plaintiff received through his employer's health plan.

The Plaintiff was a beneficiary of the Princeton University Health
Care Plan, which the Princeton Defendants sponsored and
administered. In 2016, the Plaintiff suffered serious injuries in
an accident and received benefits under the Plan. He pursued a
personal injury lawsuit against the tortfeasors and received
compensation after settling his case. While the underlying suit was
pending, the Defendants sent letters to the Plaintiff's personal
injury attorney to inform him of their intent to seek reimbursement
for the benefits he received.

The subrogation provision in the Summary Plan Description ("SPD")
states that: "In the event that you suffer an injury or sickness as
a result of an alleged negligence or wrongful act or omission of a
third party, the Princeton University Health Care Plan has the
right to pursue subrogation against any person or the insurer. The
Princeton University Health Care Plan will be subrogated and
succeed to your right of recovery against any person or insurer.
The Princeton Plan may use this right to the extent of the benefits
under the Plan. You must agree to help the Princeton University
Health Care Plan use this right when requested."

The Plaintiff reimbursed the Plan and then filed the putative class
action in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. He alleges
that the subrogation provision is unenforceable because it only
appears in the SPD, and further avers that this provision does not
permit Defendants to seek reimbursement from Plan members.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a proposed class consisting of
Plan members from whom the Defendants demanded reimbursement upon
settling their personal injury cases. The Defendants removed the
case to the Court and seek to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims.

II. Discussion

A. Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

The Defendants first argue that the Plaintiff's claim for benefits
under the Plan fails because he has not exhausted his
administrative remedies. The Plaintiff argues that the Court should
not consider exhaustion at the motion to dismiss stage because "the
exhaustion requirement is a nonjurisdictional affirmative
defense."

Judge Rufe finds that the Plaintiff's Complaint includes an excerpt
of the "About Your Benefits" SPD that describes the plan's
subrogation rights. Two letters appended to the Complaint show that
the Rawlings Company corresponded with the Plaintiff's personal
injury attorney regarding subrogation, but do not, for example,
include a description of the plan's review procedures and
applicable time limits, or other information in the statute. The
Defendants attached to their reply brief a letter to the
Plaintiff's personal injury attorney stating that the Plan had a
"lien/claim for medical benefits" and an email to the same attorney
stating that the SPD and the "ERISA Affidavit" were attached,
although the attachments cannot be viewed in the exhibit.

"A court may consider an undisputedly authentic document that a
defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the
plaintiff's claims are based on the document." In his sur-reply
memorandum, the Plaintiff refers to these documents as "purported"
but appears to concede that the SPD was sent at the request of the
personal injury attorney and argues that the "demand letters were
sent without the SPD attached and did not reference any portion of
the SPD."

Given the seeming dispute over these documents, the fact-sensitive
inquiry required to determine whether the notice the Plaintiff
received was substantially compliant, and recognizing that courts
look to all of the communications between the parties when
assessing the adequacy of notice, Judge Rufe will not dismiss Count
I at this time.

B. Preemption

The Defendants next argue that ERISA preempts the Plaintiffs' state
law claims. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated New
Jersey's collateral source statute as well as the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA"). He also brings six common law claims
against the Defendants, including claims for breach of contract,
breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, legal fraud,
unjust enrichment, directing or permitting conduct of another, and
acting in concert. His sole argument against preemption is that the
health plan at issue contains a choice-of-law provision stating
that "the plan will be construed and enforced according to New
Jersey law."

Judge Rufe opines that the Plaintiff offers no pertinent authority
to support the contention that a choice-of-law provision in a
healthcare plan that is subject to ERISA defeats preemption, and
the cases specifically addressing the issue reject this contention.
The Plaintiff has not argued that any of his state law claims
satisfy an exclusion under ERISA's express preemption provision.
Claims under New Jersey's collateral source statute and claims
arising under the CFA are expressly preempted. ERISA also expressly
preempts fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims. As
all of the Plaintiff's state law claims concern the Defendants'
exercise of the Plan's subrogation clause, they are preempted under
ERISA. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's state law claims (Count I and
Counts IX through XV) will be dismissed with prejudice.

C. Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims

1. Counts III-VI

The Defendants seek to dismiss the Plaintiff's fiduciary claims
under ERISA, and first contend that four of the Plaintiff's breach
of fiduciary duty claims should be dismissed as duplicative of the
Plaintiff's benefits claim.

Judge Rufe opines that at this early stage in the litigation, the
Defendants' "argument is premature as the Plaintiff may plead in
the alternative, and the merits are better addressed on a more
developed record." Although the Plaintiff seeks both damages and
equitable relief when only equitable relief is available for these
claims, Judge Rufe will not dismiss them on that basis alone.
Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts III through
VI will be denied.

2. Count VII

The Defendants next argue that the Plaintiff's claim for breach of
a fiduciary duty under Section 503 and its accompanying regulation
should be dismissed because ERISA does not provide a private cause
of action for the conduct alleged. The Plaintiff alleges that the
Plan violated Section 503 and 29 C.F.R. Section 2560.503-1 because
it "failed to establish and follow reasonable claims procedures"
and "did not follow its administrative processes when it failed to
provide Plaintiff a Notice of Adverse Benefits Determination." He
contends that this cause of action is still viable as he is solely
seeking equitable relief for these alleged violations.

As the Third Circuit has held that Section 503 and 29 C.F.R.
Section 2560.503-1 are unenforceable through ERISA's civil
enforcement mechanism, a separate cause of action is unavailable in
this instance. The fact that the Plaintiff solely seeks equitable
relief for this claim is inconsequential, and this claim will be
dismissed with prejudice.

3. Count VIII

Lastly, the Defendants seek to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim for
breach of a fiduciary duty, which he claims was breached when the
Defendants used the SPD both as an operative plan document and as a
summary plan description instead of having separate documents. The
Plaintiff argues that the Defendant's position undermines the
Supreme Court's holding in Cigna Corporation v. Amara, which
concerned "a conflict between an SPD and a written instrument," not
the issue of "whether an SPD can function as a written
instrument."

Judge Rufe finds the Plaintiff's argument unpersuasive; the
Complaint alleges that Defendants violated ERISA because a separate
written instrument did not exist, not that the SPD conflicted with
another document. Additionally, the Plaintiff contends that the SPD
must be formally adopted or designated as a formal plan document to
be enforceable, but has failed to identify authority that suggests
this is correct when there are no other plan documents.
Accordingly, this claim will be dismissed.

III. Conclusion

At this early stage, the Plaintiff may proceed with his benefits
claim and breach of fiduciary claims in Counts I, III, IV, V, and
VI. Under ERISA's preemption provisions, the Plaintiff's state law
claims contained in Counts II, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, and XV
will be dismissed. Likewise, Count VII will be dismissed for
alleging a nonexistent cause of action, and Count VIII will be
dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. An order will be entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2022 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/3drbr4am from Leagle.com.


QUEBEC: Claims Process in Groundwater Suit in Shannon Discussed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in this case are pleased to announce that following the
March 31, 2022, Superior Court of Quebec decision, the residents of
Cannon Street (situated in the municipality of the
Saint-Gabriel-de-Valcartier) can now submit their claims. The
Claims period has also been extended for all claimants and will now
end on January 15, 2023.

On December 23, 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to grant
leave to appeal to the parties. The January 17, 2020, decision of
the Quebec Court of Appeal ordering Canada and the other defendants
to pay moral and punitive damages in connection with the
contamination of the groundwater in the municipality of Shannon has
therefore put an end to the litigation between the parties.

According to this decision and a subsequent decision dating
November 1, 2021, persons aged 18 years and over on December 21,
2000, and who resided in certain specific areas of the municipality
of Shannon or on Cannon Street (situated in the municipality of the
Saint-Gabriel-de-Valcartier), Quebec, for at least a month during
certain periods between April 1995 and June 2006 could be entitled
to cumulative compensation ranging from $250 to $64,000, plus
interest and additional indemnity accrued between July 16, 2007,
and the date of payment of the compensation.

Since the Supreme Court of Canada's decision was announced, the
parties have been engaged in discussions with respect to the terms
of the protocol that govern the individual claims process. The
parties worked together throughout the discussions to develop this
protocol and to ensure that the steps it sets out could be carried
out promptly and efficiently.

In the context of said discussions, the parties agreed to propose
the services of a claims administrator to manage the claims
process. This decision was made to ensure a rigorous, fast and
efficient claims process.

Last June 30, 2021, the Superior Court of Quebec approved the
agreed-upon Claims protocol. The Claims process which has started
July 10, 2021, is now open to claimants who have resided in all
admissible zones during the included periods, including on Cannon
Street.

Additional information is available on the website created by the
claims administrator for the Claims Process, at
actioncollectiveshannon.ca. [GN]

RCI DINING: Collier Files Suit Over Allege Tip Skimming
-------------------------------------------------------
ALEXUS COLLIER; SHABRE WILLIAMS; NYKKEAH MANSFIELD; TORRECE MILTON;
KIAJAH POWELL; ALEXYS COUCH; and HERAN SEIFU, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RCI DINING
SERVICES (INDIANA), INC. d/b/a THE PONY; CHARLES GERALD WESTLUND,
JR. a/k/a JERRY WESTLUND; and MATT JESSE, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-00747-RLY-MG (S.D., Ind., April 13, 2022)seeks to recover
mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, illegally absconding with Plaintiffs' tips and
demanding illegal kickbacks including in the form of "House Fees."

Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as exotic
dancers/entertainer.

RCI DINING SERVICES (Indiana), INC. dba THE PONY operate an
adult-oriented entertainment facility at Lafayette Rd.,
Indianapolis, IN. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Custy, Esq.
          CUSTY LAW FIRM
          4004 Campbell St., Suite 4
          Valparaiso, IN 46385
          Telephone: (219) 286-7361
          Facsimile: (317)458-2001
          Email:bcusty@custylaw.com

              - and -

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
          ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          1105 Milford Street
          Houston, TX
          Telephone: (713) 554-2377
          Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
          Email: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com
                 leigh@ellzeylaw.com


RED RIVER: Fails to Pay Restaurant Staff's Minimum Wage, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
NATHASHA KRUMBIEGEL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. RED RIVER INN INC., and RICK TRIPI, Case No.
2:22-cv-02114 (E.D.N.Y., April 12, 2022) seeks seeks relief for
Defendants' unlawful actions, including compensation for unpaid
minimum wages, overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, unlawfully
retained tips, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
statutory damages for Defendants' notice violations, and attorneys'
fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

The Defendants allegedly maintained a pattern and practice of
failing to pay Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees, including
servers and bartenders, the minimum wage rate for all hours worked,
the overtime rate of one-and-one half times the regular hourly
rate/applicable minimum wage rate for all hours worked in excess of
forty per week, spread-of-hours pay for each workday their shift or
shifts exceeded 10 hours per day, and all tips to which they were
entitled.

From August 3, 2019, to April 26, 2021, the Plaintiff was employed
by the Defendants as a server/bartender.

Throughout her employment with Red River, Plaintiff was a reliable
and diligent worker with no record of disciplinary action., the
suit says.

Red River operates as restaurant and bar that sells food and drink,
including alcoholic beverages, to the public for consumption on its
premises, pickup, and/or delivery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Ames, Esq.
          AKIN LAW GROUP PLLC
          45 Broadway, Suite 1420
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 825-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 825-1440
          E-mail: justin@akinlaws.com

REDWIRE CORPORATION: Securities Class Suit in Florida Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Redwire Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 8, 2022, that a securities class
action lawsuit filed against the company in Florida is underway.

On December 17, 2021, the company, its CEO, Peter Cannito, and its
CFO, William Read, were named as defendants in the putative class
action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.

In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the company and
certain of its directors and officers made misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose material facts about the company's
business, operations, and prospects, allegedly in violation of
Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

As relief, the plaintiffs are seeking, among other things,
compensatory damages. The defendants believe the allegations are
without merit and intend to defend the suit vigorously. However,
given the early stage of the proceedings, a reasonable estimate of
the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at
this time.

Redwire Corporation is an American aerospace manufacturer and space
infrastructure technology company headquartered in Jacksonville,
Florida. The company was formed on June 1, 2020 by the private
equity firm AE Industrial Partners.


ROCKPORT HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Workers' Wages After Kronos Hack
------------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ROCKPORT HEALTHCARE SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC; ROCKPORT
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, LLC; VERNON HEALTHCARE CENTER, LLC; and
DOES No. 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-02437 (C.D.
Cal., April 11, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other
damages owed by the Defendants to the Plaintiff and Defendants'
similar workers, who were the ultimate victims of not just the
Kronos hack, but the Defendants' decision to make their own
workforce bear the economic burden for the hack.

Payroll systems were affected by the hack of Kronos in 2021. That
hack led to problems in timekeeping and payroll throughout
Defendants' organizations, says the suit.

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

Amanda Lee is one each such worker for Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Defendants could have easily
implemented a system to accurately record time and properly pay
hourly and non-exempt employees until issues related to the hack
were resolved. But they didn't. Instead, Defendants did not pay
their non-exempt hourly and 9 salaried employees their full premium
for all overtime hours worked, as required by federal and
California law.

The Defendants pushed the cost of the Kronos hack onto the most
economically vulnerable people in their workforce. The Defendants
made the economic burden of the Kronos hack fall on front-line 14
workers -- average Americans -- who rely on the full and timely
payment of their wages to make ends meet.

The Defendants' alleged failure to pay proper wages for all hours
worked, including overtime hours, violates the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and applicable state law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          340 S. Lemon Ave., No. 1228
          Walnut, CA 91789
          Telephone: (310) 928 1277
          E-mail: matt@parmet.law

RODAN + FIELDS: Settles Lash Boost Class Action for $38 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beauty Packaging reports that Rodan + Fields has offered to pay $38
million to resolve several class action lawsuits surrounding its
Lash Boost product, a serum advertised to dramatically increase
lash length and density.

Plaintiffs in three class action lawsuits say that Lash Boost is
actually a misbranded drug that can cause serious side effects.
They specifically challenge the ingredient isopropyl cloprostenate,
a prostaglandin analog—a type of chemical used in glaucoma
treatments. Due to this drug ingredient, plaintiffs argue that Lash
Boost should be regulated by the FDA and treated as a drug instead
of an untested cosmetics product.

According to the Lash Boost class action lawsuits, Rodan + Fields
customers unknowingly used this medical drug near their eyes and
put themselves at risk for adverse reactions such as eye
irritation, macular edema, iris color change, and ocular
inflammation.

Furthermore, plaintiffs allege that the inclusion of isopropyl
cloprostenate contradicts Rodan + Fields' marketing promises that
Lash Boost is "not a drug product," "contains only cosmetic
ingredients," and is "not associated with any significant side
effects."

Rodan + Fields didn't admit any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $38
million to resolve three Lash Boost class action lawsuits.

Under the terms of the Lash Boost class action settlement, Class
Members can collect either a cash payment or a credit voucher.

In addition to providing cash, Rodan + Fields has agreed to make
Lash Boost label changes to revise instructions, warnings and other
information. [GN]

SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Johnson Appeals FLSA Suit Ruling to 7th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Robert Johnson filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Robert Johnson v. Schneider
National Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00836-WCG, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Robert Johnson v. Schneider
National Inc., Case No. 22-1556, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on April 5, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Docketing Statement was due for Appellant Robert Johnson by
Aril 12, 2022;

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by April 19, 2022; and

   -- Appellant's brief due on or before May 16, 2022 for Robert
Johnson.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ROBERT JOHNSON, individually and on behlaf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          James L. Simon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
          5000 Rockside Road
          Independence, OH 44131
          Telephone: (216) 525-8890

Defendant-Appellee SCHNEIDER NATIONAL INC. is represented by:

          Joel H. Spitz, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          77 W. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601-1818
          Telephone: (312) 750-5704

SENTOSA NURSING: Settles Nurses' Wage Class Action for $3 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alez Zorn, writing for Skilled Nursing News, reports that a
recruitment agency in the Philippines, Sentosa Nursing Recruitment
Agency, and two nursing homes agreed to pay more than $3 million to
184 nurses after a class action lawsuit was filed due to unpaid
wages and violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act.

The two nursing homes, Golden Gate Rehabilitation & Health Care
Center LLC and Spring Creek Rehabilitation and Nursing Center,
owned by SentosaCare, are located in New York.

A New York federal judge green lit the deal on April 7, five years
after the lawsuit was first filed. The defendants settlement will
resolve all claims for compensatory damages, punitive damages,
interest, attorney's fees and costs. Each class member of the
lawsuit will receive the full amount of compensatory damages
awarded to them, plus 9% annual interest, according to court
documents.

The lawsuit, brought in March 2017 by Rose Ann Paguirigan on behalf
of more than 200 nurses who were recruited in the Philippines to
work at the Sentosa nursing homes, alleged that the defendants
refused to pay wages required by their employment contracts.

The workers were threatened with civil litigation, professional
disciplinary proceedings and criminal charges to keep them from
leaving, according to court documents.

The complaint claims that a substantial number of foreign nurses
were employed as RN managers and were not paid in full. It also
argued that the $25,000 contract termination fee -- referred to as
an indentured servitude penalty -- should not be allowed to be
enforced.

A previous New York State Supreme Court case from 2010, SentosaCare
LLC v. Anilao, had ruled that the indentured servitude penalty in
Sentosa's employment contract was unenforceable.

The plaintiffs argued that the reason for filing the lawsuits was
not to recover actual losses, but to send a message to all foreign
nurses that they could face civil litigation and incur substantial
legal fees if they stop working. Since 2006, the defendants have
filed lawsuits against at least 30 foreign nurses, according to
court records.

Compensatory damages were calculated as the difference between the
weekly salary class members would have received if they had been
paid a salary at the applicable prevailing wage rate, and the
compensation they actually received each week on an hourly wage
basis, plus interest.

For example, the lawsuit determined that one of the plaintiffs
should receive a settlement payment of $22,400.18, comprising
$16,005.09 for prevailing wage underpayments and $6,395.09 for 9%
interest.

Requests for comment from SentosaCare's attorneys were not
immediately returned. [GN]

SEPHORA USA: Pays Manual Workers Every Other Week, Espinal Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROSALBA ESPINAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SEPHORA USA, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-03034 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 12, 2022) is a class action on behalf of all employees of
Sephora in the State of New York that engage or have engaged in
manual work in the course of their employment.

New York Law requires companies to pay their manual workers on a
weekly basis unless they receive an express authorization to pay on
a semi-monthly basis from the New York State Department of Labor
Commissioner.

The Defendant has received no such authorization from the New York
State Department of Labor Commissioner. The Defendant has allegedly
violated and continues to violate this law by paying its manual
workers every other week rather than on a weekly basis.

The Plaintiff demands liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys'
fees on behalf of herself and a putative class comprised of all
manual workers employed by Defendant in New York State over the
last six years.

Sephora operates as a cosmetics and beauty stores.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from January 2020 to March
2021 at a Sephora store located at 750 Lexington Ave., New York,
New York. [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
          E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
                  aleslie@bursor.com

SHOPIFY INC: Faces Class Action in Delaware Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Chayanika Deka, writing for Crypto Potato, reports that Shopify,
Ledger, and TaskUs are facing a class-action lawsuit over the major
data breach two years ago.

A group of Ledger users has filed a class-action lawsuit in the
United States District Court of Delaware against Global e-commerce
platform Shopify, its third-party data consultant TaskUs as well as
the hardware wallet maker itself.

Another Lawsuit
According to the official document, the plaintiffs accused Shopify
and TaskUs of their "failure to exercise reasonable care in
securing and safeguarding" user data connected to the 2020 data
breach that affected Ledger SAS crypto wallets.

The complaint read that the breach resulted in the unauthorized
public release of around 272,000 pieces of personal information
such as name, email ID, postal address, and telephone numbers.

The plaintiffs claimed that both Shopify and TaskUs were reportedly
aware of the data leak for more than a week before notifying
customers of the hack. Between April-June 2020, attackers exploited
Ledger's database via Shopify and TaskUs and obtained the list of
the former's customers' PII. By the end of June, the victims' data
had been traded on the black market, which left them vulnerable to
phishing attacks.

Ledger, which is also being accountable for repeated promises and
global advertising campaigns touting its security, had initially
denied the breach. By December 2020, the extent of the exploit
worsened when the hacker published Ledger's customer list online
from Shopify.

Apart from phishing attacks. the victims also faced threats of
physical assault and blackmail if they failed to transfer their
funds to the criminals. It was then, the plaintiffs alleged, that
the French hardware wallet company sent some of its customers
affected by the data breach an email informing them for the first
time that their PII was leaked.

The complaint also claimed that Ledger used Shopify to operate its
website's online store, due to which the latter had direct access
to the personal information of users on Ledger's database. Shopify
uses TaskUs as a third-party contractor to provide customer support
services and hence had access to the said customer data.

California Court Dismisses 2020 Data Breach Lawsuit
This isn't the first time that Ledger and Shopify have been sued
for a data breach that alleged several Ledger users lost their
crypto assets in phishing attacks after their personal data got
leaked.

However, the California court ruled in favor of Shopify and
Ledger's motion to dismiss the lawsuit in November last year. Judge
Edward Chen stated that the US-based court does not have
jurisdiction over the two entities since they are headquartered in
Canada and France.

Earlier, another cryptocurrency wallet company, Trezor, confirmed
that its users were targeted in MailChimp exploit. It was now
investigating the email phishing campaign wherein the hackers sent
fake notifications of data breaches after compromising a mailing
list. [GN]

SOCLEAN INC: Cason Sues Over Mislabeled Sanitizing Machine
----------------------------------------------------------
JAMES CASON, individually and on and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SOCLEAN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-00180-RM
(D. Ariz., April 13, 2022) is an action against the Defendant's
false and misleading representations about its devices to market
CPAP Sanitizing Machine, the SoClean 2 Go CPAP Sanitizing machine,
and their predecessor devices ("the SoClean devices").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that SoClean's marketing
materials fail to disclose that its devices emit ozone, which is a
longstanding requirement of federal law. Instead, SoClean falsely
represents that its devices use "activated oxygen" to clean CPAP
machines. SoClean markets the devices as "safe" and "healthy,"
which is false given that they generate toxic ozone gas at levels
that substantially exceed federal regulations. SoClean falsely
represents that its devices use "no water or chemicals" or "no
harsh chemicals" to clean CPAP machines, despite using ozone gas
– a harsh chemical that causes respiratory problems in humans.

SoClean devices are so dangerous and destructive that several of
the largest manufacturers of CPAP machines in the U.S. require
purchasers to acknowledge that they have been informed that if the
purchaser uses a SoClean device to clean their CPAP machine, the
warranty of their CPAP machine will be voided.

The Plaintiff and the Class have suffered actual damages in that
each product they purchased is worth less than the price they paid
and which they would not have purchased at all had they known of
the attendant health risks associated with the use of each of
SoClean's products.

SOCLEAN, INC. manufactures cleaning devices. The Company produces
automated continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) cleaners and
sanitizers which improves health outcomes and quality of life for
those suffering from obstructive sleep apnea and other sleeping
disorders. SoClean serves customers in the State of Massachusetts.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Gregory E. Good, Esq.
         GOOD LAW, P.C.
         3430 E. Sunrise Drive, Suite 270
         Tucson, AZ 85718
         Telephone: (520) 628-8221
         Facsimile: (520) 547-0394
         Email: good@goodlaw.net

               - and -

         John M. Deakle, Esq.
         Russell L. Johnson, Esq.
         Ronald V. Johnson, Esq.
         Richard J. Lajaunie, Esq.
         DEAKLE-JOHNSON LAW FIRM, PLLC
         802 N. Main Street
         Hattiesburg, MS 39403
         Telephone: (601) 544-0631
         Facsimile: (601) 544-0699
         Email: jmd@deaklelawfirm.com
                rljohnson@djlawms.com
                rvjohnson@djlawms.com
                rjlajaunie@djlawms.com

              -and -

         Patrick W. Pendley, Esq.
         Andrea Barient, Esq.
         PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN
         24110 Eden Street
         Plaquemine, LA 70765
         Telephone: (888) 725-2477
         Facsimile: (225) 687-6398
         Email: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com
                abarient@pbclawfirm.com


SOLARWINDS CORP: Must Face Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on
March 30, 2022, Judge Robert Pitman of the Western District of
Texas denied the majority of a motion to dismiss a putative class
action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against an information technology company, certain of its
executives, and private equity firms that owned the company's
securities. In re SolarWinds Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 1:21-CV-138-RP
(W.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2022). Plaintiffs alleged that company
statements regarding its cybersecurity policies and practices were
revealed to be false and misleading upon the disclosure of a
security breach. The Court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged
falsity, scienter, and loss causation, except as to the company's
CEO, the allegations as to whom the Court granted plaintiffs leave
to replead.

The Court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged that the
company's CEO and Vice President of Security Architecture made
misstatements based on the fact that they allegedly reviewed and
approved a "security statement" on the company's website that was
alleged to falsely describe the company's cybersecurity policies
and practices. Slip Op. at 14-15, 21. Moreover, the Court
determined that statements indicating that the company was focusing
on cybersecurity "hygiene" could plausibly be found to be
misleading in context based on "differences between the image
projected by the speaker and the reality on the ground." Id. at 16.
And the Court further held that the company's disclosures about the
risk of cybersecurity attacks did not protect it because plaintiffs
did not merely point to the fact that a security breach took place
but, rather, "alleged separate facts that the cybersecurity
measures at the company were not as they were portrayed." Id. at
17.

The Court also held that plaintiffs' allegations as to the Vice
President of Security Architecture supported a strong inference of
scienter on his part because he had touted the company's security
measures while holding himself out as a "responsible and
knowledgeable authority regarding [the company's] cybersecurity
measures." Id. at 10. Allegations that the Vice President had
allowed a separate server vulnerability, unrelated to the breach at
issue, also supported a finding of scienter, the Court held, and
statements of former employees regarding the lack of proper
cybersecurity protocols were also considered relevant, even though
those employees had not directly worked on the company's security
protocols or interfaced with its security team. Id. at 11-12. The
Court noted that several challenged statements related to employee
practices at the company broadly, and that a trier of fact could
infer that the Vice President of Security Architecture "may have
been aware" of whether the company's security policies were being
followed. Id. at 12-13.

With respect to the company's CEO, however, the Court agreed that
plaintiffs failed to adequately allege scienter because plaintiffs
had pled "no facts to suggest that [the CEO] held himself out as an
authority on [the company's] cybersecurity measures." Id. at 22.
Moreover, while plaintiffs pointed to the CEO's sale of more than
39% of his company shares shortly before the security breach was
publicly disclosed as evidence of scienter, the Court determined
that the CEO had provided a plausible competing inference—that he
had previously announced his departure from the company and sold
his shares pursuant to a 10b5-1 plan put in place before the
company became aware of the security breach. Id. at 23.

With respect to loss causation, defendants contended that stock
price drops following disclosure of a security breach could not be
tied to any specific practices of the company. Id. at 18-19. The
Court held, however, that the alleged corrective disclosures "at
the very least circumstantially suggest that the security breach
was more likely than not caused by the company's allegedly
deficient security." Id. at 19.

The Court also held that plaintiffs adequately alleged control
person liability against two private equity firms that each
allegedly controlled 40% of the company. Id. at 25-26. The private
equity firms argued that neither was a majority shareholder and
their stakes should not be combined to infer majority control, but
the Court determined that a "relaxed" and "lenient" pleading
standard applied to evaluating control person allegations. Id. at
26. Plaintiffs had adequately alleged, the Court held, that the
private equity firms "acted in unison, buying and taking the
[c]ompany private together" and then "taking the [c]ompany public
together again," "retaining equal amounts of shares of the
[c]ompany," and then selling shares after the company's IPO
"together, on the same day, and in nearly identical amounts." Id.

In re SolarWinds Corp. Sec. Litig. [GN]

SOTHEBY'S: Averts Independent Contractor Misclassification Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Dailey, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Sotheby's
convinced a federal judge in New Jersey to throw out a proposed
class action brought by an accountant who claims he and others were
misclassified as independent contractors, rather than employees.

Plaintiff Francis Fenwick failed to establish that the case is
worth more than $75,000, that there's diversity of citizenship
between the parties, or that his claims plausibly raise a federal
question, Judge Brian R. Martinotti said on April 4. As such, the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey lacks
jurisdiction over the case, he said. [GN]


SPRINT CORP: N.Y. Court Pares Claims in Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on
March 25, 2022, Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the Southern District of
New York granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a
putative class action asserting claims under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against a telecommunications company and
certain of its executives. Solomon v. Sprint Corp., 1:19-cv-05272
(MKV) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2022). Plaintiffs primarily alleged that
the company made misrepresentations regarding its reporting of new
phone subscriptions and its participation in a
government-subsidized discounted phone program. The Court held that
plaintiffs adequately alleged misrepresentations and scienter with
respect to statements regarding new subscriptions but held that
plaintiffs failed to adequately allege scienter with respect to
statements regarding the discounted phone program and concluded
that certain other challenged statements were mere puffery.

Plaintiffs alleged two primary categories of misrepresentations.
First, plaintiffs alleged that the company's reporting of the
number of postpaid phone lines added by subscribers was misleading,
including because the company had increased the number of
subscriptions by offering customers a bundled free line with a
purchased line. Slip op. at 2-4. Second, plaintiffs alleged that
the company made misrepresentations regarding its participation in
a government-subsidized program that provided discounted phone and
internet services to low-income customers, which were allegedly
false and misleading because the company failed to deactivate lines
that were inactive for 30 days as required under the terms of the
program. Id. at 5-6. Plaintiffs alleged that these statements were
made in the context of a prospective merger to increase the
likelihood that the merger would be consummated. Id. at 7.

The Court held that plaintiffs had adequately alleged
misrepresentations with respect to the company's reporting of added
postpaid phone lines. The Court rejected the company's arguments
that its statements were "technically true" and accompanied by
other disclosures that explained that the company used promotions
and included non-phone devices in its reporting of postpaid
numbers. Id. at 13. The Court noted that, once a company chooses to
speak on an issue, it must disclose sufficient information so that
its statements are not misleading. Id. at 11. While the Court
agreed that the statements were technically true, it explained that
the additional disclosures "do not defeat the clear impression
generated by the company's other statements about the strength of
the business overall." Id. at 13. In particular, the Court noted
that the company had "painted such an optimistic picture of the
company's postpaid sales that it left investors with no other
possible inference than that the company's postpaid net additions
continued to grow," even as the company's board had allegedly been
informed that the number of added lines had decreased, that the
company's performance was worse than other phone carriers, and that
growth was not expected to continue. Id. at 12-13.

With respect to the company's participation in the discounted phone
line program, the company admitted that its financial statements
were incorrect because they "claimed income that they wrongly
acquired" with respect to the program and because "internal
controls in the company had failed to ensure compliance." Id. at
14. Similarly, the Court explained that alleged misrepresentations
regarding financial performance and revenue were actionable because
the company "did not disclose that a sizeable portion of its
revenue was wrongfully received as a result of failures within [the
company's] controls." Id. at 15.

However, the Court held that challenged statements regarding the
company's "corporate goals and competitive advantages" were
non-actionable puffery. Id. at 15-16. The Court observed that the
statements such as "whether we do the merge[r] . . . or stay
standalone . . . we would have a terrific platform from a network
point of view" were "forward-looking statements of optimism" that
constituted mere puffery. Id. at 16. Thus, the Court dismissed any
claims relying on those statements to the extent they are "devoid
of any connection to the statements the Court has found to be
actionable." Id.

Turning to scienter, the Court explained that plaintiffs argued
"almost exclusively" for an inference of scienter based on a theory
of recklessness, pointing to an alleged "discrepancy between
statements made internally at the company and statements released
to the public." Id. at 17-18. The Court held that plaintiffs
adequately alleged scienter with respect to the added postpaid
subscriptions, based on allegations that the company "publicly
discussed only [the company's] success from postpaid additions,"
even though the company's board was allegedly informed of a
"drastic reduction[] in postpaid net additions" and the company
subsequently stated in a letter to a regulator that this reporting
was "incomplete" and "not a substitute for a realistic analysis of
the key factors that are most probative of [the company's] overall
competitive position and prospects." Id. at 18. The Court stated
that these allegations raised a sufficient inference of scienter at
the motion-to-dismiss stage that defendants "either knew of the
statements' falsity or were reckless when making their statements."
Id. at 18-19.

The Court held that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged scienter,
however, with respect to statements regarding the discounted phone
program or related alleged inaccuracies in the company's financial
statements. While plaintiffs argued that an email allegedly sent by
a "senior lawyer" at the company explained that the company had a
"systemic" failure with respect to keeping track of subscribers in
the government program, the Court emphasized that plaintiffs
provided no other facts indicating that individuals at the company
were aware of problems with internal controls. Id. at 19. Moreover,
the Court observed that plaintiffs had given no reason why that
email, sent in 2014 to a utility commission in Oregon, should be
interpreted as relating to a "nationwide problem" or to the
allegedly improper reimbursements disclosed five years later. Id.
at 19-20. The Court also rejected plaintiffs' argument that
defendants had "motive and opportunity to commit fraud" based on an
alleged "desire to maximize the merger price" and to "induce the
merger to occur." Id. at 20. The Court explained that this argument
amounted to a "generalized desire" to achieve a profitable outcome
and was not supported by allegations of a "concrete and personal
benefit" for the company's executives, as would be required to
support an inference of scienter. Id. at 20-21.

Solomon v. Sprint Corp. [GN]

SPROUT FOODS: Faces Suit Over Nutrient Claims on Baby Food Pouches
------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi reports that Sprout Foods has been hit with a
proposed class action that alleges the company has misbranded its
baby and toddler food pouches by including on product labels
nutrient content claims that are prohibited by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA).

The 28-page suit states that FDA regulations strictly prohibit
certain nutrient content claims on the product labels of foods
intended for children under two. According to the lawsuit, Sprout's
nutrient content claims, including, for instance, that its Power
Pak pouches contain "3g of Protein, 5g of Fiber and 300mg Omega-3
from Chia ALA," mislead reasonable consumers into believing the
products are healthier than others for children under two.

"These claims deceive and mislead reasonable consumers into
believing that the Products will provide more benefits than its
competitors, and induces [sic] parents to purchase the Products
despite a lack of evidence that an increased intake for the
nutrients advertised are appropriate or recommended for infants and
toddlers less than 2 years of age," the complaint contends.

Further, under California law, a food that is "misbranded" cannot
legally be manufactured, advertised, distributed, sold or
possessed, the lawsuit states.

"Misbranded products have no economic value and are legally
worthless," the suit says.

The case contends that consumers have been "economically damaged"
by buying the Sprout pouches at issue, which, according to the
lawsuit, are worth less than their purchase price due to the
allegedly impermissible nutrient content claims.

The suit looks to cover all persons in California who bought at any
time since February 18, 2018 any Sprout baby or toddler food
pouches included in the list found here. [GN]

STARBUCKS CORP: Sued for Underfilling Cold Brew Concentrate
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that don't
mess with a man's coffee. Starbucks is being sued by a coffee lover
who alleges the multinational company underfills its Cold Brew
Concentrate coffee products.

Plaintiff Kenneth Telesco filed the class action complaint against
Starbucks Corporation Apr. 1 in a New York federal court, alleging
violations of state and federal consumer laws.

"Starbucks engages in widespread false and deceptive advertising on
its [Cold Brew Concentrate] Coffee Products," Telesco alleges. "In
a practice that offends reasonable consumer expectations, Defendant
employs a classic bait-and-switch scheme that causes unsuspecting
consumers to spend more money for less than the advertised amount
of coffee they believe they are purchasing."

He says the packaging and labeling of the cold brews prominently
advertise that they will produce a certain number of servings when,
in fact, they do not.

The lawsuit alleges that, according to the FDA's Code of
Regulations for coffee, one serving is equivalent to 12 fluid
ounces.

Telesco purchased a Cold Brew Concentrate, which he says
prominently advertises on its front labels that one bottle "Makes 8
Servings When Prepared As Directed."

"But according to both the CFR and Starbucks's own measurements,
the Coffee Products only produce 5 servings of coffee per 32 ounce
bottle," Telesco says.

This is because, to get the eight servings promised, Starbucks uses
inconsistent serving sizes, Telesco says.

Per the instructions located on the side of the bottle, one serving
of Starbucks Cold Brew Coffee consists of 4 fluid ounces of the
Coffee Products and 4 fluid ounces of water -- for a total serving
size of 8 fluid ounces, he says.

"But . . . 8 fluid ounces is not one serving of coffee, it is
two-thirds of a single serving," Telesco alleges.

The class action lawsuit says customers were deceived by false
marketing into buying a product that was not worth as much as it
represented.

Telesco is looking to represent anyone who bought the cold brew
product in the United States plus a New York subclass. He's suing
for breach of warranty and under New York consumer laws and seeking
certification of the class action, an injunction, fees, costs,
interests, damages and a jury trial.

Meanwhile, a major recall has been issued for cases of popular
Starbucks beverages sold in stores nationwide.

On Sept. 26, 2021, the FDA initiated a nationwide recall for more
than 250,000 cases of Starbucks Doubleshot Espresso drinks in three
flavors.

The plaintiffs are represented by Frederick J. Klorczyk III, L.
Timothy Fisher and Brittany S. Scott of Bursoe & Fisher, P.A.

The Starbucks Underfilled Cold Brew Class Action Lawsuit is Kenneth
Telesco v. Starbucks Corporation, Case No. 7:22-cv-02687, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN]

STATE FARM: Cozen O'Connor Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Miller, Esq., Laura Zulick, Esq., and Ilya Schwartzburg,
Esq., of Cozen O'Connor, in an article for Mondaq, report that on
August 30, 2021, the California Supreme Court held in McHugh v.
Protective Life Insurance Company, 12 Cal. 5th 213, 243, 494 P.3d
24, 43 (2021), that California Insurance Code sections 10113.71 and
10113.72 - which extended grace periods in life insurance policies
to 60 days and mandated annual notice of the new right for
policyholders to designate a person to receive notice of lapse or
termination of the policy for failure to pay premiums - apply not
only to policies issued or delivered after the effective date of
those statutes, January 1, 2013, but also to policies already in
force on that date.

Based on McHugh, on October 6, 2021, the Ninth Circuit decided
Thomas v. State Farm Life Insurance Company, No. 20-55231, 2021 WL
4596286 (9th Cir. Oct. 6, 2021)(unpub.), holding that "[a]n
insurer's failure to comply with these statutory requirements means
that the policy cannot lapse" and an insurer could be liable for a
death benefit. Shortly thereafter, on October 25, 2021, the
California Department of Insurance issued guidance acknowledging
McHugh, but deferred to "future court decisions" on how to apply
it.

By our count, there are now over 50 cases pending against life
insurers in California state and federal courts based on alleged
violations of Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72. Although many cases
were stayed pending McHugh  and Thomas, those cases are now active
again, and new cases are being filed regularly.

Typically in these cases, plaintiffs assert claims for death
benefit proceeds, claims for damages, and claims for reinstatement,
and plaintiffs bring the cases individually or as proposed class
actions. Below, we discuss three recent opinions that provide
insight into how these cases are progressing post-McHugh.

There has been one significant decision denying class action
certification. In Siino v. Foresters Life Ins. & Annuity Co., 340
F.R.D. 157 (N.D. Cal. 2022), the named plaintiff claimed that a
$100,000 policy was improperly terminated by the defendant insurer.
The court found "commonality" satisfied despite the insurer's claim
that "class members will still need to prove their own performance,
the materiality of the insurer's breach, and actual harm or
damage." However, the court agreed with the insurer that the class
failed the "predominance" test because the plaintiff could not
produce a cognizable class-wide damages model for all but two death
benefit claims. The plaintiff has since dropped her damages claims
and intends to file a renewed motion for class certification based
primarily on declaratory relief.

Relatedly, one of the oldest of these class action cases alleging
statutory violations, Bentley v. United Omaha Life Insurance Co.,
No. 2:15-cv-07870 (C.D. Cal.), is nearing a final settlement
following the insurer's unsuccessful appeal. The settlement will
consist of an insurer payment to plaintiffs of approximately $2.5
million, representing death benefits and interest on 26 policies.
The case had always limited the class to beneficiaries with death
benefit claims.

Siino shows that future class action practice will focus on
substantive defenses and damages theories. These questions will
likely not be as quickly resolved outside the death benefit context
as they were in Bentley.

In Kelley v. Colonial Penn Life Ins. Co., No. 220CV03348FLAEX, 2022
WL 341135 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2022), the court denied a post-McHugh
motion to dismiss. The plaintiff in Kelley claimed her policy
improperly lapsed and should be reinstated, and alleged claims for
declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and various California
statutory causes of action individually and on behalf of and a
proposed class. The court was not swayed by the insurer's arguments
that California law did not apply, that the plaintiff's policy was
not an individual policy under California law, or that certain
causes of action (such as breach of contract, unfair competition,
and financial elder abuse) would fail as a matter of law. The
insurer has now filed an answer, and the case is proceeding to
discovery. It remains to be seen whether and how far defendant
insurers will be able to push individual defenses, especially at
the motion to dismiss stage.

Finally, a case filed in 2017 illustrates some of the issues that
can come up in discovery in long-pending California lapse cases. In
Moriarty v. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co., No. 17-CV-1709-BTM-WVG, 2021 WL
6197289 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2021), discovery had closed before the
case was stayed for McHugh. In the discovery dispute before the
court, the plaintiff sought (1) new information and data to update
the insurer's "stale" production from three years prior, (2) new
discovery to explore the defendant's compliance with McHugh, and
(3) disclosure of an attorney memorandum that the defendant relied
on in attempting to comply with Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72. The
court found no grounds to reopen discovery either based on the
plaintiff's showings or McHugh and Thomas. The court also denied
disclosure of the attorney memorandum, finding that the defendant
insurer had not divulged enough detail to cause a waiver of
privilege. Defendant insurers emerging from stays can rely on
Moriarty to challenge plaintiffs' attempts at new discovery based
on whether they adequately preserved these avenues or whether
certain discovery topics were foreseeable before the stay.

There are dozens of other post-McHugh lapse cases in California
federal and state courts. Most notably, we are starting to see
several new plaintiff law firms filing complaints alongside major
players who continue to file new cases as well. These developments
may change depending on how the California Court of Appeal, Fourth
District, rules on remand in McHugh on whether plaintiffs must
demonstrate that violations caused harm in each individual case. We
are continuing to monitor and report on these post-McHugh cases.
[GN]

STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Bragar Eagel Investigates Potential Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, is investigating potential claims against
Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc. (NASDAQ: SDIG), CIRCOR
International, Inc. (NYSE: CIR), Barclays PLC (NYSE: BCS), and
NeoGenomics, Inc. (NASDAQ: NEO). Our investigations concern whether
these companies have violated the federal securities laws and/or
engaged in other unlawful business practices. Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.

Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc. (NASDAQ: SDIG)

In October 2021, Stronghold conducted its initial public offering
("IPO"), selling 6.88 million shares of Class A common stock for
$19.00 per share.

On March 29, 2022, after the market closed, Stronghold announced
its fourth quarter and full year 2021 financial results. The
Company reported a net loss of $0.52 for the quarter, below analyst
estimates of $0.04 earnings per share, and Stronghold's Chief
Executive Officer cited "significant headwinds in our operations
which have materially impacted recent financial performance."

On this news, the price of Stronghold shares declined by $3.28 per
share, or approximately 32%, from $10.25 per share to close at
$6.97 per share on March 30, 2022.

For more information on the Stronghold investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/SDIG

CIRCOR International, Inc. (NYSE: CIR)

On March 14, 2022, CIRCOR disclosed that it may restate financial
results dating to 2018 due to accounting irregularities related to
its pipeline engineering unit. The Company stated that the
irregularities appear to be "in the range of $35 to $45 million of
pre-tax income on a cumulative basis over a period of at least five
years."

On this news, the Company's stock fell as much as 2.4% during
after-hours trading on March 14, 2022.

For more information on the CIRCOR investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/CIR

Barclays PLC (NYSE: BCS)

On March 28, 2022, Barclays disclosed that it had sold $15.2
billion more structured notes and exchange-traded notes than it had
registered. Barclays would repurchase the affected securities at
their original price, resulting in approximately $592 million in
losses.

On this news, Barclays' share fell $0.96, or 10.6%, to close at
$8.09 per share on March 28, 2022, thereby injuring investors.

For more information on the Barclays investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/BCS

NeoGenomics, Inc. (NASDAQ: NEO)

NeoGenomics specializes in cancer genetics testing and information
services and aims to provide comprehensive oncology-focused testing
menus in the world for physicians to help them diagnose and treat
cancer.

On Monday, March 28, 2022, NeoGenomics' Chief Executive Mark Mallon
stepped down as the health-testing company revealed that
first-quarter financials will miss guidance and rescinded its
forecast for the full year.

On this news, the price of NeoGenomics shares declined by $5.30 per
share, or approximately 29.8%, from $17.79 per share to close at
$12.49 per share on March 29, 2022.

For more information on the NeoGenomics investigation go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/NEO

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

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

Contact Information:

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

TACTILE SYSTEMS: Johnson Fistel Investigates Potential Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating potential claims on behalf of
Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. ("Tactile" or "the Company")
(NASDAQ: TCMD) against certain of its officers and directors.

In 2020 a class action complaint was filed against Tactile. The
complaint, alleges that the defendants violated the securities laws
by misrepresenting and concealing that: (1) while Tactile publicly
touted a $4 plus billion or $5 plus billion market opportunity, in
truth, the total addressable market for Tactile's medical devices
was materially smaller; (2) to induce sales growth and share gains,
Tactile and/or its employees were engaged in illicit and illegal
sales and marketing activities in violation of applicable federal
and state rules and public payer regulations; (3) the foregoing
illicit and illegal sales and marketing activities increased the
risk of a Medicare audit of Tactile's claims and criminal and civil
liability; (4) Tactile's revenues were in part the product of
unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; and that as a result of
the foregoing, (5) defendants' public statements, including its
year-over-year revenue growth and the purported growth drivers,
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Judge Nancy E. Brasel granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motion to dismiss a shareholder class action lawsuit
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota against Tactile and certain of its officers.

If you are a current, long-term shareholder of Tactile holding
shares before May 7, 2018, you may have standing to hold Tactile
harmless from the alleged harm caused by the Company's officers and
directors by making them personally responsible. You may also be
able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate governance to
prevent future wrongdoing.

If you are interested in learning more about the investigation,
please contact lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at
619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number.

Additionally, if you have continuously owned Tactile shares since
May 7, 2018, you can click or copy and paste the link below in a
browser to join this action:
https://www.cognitoforms.com/JohnsonFistel/TactileSystemsTechnologyInc

About Johnson Fistel, LLP:
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. Johnson Fistel
seeks to recover losses incurred due to violations of federal
securities laws. For more information about the firm and its
attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney
advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]

TAILORED BRANDS: Faces Lopez Class Suit Over Untimely Paid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TAILORED BRANDS, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-02073
(E.D.N.Y., April 11, 2022) is a class action on behalf of all of
Tailored Brands' employees in the State of New York that engage in
manual work in the course of their employment.

New York Law requires companies to pay their manual workers on a
weekly basis unless they receive an express authorization to pay on
a semi-monthly basis from the New York State Department of Labor
Commissioner.

The Defendant has received no such authorization from the New York
State Department of Labor Commissioner.

The New York Court Of Appeals has explained that this law is
"intended for the protection of those who are dependent upon their
wages for sustenance."

The Defendant has allegedly violated this law by paying its manual
workers every other week rather than on a weekly basis.

The Plaintiff therefore demands liquidated damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees on behalf of himself and a putative class comprised
of all manual workers employed by the Defendant in New York State
over the last six years.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from Summer 2016 to January
2018 at Men’s Warehouse stores located in Bayshore and
Massapequa, New York.

At least 25% of Plaintiff's job responsibilities at Men's Warehouse
included manual labor, including tasks such as stocking shelves and
organizing merchandise, measuring customers for suits, and
assisting customers on the sales floor. The Plaintiff was paid
every other week, rather than weekly, during the entirety of his
employment with Defendant.

Thus, for half of each biweekly pay period, Plaintiff was injured
in that he was temporarily deprived of money owed to him, and he
could not invest, earn interest on, or otherwise use these monies
that were rightfully his. Accordingly, every day that said money
was not paid to him in a timely fashion, he lost the time value of
that money.

Due to Defendant's alleged violations of the New York Labor Law
(NYLL), Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to recover from
Defendant the amount of their untimely paid wages as liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest as provided for by NYLL section
198.[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
           E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
                   aleslie@bursor.com

TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Claims in Value Drug Suit Dismissed in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VALUE DRUG COMPANY v. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS, U.S.A.,
INC., et al., Civil Action No. 21-3500 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Mark A.
Kearney of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum:

   a. granting in part and denying in part Defendant Takeda's
      Motion to Dismiss;

   b. granting in part and denying in part Defendants Watson and
      Amneal's joint Motion to Dismiss;

   c. granting Defendants Teva Ltd. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
      Inc.'s request to join Defendants' Watson and Amneal's
      Motion to Dismiss; and

   d. granting in part and denying in part Defendant Par's Motion
      to Dismiss.

I. Background

Takeda obtained Food and Drug Administration approval for Colcrys
-- a tablet of colchicine -- to treat Familial Mediterranean Fever
and prevent gout in July 2009. This approval caused the 21 existing
sellers of colchicine treatments to exit the market leading to
prices for colchicine to increase dramatically. Generic drug
manufacturers Par, Amneal, and Watson -- in this order -- filed
Abbreviated New Drug Applications with the Food and Drug
Administration seeking approval for their generic versions of
Colcrys, certifying Takeda's patents covering Colcrys are either
invalid or not infringed by their generics. Takeda sued each of the
three Generics for patent infringement in the District of
Delaware.

Judge Robinson coordinated the cases and set a joint bench trial
for Takeda's lawsuits against the three Generics (Par, Watson, and
Amneal) to begin in December 2015. Takeda settled with the three
Generics on the eve of trial, giving rise to Value Drug's antitrust
claims now before the Court.

Value Drug is a pharmaceutical wholesaler who purchases Colcrys and
generic Colcrys for resale. It claims Takeda conspired to order
market entry and restrict output through, among other things,
separate settlement agreements with each Generic. It alleges these
three settlement agreements are part of a larger antitrust
conspiracy to order market entry and restrict output of Colcrys or,
in the alternative, separate bilateral conspiracies between Takeda
and each Generic to achieve the same result.

Value Drug alleges Takeda and the Generics conspired to restrict
output by ordering the market entry of generic Colcrys products to
share the supracompetitive profits for an extended period of time.
Takeda and the Generics allegedly did so by staggering the
Generics' entry and conspiring to hold off the "third wave" of
Generics consisting of generic drug manufacturers who had not yet
filed ANDA applications from entering the market for as long as
possible to prevent the incremental price collapse which occurs
with each generic entrant.

II. Analysis

A. Value Drug pleads circumstantial evidence of a plausible, single
horizontal conspiracy among Takeda and the Generics.

Judge Kearney again must determine whether Value Drug pleads a
single horizontal overarching conspiracy among Takeda, Par, Watson,
and Amneal. He concludes he does so on a second try. Value Drug may
plead the conspiracy with direct or circumstantial evidence or a
combination of both. It alleges the direct evidence of the
conspiracy includes the settlement agreements themselves and
statements in other litigation. The Court found the direct evidence
arguments unavailing when we dismissed the Complaint three months
ago. Judge Kearney finds the same again as to direct evidence for
the reasons he described in his extensive Memorandum. While Value
Drug still does not plead direct evidence, it now pleads enough
facts of circumstantial evidence to plausibly allege an overarching
conspiracy.

Considering these pleaded facts together and drawing all reasonable
inferences in favor of Value Drug, Judge Kearney finds that Value
Drug pleads a plausible single horizontal conspiracy among Takeda,
Watson, Par, and Amneal by pleading consciously parallel conduct, a
plausible motive for each conspirator, the conspirators acted
against their unilateral interests, and additional pleaded facts
supporting an inference of conspiracy, all of which together tend
to rule out the possibility of independent action.

B. Value Drug does not plead plausible separate bilateral
conspiracy theories to restrict output.

While he prefers to avoid opining in the negative, Value Drug's
unique arguments on its bilateral conspiracy theory require Judge
Kearney defers to what Value Drug argues the case is not. Value
Drug concedes it does not plead a large and unjustified reverse
payment. It argues because this is not a "pay-for-delay" scheme, it
need not meet the Supreme Court's tests in FTC v. Actavis to state
a claim. It expressly repeatedly disclaimed it seeks to proceed
under this theory of antitrust liability. And it tells the Court it
does not seek to challenge the "acceleration clause" provisions
themselves as violative of the Sherman Act.

Judge Kearney begins with two maxims: Patent-related settlement
agreements can sometimes violate antitrust laws, and in reviewing a
case like this, the Court must balance "the lawful restraint on
trade of the patent monopoly and the illegal restraint prohibited
broadly by the Sherman Act"; and, reduced output is an
anticompetitive effect sufficient to plead an unreasonable
restraint on a motion to dismiss.

But both sides' arguments have some merit in the case. After some
time considering this interesting issue, Judge Kearney realized he
need not today decide it because Value Drug's bilateral conspiracy
theory is implausible. The object of the conspiracy could not be
achieved without all three Generics' active and knowing
participation belying a theory Takeda conspired separately with
each Generic.

The very facts which make Value Drug's overarching conspiracy
theory plausible make the separate bilateral theory implausible.
Most importantly, and as shown in part by the acceleration clauses
in the license agreements, the success of the horizontal, temporal
"market allocation" conspiracy required Par's, Watson's, and
Amneal's participation and buy-in, lending support to Value Drug's
overarching conspiracy claim. But the fact the conspiracy would not
work absent all three Generic ANDA filers' participation belies the
plausibility each Generic conspired itself with Takeda.

Judge Kearney dismisses as implausible Value Drug's claims alleging
Takeda conspired with each Par, Watson, and Amneal individually to
order the market and restrict output.

C. Value Drug plausibly pleads antitrust injury.

Par moves to dismiss arguing Value Drug fails to plead antitrust
injury. It does not challenge Value Drug's allegation of an "injury
of the type antitrust laws were intended to prevent"; rather, Par
challenges the injury "flows from that which makes the Defendants'
acts unlawful" because it did not have final approval to launch its
generic drug in 2016 when Takeda's exclusivity expired.

Value Drug sufficiently pleads antitrust injury at this stage,
Judge Kearney holds. Value Drug alleges the intricacies of the
Hatch-Waxman Act's statutory scheme under which generic drug
manufacturers obtain tentative and final approval to market their
generics. In addition, Par and Watson obtained tentative approval
in February 2015 and October 2015, respectfully -- suggesting they
met the "technical and substantive requirements" for final approval
before Takeda's exclusivity ended. In other words, Par and Watson
needed to take an affirmative step to obtain final approval after
meeting the substantive and technical requirements to obtain it.

Judge Jearney can reasonably infer from the pleaded facts they did
not take the action at the earliest date possible given Value
Drug's pleading of the estimated time it takes for the Food and
Drug Administration to grant final approval and the fact neither
received it until years after Takeda's exclusivity ended. It is
reasonable to infer Par and Watson's own conduct caused the delay
in final approval; thus, the chain of causation is not broken in
the case.

III. Order

Judge Kearney granted Defendant Takeda's Motion without prejudice
as to the Plaintiff's claims of separate bilateral conspiracies
(Counts II, III, IV) and denied as to the claims for an overarching
conspiracy to restrain trade, monopolization, conspiracy to
monopolize, and (Counts I, V, VI).

Judge Kearney granted Defendants Watson and Amneal's Motion without
prejudice as to the claims for separate bilateral conspiracies with
Takeda (Counts III, IV), and denied as to the single overarching
conspiracy to restrain trade (Count I) and conspiracy to monopolize
(Count VI).

Judge Kearney granted Defendants Teva's request to join Defendants
Watson and Amneal's Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed the separate
bilateral conspiracy claim (Count III) without prejudice against
the Teva Defendants.

Defendant Par's Motion is granted without prejudice as to the claim
for a separate bilateral conspiracy with Takeda (Count II) allowing
Par to join the co-Defendants' arguments and denied as to the
single overarching conspiracy to restrain trade (Count I) and
conspiracy to monopolize (Count VI).

Judge Kearney directed the Defendants to answer the remaining
allegations and claims in the first amended class action Complaint
on April 13, 2022.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2022 Order-Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/557yc6kk from Leagle.com.


TASKUS INC: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of April 25 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of GWG Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:
GWGH), TaskUs, Inc. (NASDAQ: TASK), Gatos Silver, Inc. (NYSE:
GATO), and MP Materials Corp. (NYSE: MP). Stockholders have until
the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead
plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at
the link provided.

GWG Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: GWGH)

Class Period: June 3, 2020 Bond Offering

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 19, 2022

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

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

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

For more information on the GWG class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/GWGH

TaskUs, Inc. (NASDAQ: TASK)

Class Period: June 11, 2021 - January 19, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 25, 2022

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
claimed that TaskUs had "industry-leading growth and profitability"
and a "simply massive" market opportunity. The complaint further
alleges that Defendants touted the size of the Company's workforce
and "low employee attrition levels" which "leads to lower hiring
and training costs."

These statements were materially false and misleading. On January
20, 2022, Spruce Point Capital Management, LLC ("Spruce Point")
issued a report titled "Moderating the Bull Case Content" based on
its "forensic financial and accounting review" of TaskUs. Spruce
Point found that TaskUs, "has a pattern of exaggerated and inflated
business claims, including revenue, and is covering-up financial
strain with reduced disclosures, cherry-picked market data, and
non-standard key performance metrics." Additionally, Spruce Point
stated, "we find evidence of increasing strain in the relationship"
between TaskUs and its largest customer Facebook "and believe
margins and cash flow are set to contract more than expected."
Spruce Point also stated, "we find a pattern of [TaskUs]
embellishing the size of its workforce and making overly optimistic
revenue growth claims."

This disclosure caused the value of TaskUs stock to decline
dramatically, resulting in significant harm to investors.

For more information on the TaskUs class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/TASK

Gatos Silver, Inc. (NYSE: GATO)

Class Period: October 28, 2020 IPO; October 28, 2020 - January 25,
2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 25, 2022

The litigation focuses on Gatos' statements concerning its Cerro
Los Gatos ("CLG") mine located in Chihuahua, Mexico, including the
Company's estimates in its July 1, 2020 Technical Report ("2020
Technical Report") that the CLG deposit "contains approximately 9.6
million diluted tonnes of proven and probable mineral reserves."

According to the complaint, defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse
facts, including: (1) that the 2020 Technical Report contained
errors; and (2) that, among other things, the GLG mineral reserves
had been overestimated by as much as 50%.

The truth came to light on Jan. 25, 2022, when Gatos disclosed that
during a resource and reserve update process, which included a
detailed reconciliation of recent production performance, the
Company concluded that there were errors in the 2020 Technical
Report, as well as indications that there is an overestimation in
the existing resource model. As a result, the Company estimated a
potential reduction of the metal content of CLG mineral reserve
ranging from 30% to 50% of the metal content and warned that the
mineral resource and reserve estimates in the 2020 Technical Report
should not be relied upon.

This revelation drove the price of Gatos shares as much as 70%
lower on January 26, 2022.

For more information on the Gatos class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/GATO

MP Materials Corp. (NYSE: MP)

Class Period: May 1, 2020 - February 2, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 25, 2022

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
MP Materials Corp f/k/a Fortress Value Acquisition Corp. The filed
complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Fortress
Value Acquisition Corp. ("FVAC") had overstated its due diligence
efforts and expertise with respect to identifying target companies
to acquire; (ii) FVAC performed inadequate due diligence into
Legacy MP Materials prior to the business combination, or else
ignored significant red flags regarding, inter alia, Legacy MP
Materials' management, compliance policies, and Mountain Pass's
profitability; (iii) as a result, the Company's future business and
financial prospects post-business combination were overstated; (iv)
MP Materials engaged in an abusive transfer price manipulation
scheme with a related party in the People's Republic of China to
artificially inflate the Company's profits; (v) MP Materials' ore
at the Mountain Pass Rare Earth Mine and Processing Facility was
not economically viable to harvest for rare earth metals; and (vi)
as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

For more information on the MP Materials class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/MP

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

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

Contact Information:

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

TASKUS INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 25 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Taskus, Inc. ("Taskus"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TASK) of a class action securities
lawsuit.

The lawsuit on behalf of Taskus investors has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Affected investors purchased or otherwise acquired certain Taskus
securities between June 11, 2021 and January 19, 2022. Follow the
link below to get more information and be contacted by a member of
our team:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/taskus-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=25811&wire=5

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.

Taskus, Inc. NEWS - TASK NEWS

CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that: (1) TaskUs was experiencing
severe financial strain and business challenges, particularly with
its most important customer, Facebook; (2) the Content Security
market was smaller than defendants represented and defendants'
representations were based on outdated market data; (3) TaskUs
improperly recognized revenue from certain key contracts; (4)
defendants overstated the size of TaskUs' workforce as well as
employee retention rates, and understated attrition rates; and (5)
as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Taskus
during the relevant timeframe, you have until April 25, 2022 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.
Discuss your rights with our legal team without cost or
obligation.

PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/taskus-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=25811&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case.

WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi &
Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases.
Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex
securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our
clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in
ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the
top securities litigation firms in the United States.

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

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that
on March 25, 2022, the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania largely denied a motion to dismiss a
putative class action asserting claims under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against a pharmaceutical company and certain
of its executives. Halman Aldubi Provident & Pension Funds Ltd. v.
Teva Pharm. Indus. Ltd., No. 20-cv-4660-KSM (E.D. Pa. Mar. 25,
2022). Plaintiff alleged that the company made misrepresentations
with respect to the reasons one of its drugs was commercially
successful. The Court held that except for allegations against the
company's CFO, plaintiff adequately alleged misrepresentations,
scienter, and loss causation.

Plaintiff alleged that the company donated more than a hundred
million dollars to patient assistance programs as part of an
alleged scheme through which those programs would use the funds to
pay patients' co-pays for the company's drug, in violation of an
anti-kickback statute. Slip op. at 2-4. Plaintiff further alleged
that the company made various statements regarding the drug's
success which were rendered false or misleading because they did
not mention the alleged scheme. Id. at 5-9. Plaintiff further
alleged that the company continued to make such misrepresentations
even after it disclosed having received a subpoena from the
Department of Justice ("DOJ") concerning the company's charitable
donations, which ultimately led to the DOJ filing a complaint
alleging that the company's practices violated the False Claims
Act. Id. at 9‑12.

The Court first assessed alleged misstatements regarding the drug's
market share. While the company argued that it had no obligation to
disclose illegal activity, the Court observed that the company
contended that the donations were, in fact, legal. The Court, in
any event, determined that whether the donations were legal was
"largely immaterial" because plaintiff sufficiently alleged that,
whereas the company "attributed [the drug's] success to legitimate
business factors, such as the quality of the product and physician
and patient loyalty," the "driving reason for this success" was
actually the alleged scheme. Id. at 20-21. Further, the Court
determined that while the company's statements "expressing optimism
about [the drug's] market share and revenue forecasts would
ordinarily constitute nothing more than puffery," they were
actionable because they were made "in the context of" other
statements ascribing reasons to the drug's success. Id. at 21.
Similarly, the Court noted that while statements of opinion are
"generally not actionable," they were actionable in this context
because plaintiff alleged that "the speakers omitted material facts
supporting their understanding of [the drug's] success." Id. at
22.

For similar reasons, the Court held that the challenged statements
concerning the company's program that facilitated patient access to
the company's drugs were adequately alleged to be false or
misleading because they placed at issue the true reasons for the
program and the drug's success without disclosing the alleged
scheme. Id. at 23-24. However, the Court held that the company's
statements regarding compliance with applicable laws and
regulations were not actionable because they did not put the source
of the drug's success at issue and the Court noted that there was
"no duty to disclose uncharged, unadjudicated wrongdoing." Id. at
24–25. In addition, the Court dismissed plaintiff's claims
against the company's CFO, as the Court noted that he was not
alleged to have made any of the challenged misstatements that put
the drug's success at issue. Id. at 25 n.7.

The Court next evaluated whether the challenged statements were
made with scienter. The Court first determined that the drug was
one of the company's "'core operations,' supporting an inference of
scienter," because the drug allegedly made up a large share of the
company's overall revenue and the company "repeatedly underscored
the drug's importance to the company." Id. at 27. However, the
company noted that the "core operations" theory of scienter "does
not establish a strong inference of scienter" without additional
allegations regarding "specific information conveyed to
management." Id. at 28. Thus, the Court turned to individual
defendants and observed that, for example, certain executives held
themselves out as an expert on the drug, regularly spoke about the
drug with confidence, and/or approved the challenged donations,
which strongly suggested that they were aware of the alleged
scheme, which the Court emphasized involved "incredibly large"
donations that were labeled with the drug's name and made at the
direction of the team responsible for marketing the drug. Id. at
28–35. Because the Court found that scienter had been adequately
pleaded as to the individual defendants, the Court imputed their
scienter to the company. Id. at 35.

The Court also held that plaintiff adequately alleged loss
causation by identifying a corrective disclosure -- namely, the
stock price decline after the alleged truth was revealed. Id. at
36. Specifically, the Court held that the filing of the DOJ's
complaint was sufficiently alleged to be a corrective disclosure
because the company's stock fell after it was filed and it
plausibly revealed the truth of the alleged misrepresentations,
even though the DOJ's complaint contained allegations rather than
proven facts. Id. at 39. However, the Court determined that the
disclosure of the DOJ subpoena was not a corrective disclosure
because the company's stock price did not fall when the subpoena
was disclosed and the company's revision of its earnings forecasts
was not a corrective disclosure because it did not "specifically
relate to—or correct—the alleged misrepresentations." Id. at
37. [GN]

TINDER INC: Final Approval of Kim Suit Settlement Appealed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Objectors RICH ALLISON and STEVE FRYE appeal from a court ruling
granting final approval of a settlement in the case entitled LISA
KIM, individually on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TINDER, INC., a Delaware corporation; MATCH
GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; MATCH GROUP,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No.
2-18-cv-03093-JFW-AS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

The lawsuit arises out of Tinder's misleading and illegal business
practices, specifically the age discrimination in its pricing plans
in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 21, 2022, Judge
John F. Walter of the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, Western Division, entered a Judgment in the case.

On Oct. 4, 2021, Plaintiff Kim sought preliminary approval of a
proposed class action settlement and filed with the Court the Class
Action Settlement Agreement. Defendants Tinder, Inc., Match Group,
LLC, and Match Group, Inc. served written notice of the proposed
class action settlement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1715.

After full consideration of the papers filed in support of and in
opposition to the motion for preliminary approval, the Court found
the matter to be appropriate for decision without oral argument and
issued its Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification of Settlement
Class. Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court, among
other things: (i) preliminarily certified (for settlement purposes
only) a class of the Plaintiffs (Class Members) with respect to the
claims in the Litigation; (ii) preliminarily approved the proposed
settlement; (iii) appointed the Plaintiff as the Class
Representative; (iv) appointed Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman,
P.C. and Kristensen, LLP as the Class Counsel; and (v) set the date
and time for the Final Approval hearing.

On Nov. 29, 2021, Allan Candelore, Rich Allison, and Steve Frye
filed their Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. On the same
day, the Class Counsel filed their Motion for Attorneys' Fees,
Costs, and Incentive Awards.

On Dec. 13, 2021, the Class Counsel filed their Motion for Final
Approval of Class Settlement, requesting final certification of the
settlement class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
(b)(3) and final approval of the class action settlement.

On Feb. 25, 2022, a Final Approval Hearing was held.

The Court read and considered the Agreement, Allison's and Frye's
Motion for Attorneys' Fees, the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys'
Fees, and the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval, and all papers
filed in support and in opposition thereto, and the complete record
in the Litigation. On March 4, 2022, the Court issued its Order
granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Allison's and
Frye's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, and the Plaintiff's Motion for
Final Approval.

For purposes of approval of the Settlement and Final Approval
Order, Judge Walter certified the Settlement Class, which consists
of every person in California who subscribed to Tinder Plus or
Tinder Gold during the period between March 2, 2015 and March 1,
2019 and at the time of the subscription was at least 29 years old
and was charged a higher rate than younger subscribers, except for
persons who have timely opted out of the Settlement Class.

The Objectors seek a review of this order by Judge Walter.

The appellate case is captioned as Lisa Kim, et al. v. Tinder,
Inc., et al., Case No. 22-55345, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 5, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Rich Allison and Steve Frye Mediation
Questionnaire was due on April 12, 2022;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by May 4, 2022;

   -- Transcript is due on June 3, 2022;

   -- Appellants Rich Allison and Steve Frye opening brief is due
on July 11, 2022;

   -- Appellees Lisa Kim, Match Group, Inc., Match Group, LLC and
Tinder, Inc. answering brief is due on August 11, 2022; and

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

Objectors-Appellants RICH ALLISON and STEVE FRYE are represented
by:

          Kimberly A. Kralowec, Esq.
          KRALOWEC LAW, P.C.
          750 Battery Street, Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 546-6800

               - and -

          Danielle Leonard, Esq.
          Michael Rubin, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108

               - and -

          Alfred G. Rava, Esq.
          THE RAVA LAW FIRM
          3667 Voltaire Street
          San Diego, CA 92106
          Telephone: (619) 238-1993  

Plaintiff-Appellee LISA KIM, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Adrian Bacon, Esq.
          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN, PC
          21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 340
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741

               - and -

          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          CARPENTER & ZUCKERMAN
          8827 W Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 507-7924  

Defendant-Appellee TINDER, INC., a Delaware corporation; MATCH
GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and MATCH GROUP,
INC., a Delaware corporation, are represented by:

          Donald Brown, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
          2049 Century Park, E, Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 312-4318

               - and -

          Robert H. Platt, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
          11355 West Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312-4221

TIVITY HEALTH: Juan Monteverde Probes Securities Claims Over Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner of the class action
firm Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), a
national securities firm rated Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS
Securities Class Action Services Report and headquartered at the
Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating:

Tivity Health, Inc. (TVTY), relating to its proposed acquisition by
funds managed by Stone Point Capital. Under the terms of the
agreement, TVTY shareholders will receive $32.50 in cash per share
they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/tivity-health-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.

Manning & Napier, Inc. (MN), relating to its proposed acquisition
by Callodine Group, LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, MN
shareholders will receive $12.85 in cash per share they own. Click
here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/manning-napier-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.

Randolph Bancorp, Inc. (RNDB), relating to its proposed acquisition
by Hometown Financial Group, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement,
RNDB shareholders will receive $27.00 in cash per share they own.
Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/randolph-bancorp-inc. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.

LHC Group, Inc. (LHCG), relating to its proposed acquisition by
Optum, part of UnitedHealth Group. Under the terms of the
agreement, LHCG shareholders are expected to receive $170.00 in
cash per share they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/lhc-group-inc. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.

Nielsen Holdings plc (NLSN), relating to its proposed acquisition
by a consortium of private equity led by Evergreen Coast Capital
Corp. and Brookfield Business Partners LP. Under the terms of the
agreement, NLSN shareholders will receive $28.00 in cash per share
they own. Click here for more information:
https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/nielsen-holdings-plc-0. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

Plantronics, Inc. (POLY), relating to its proposed acquisition by
HP Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, POLY shareholders will
receive $40.00 in cash per share they own. Click here for more
information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/plantronics-inc. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

                About Monteverde & Associates PC

Monteverde & Associates PC is a national class action securities
litigation law firm that has recovered millions of dollars and is
committed to protecting shareholders from corporate wrongdoing. It
was listed in the Top 50 in the 2018-2020 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Report. Its lawyers have significant experience
litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions. Mr.
Monteverde is recognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in
Securities Litigation in 2013, 2017-2019, an award given to less
than 2.5% of attorneys in a particular field. He has also been
selected by Martindale-Hubbell as a 2017-2021 Top Rated Lawyer. The
firm's recent successes include changing the law in a significant
victory that lowered the standard of liability under Section 14(e)
of the Exchange Act in the Ninth Circuit. Thereafter, our firm
successfully preserved this victory by obtaining dismissal of a
writ of certiorari as improvidently granted at the United States
Supreme Court. Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019).
Also, in 2019 the firm recovered or secured six cash common funds
for shareholders in mergers & acquisitions class action cases.

If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and
wish to obtain additional information and protect your investments
free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.

Contact:
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4405
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]

TOYOTA MOTOR: Australian Class Action Bill Could Reach $2 Billion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
stuff.co.nz reports that Toyota could be forced to pay out
thousands of Australian customers who were sold cars with faulty
engine filters to the tune of AU$2 billion (NZ$2.17 billion), after
the auto giant lost a class action lawsuit.

In a Federal Court judgment handed down, Justice Michael Lee found
264,170 Australian drivers who bought some of the brand's
top-selling cars were eligible for a payout.

The class action alleged Hilux, Fortuner and Prado vehicles sold
between October 2015 and April 2020 had defective diesel
particulate filter systems, leaving owners out of pocket. The
defect caused the vehicles to spill foul-smelling white smoke and
decreased fuel efficiency.

It also meant owners had to fork out for an excessive number of
inspections, services and repairs, and in some cases, caused a loss
of income when drivers could not use their cars or had to take time
off to remedy the defect.

New Zealand came off relatively lightly compared to Australia, with
only around 2000 New Zealand-new vehicles being affected, a number
that represents around 10 per cent of total Hilux, Fortuner and
Prado sales over the time period concerned.

Toyota redesigned the DPF to fix the issue, rolling it out in a
2020 update, while Toyota New Zealand is confident it has rectified
the issue for all affected vehicles here, replacing the DPFs, or
even the entire vehicle in a few cases.

"In New Zealand, all affected DPFs that were identified by Toyota
Motor Corporation have been rectified for those affected customers
in this country," said a spokesperson for Toyota New Zealand
contacted by Stuff.

"As a company we have decided to extend our customer campaign wider
than that to include some other affected customers who we are
currently working through replacing their DPFs."

With high ambient temperatures worsening the issue, the Australian
market saw far larger numbers of DPF failure, with Justice Lee
finding each vehicle affected was worth 17.5 per cent less than
what the average customer paid, and customers were entitled to be
reimbursed that difference.

For the lead applicant of the class action, Ken Williams, that is
AU$7474.59.

Mr Williams also persuaded the judge to grant him AU$4725 in
damages for lost income, and AU$992 in excess tax. All up, he is
entitled to more than AU$13,000.

In a statement, Mr Williams said he hoped the decision provided
comfort to people had to deal with the disappointment,
inconvenience and extra cost of owning the vehicles.

"I am thrilled with the judgment, particularly that the court has
found that hundreds of thousands of ordinary Australian consumers
who bought these vehicles are entitled to be awarded damages for
the losses they suffered as a result," he said.

If all eligible customers claim their payouts, the bill for Toyota
in Australia could exceed AU$2 billion.

However, at the trial, Toyota had argued it had done its best to
rectify the issue.

"(Toyota) asserts it made it known to group members that they were
able to have the defect repaired at no cost to them and group
members who have not taken up that offer have behaved unreasonably
such that they should not be compensated," Justice Lee noted in the
judgment.

Since the class action began, Toyota says it has also offered
refunds and replacement vehicles to hundreds of consumers.

But Justice Lee concluded the company had been misleading in
continuing to market the vehicles as being of acceptable quality
after learning of the defect.

"TMCA also admits that it engaged in the omissions conduct,
including failing to disclose the core defect and defect
consequences to prospective purchasers."

In a statement, a Toyota Australia spokesperson said the company
was reviewing the court's judgment.

"At every step, we believe that we have implemented
customer-focused and technically grounded remedies to resolve
customers' concerns," they said.

"Toyota will carefully consider the initial trial judgment before
making any further comment." [GN]

TOYOTA MOTOR: To Pay Out Up to $2BB in Faulty Engine Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffanie Turnbull, writing for The Canberra Times, reports that
Toyota could be forced to pay out thousands of Australian customers
who were sold cars with faulty engine filters to the tune of $2
billion, after the auto giant lost a class action lawsuit.

In a Federal Court judgment handed down on April 7, Justice Michael
Lee found 264,170 drivers who bought some of the brand's
top-selling cars were eligible for a payout.

The class action alleged Hilux, Fortuner and Prado vehicles sold
between October 2015 and April 2020 had defective diesel
particulate filter systems, leaving owners out of pocket.

The defect caused the vehicles to spill foul-smelling white smoke
and decreased fuel efficiency.

It also meant owners had to fork out for an excessive number of
inspections, services and repairs, and in some cases, caused a loss
of income when drivers could not use their cars or had to take time
off to remedy the defect.

Justice Lee found each vehicle was worth 17.5 per cent less than
what the average customer paid, and customers were entitled to be
reimbursed that difference.

For the lead applicant of the class action, Ken Williams, that is
$7474.59.

Mr Williams also persuaded the judge to grant him $4725 in damages
for lost income, and $992 in excess tax.

All up, he is entitled to more than $13,000.

In a statement, Mr Williams said he hoped the decision provided
comfort to people had to deal with the disappointment,
inconvenience and extra cost of owning the vehicles.

"I am thrilled with the judgment, particularly that the court has
found that hundreds of thousands of ordinary Australian consumers
who bought these vehicles are entitled to be awarded damages for
the losses they suffered as a result," he said.

If all eligible customers claim their payouts, the bill for Toyota
could exceed $2 billion.

However, at the trial, Toyota had argued it had done its best to
rectify the issue.

"(Toyota) asserts it made it known to group members that they were
able to have the defect repaired at no cost to them and group
members who have not taken up that offer have behaved unreasonably
such that they should not be compensated," Justice Lee noted in the
judgment.

Since the class action began, Toyota says it has also offered
refunds and replacement vehicles to hundreds of consumers.

But Justice Lee concluded the company had been misleading in
continuing to market the vehicles as being of acceptable quality
after learning of the defect.

"TMCA also admits that it engaged in the omissions conduct,
including failing to disclose the core defect and defect
consequences to prospective purchasers."

In a statement, a Toyota spokeswoman said the company was reviewing
the court's judgment.

"At every step, we believe that we have implemented
customer-focused and technically grounded remedies to resolve
customers' concerns," she said.

"Toyota will carefully consider the initial trial judgment before
making any further comment." [GN]

TRADER JOE'S: Cristia Files Suit Over Mislabeled Cold Pressed Juice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Cristia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Trader Joe's Company, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-01788, (N.D. Ill., April 7, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's mislabeled front label representations of its juice
represented as "Cold Pressed" under its Trader Joe's brand, in
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, State Consumer Fraud Acts, and the Magnuson Moss
Warranty Act.

According to the complaint, the relevant front label
representations include "Cold Pressed Juice," the type or flavor,
i.e., "Green," "Perishable, Keep Refrigerated" and "Trader Joe's."
The Defendant sells the product in the produce section of its
stores, in proximity to fresh fruit and vegetable products, which
gives consumers, including the Plaintiff, the impression it is
freshly made, and reinforces the statement of "cold pressed juice."
However, the product has more in common with juices sold in
standard refrigerator cases, because it is not freshly made or only
cold pressed, says the complaint.

As a result of the alleged false and misleading representations,
the product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than
no less than $3.39 per 15.2 OZ, excluding tax and sales, higher
than similar products, represented in a non-misleading way, and
higher than it would be sold for absent the misleading
representations and omissions, asserts the complaint.

Trader Joe's is an American chain of grocery stores with 530 stores
across the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 268-7080
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

TWITER INC: Judge Affirms Securities Class Action Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on
March 23, 2022, Judge Kenneth K. Lee of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California's dismissal of claims
brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against a social
media company (the "Company") and certain of its executive
officers. Weston Family Partnership LLLP et al. v. Twitter Inc. et
al., No. 20-17465 (9th Cir. Mar. 23, 2022). Plaintiffs alleged that
the Company failed to disclose the scope of software issues that
led to a loss in advertising revenue, which ultimately caused the
Company's share price to drop. The Court affirmed the district
court's order granting defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that
plaintiffs failed to state a claim because the Company's statements
were not false or materially misleading. The Court stated that
"securities laws . . . do not require real-time business updates or
complete disclosure of all material information whenever a company
speaks on a particular topic. To the contrary, a company can speak
selectively about its business so long as its statements do not
paint a misleading picture. [The Company's] statements about its
advertising program were not false or misleading because they were
qualified and factually true. The Company had no duty to disclose
any more than it did under federal securities law."

According to the Court: "every day, millions of people use [the
Company] to share and read news, offer (often horrendous) hot
takes, and fire off mean [messages. The Company], in turn, mines
the personal data of its users to better target advertisements." In
August 2019, the Company revealed that "software bugs" had caused
it to inadvertently share with advertisers the personal data of
users who had opted out of data-sharing. The Company stated that it
had "fixed these issues. In October 2019, the Company disclosed
that software bugs had hampered its advertisement customization and
that it had suffered a $25 million revenue shortfall. The Company's
share price dropped over 20%.

Plaintiffs are investors who filed a consolidated class action
complaint alleging that various statements by the Company were
false or materially misleading. Plaintiffs alleged that statements
in the July 31, 2019 Form 10-Q—that the Company was "continuing
[its] work to increase the stability, performance, and flexibility
of [its] ads platform," but that it was "not there yet"—were
misleading because "defendants did not disclose the software bugs
allegedly plaguing" their software. Plaintiffs also alleged that
warnings in the 10-Q that "the Company's products and services 'may
contain undetected software errors, which could harm [its] business
and operating results'" were misleading because the Company
allegedly knew by then that software bugs were certain to harm its
bottom line. In addition to the 10-Q statements, Plaintiffs further
alleged that the Company misleadingly claimed it had resolved the
software bugs in August 2019—because the Company had in fact
allegedly stopped data-sharing altogether rather than fixing the
bugs—and that one of the executives made other public statements
that glossed over the software bugs. The district court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs appealed.

On appeal, the Court first held that plaintiffs failed to state a
claim under Section 10(b) because the Company's statements were not
false or materially misleading. The Court disagreed with
plaintiffs' argument that the Company had a legal duty to disclose
the software bugs to the investing public, noting that "companies
do not have an obligation to offer an instantaneous update of every
internal development" under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. The Court
held that "[a] company must disclose a negative internal
development only if its omission would make other statements
materially misleading." The Court emphasized that to hold otherwise
would "inject instability into the securities market, as stocks may
wildly gyrate based on even fleeting developments." With respect to
plaintiffs' allegations that defendants misled investors into
believing that work to improve the data-sharing feature was "on
track," the Court found that defendants' statements were "much more
qualified and less definitive," noting that the 10-Q also stated
that the work was "not there yet," that it was "ongoing," and that
the Company was "still in the middle of that work." According to
the Court, absent a "specific deadline or revenue impact" for the
program, the Company's statements could not be seen as an implied
affirmation of any specific target.

The Court next held that plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that
the software bugs had materialized and affected revenue in July
2019. The Court stated that "it is simply not enough to assume or
implausibly infer" that defendants knew about the bugs in July 2019
based solely on the fact that they disclosed them in August 2019.
Moreover, the Court was not persuaded by plaintiffs' argument that
the Company knew about the bugs in August 2019 based on statements
in the Company's July 2019 10-Q filing that the product could
contain "undetected software errors." The Court reiterated that
"nothing in the complaint suggest[ed] that the company knew of the
bugs in July 2019," and that plaintiffs merely relied on the
assumption that "these types of bugs . . . take three to six months
to fix." Further, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that
defendants' social media post about fixing the bugs in August 2019
"was referring to the fix of the software bugs, and not just a halt
to the data-sharing," noting that the context of the post makes
clear that the Company had "'fixed' the inadvertent data-sharing;
there is no mention of software bugs."

Finally, the Court held that defendants' statements in their
shareholder letter and 10-Q were forward-looking and "accompanied
by very detailed meaningful cautionary language," and therefore
fell within the safe harbor provision of the Exchange Act. Because
plaintiffs did not adequately plead a primary violation of Section
10(b) or Rule 10b-5, the Court also affirmed the dismissal of the
Section 20(a) claims against the individual defendants.

Weston Family Partnership LLLP et al. v. Twitter Inc. et al. [GN]

TYSON FOODS: Faces Class Action Over "Product of the U.S.A." Labels
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan A. Adams IV, Esq., of Holland & Knight, disclosed that in
Thornton v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 20-2124, 2022 WL 727628 (10th
Cir. March 11, 2022), a consumer who purchased beef from retail
stores filed a class action complaint against meat processors,
alleging that their "Product of the U.S.A." labels deceived her and
other consumers into paying higher prices for beef based on the
mistaken belief that it originated from cattle born and raised in
the United States. A multi-generational rancher in New Mexico filed
a separate class action complaint alleging that he and other
ranchers were paid less for their domestic cattle as a result of
meat processors' conduct and, more specifically, as a result of
placing the label on already-slaughtered beef that they import into
the country. The cases were consolidated. The district court
dismissed the complaints for violations of the unjust enrichment,
breach of warranty, violation of the New Mexico Unfair Practices
Act, violation of state antitrust law and false advertising. A
split court of appeals affirmed the dismissal on the grounds that
an express preemption provision of the Federal Meat Inspection Act
preempted the deceptive labeling claims notwithstanding that a
label was optional. That provision prohibits states from imposing
any "labeling . . . requirements in addition to, or different than"
the federal requirements. Under federal law, the meat processors'
products were not misbranded; the labels were pre-approved by the
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). The FSIS manual states
that the label "applie[s] to products that, at a minimum, have been
prepared in the United States" and does not "mean that the product
is derived only from animals that were born, raised, slaughtered
and prepared in the United States."

"Biologically Appropriate" and "Fresh Regional Ingredients" on
Label Not Actionable
Nathan A. Adams IV

In Song v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc., No. 20-3689, 2022 WL 677895
(8th Cir. March 8, 2022), consumers filed a putative class action
lawsuit alleging that they were misled by claims made on packages
of dog food that the food was "biologically appropriate" and
included "fresh regional ingredients." The plaintiffs sued for
violations of consumer protection statutes, fraudulent
misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment. The court of appeals
determined that the district court properly dismissed the
plaintiffs' claims. Under Minnesota law, the first claim did not
indicate to the ordinary reasonable consumer a complete absence of
heavy metals, and the second did not misleadingly indicate that all
of the ingredients were fresh and regional. The plaintiffs conceded
that heavy metals occur naturally in meat and fish. Although not
all ingredients were fresh and sourced regionally, some were, and
the reasonable consumer would not assume all were.

Data Breach
Petition for Permission to Appeal Class Action Certification
Against Restaurant Chain Denied
Melissa Gold

In re Sonic Corp., No. 20-0305, 2021 WL 6694843 (6th Cir. Aug. 24,
2021) concerns a data breach against Sonic Corp. and its affiliates
and subsidiaries experienced between April 2017 and October 2017,
allegedly compromising payment card data from millions of
transactions at hundreds of its stores. In response to Sonic's data
breach, at issue class actions were consolidated and transferred to
the U.S. District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division.

On Nov. 13, 2020, the district court certified a class with the
following criteria: 1) all banks, credit unions and financial
institutions in the U.S., 2) that received notice, 3) that took
action to reissue credit or debit cards or reimbursed a compromised
account, and 4) that were involved in the Sonic data breach. In
response, Sonic filed a petition for permission to appeal the order
certifying a class action to recover economic damages incurred by
various financial institutions and credit unions arising from their
reissuance of cards and reimbursement of accounts following the
data breach. In Sonic's petition for permission to appeal, it
conceded that the first two class criteria are administratively
feasible and that it can determine which financial institutions
received notice of the breach, but contended that the remaining
criteria require individualized assessment and self-identification
by each plaintiff instead of reference to evidence within Sonic's
control or that of a third party.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied Sonic's
petition for permission to appeal and granted the financial
institutions' motion for leave to file a reply. First, the Sixth
Circuit held it has never rejected self-identification as a means
of determining membership when there are records verifying that
determination. Second, information from the individual financial
institutions, cross-referenced with third parties, can then
establish that an institution had accounts impacted by the breach,
and that they reissued potentially compromised cards or reimbursed
customers for losses sustained on those accounts. Third, whether
the financial institutions took action as a direct result of the
Sonic data breach goes to the causation element for establishing
negligence, and not whether the class is ascertainable. Finally,
the court considered Sonic's annual revenue to decide that the cost
of continuing the litigation should not present such a barrier that
subsequent review is hampered.

COVID-19
Business Interruption Coverage Not Available for Shutdown Orders
Nathan A. Adams IV

Restaurants seeking business interruption coverage for government
shutdown orders continue to lose in court. For example, SA
Hospitality Group LLC, which owns a group of food service
establishments, purchased standard all-risk commercial property
insurance for itself and for the other plaintiffs and sought
business interruption coverage for the period in which it was
unable to use its facilities due to government orders that limited
in-person dining services due to COVID-19. In SA Hospitality Gp.,
LLC v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., No. 21-1523-cv, 2022 WL 815683 (2d
Cir. March 18, 2022), the court affirmed the plaintiffs' lawsuit.
The plaintiffs' insurance policy included business interruption
coverage as follows: "We will pay . . . for the actual loss of
Business Income you sustain and the actual, necessary and
reasonable Extra Expense you incur due to the necessary
interruption of your business during the Period of Restoration due
to direct physical loss or direct physical damage to property
caused by or resulting from a Covered Cause of Loss… ." The
district court decided that the plaintiff had not alleged a direct
physical loss of or damage to property. The plaintiff argued on
appeal that the governmental orders prevented it from using its
property for its intended purpose, which amounted to a "direct
physical loss of" the property. The appellate court ruled that this
argument was foreclosed by a recent case in the Second Circuit and
that no exception to the binding authority of that case applied.
The appellate court also declined to certify the issue to the New
York Court of Appeals.

In Hillbro, LLC v. Oregon Mutual Ins. Co., No. 3:21-cv-00382-HZ,
2021 WL 4071864 (D. Or. Sept. 7, 2021), the plaintiff operated a
restaurant and bar insured by defendant. Due to closure orders
issued by the state of Washington, plaintiff had to close, suspend
and/or curtail its business exclusively to serve takeout food for
off-premises consumption leading to financial losses. The district
court dismissed the plaintiff restaurant's putative class action
lawsuit for breach of the plaintiff's insurance policy, which
states, "We will pay for direct physical loss of or damage to
Covered Property at the premises described in the Declarations
caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss," defined as
"[r]isks of direct physical loss" unless otherwise limited or
excluded under other provisions of the Property coverage."
Interpreting these provisions in light of dictionary definitions of
terms such as "physical," the court decided that "for a Covered
Cause of Loss to have occurred, Plaintiff must demonstrate that
COVID-19 or Governor [Jay] Inslee's executive orders caused harm to
or destroyed its business property or dispossessed plaintiff of its
business property."

The Civil Authority coverage portion of the policy states, "We will
pay for the actual loss of Business Income you sustain and
necessary Extra Expense caused by action of civil authority that
prohibits access to the described premises due to direct physical
loss of or damage to property, other than at the described
premises, caused by or resulting from any Covered Cause of Loss."
The court determined that this provision "requires that an action
of civil authority prohibited access to Plaintiff's restaurants due
to the loss, destruction, dispossession of or injury to property
other than Plaintiff's property for coverage to apply." Construing
the plaintiff's allegations in the light most favorable to
plaintiff, the court determined that "the losses plaintiff alleges
are purely economic and not the result of any 'direct physical loss
of or damage to property.' " Therefore, no coverage exists under
the policy.

In GCDC LLC v. Sentinel Ins. Co., Ltd., Civil Act No. 20-1094, 2021
WL 4438908 (D.D.C. Sept. 28, 2021), the plaintiff was a restaurant
that specializes in grilled cheese sandwiches. To comply with local
governmental orders relating to COVID-19, the plaintiff had to
modify its floorplan to keep diners spread far apart and later
discontinued all indoor dining. The plaintiff filed a putative
class action seeking, inter alia, a declaration that its income
losses are covered by the defendant's insurance policy. The
defendant's policy states, "We will not pay for loss or damage
caused directly or indirectly by" the "[p]resence, growth,
proliferation, spread or any activity of fungi,' wet rot, dry rot,
bacteria or virus." The complaint referred to COVID-19 as a virus,
alleged that the District of Columbia issued the orders to slow its
spread and alleged that those orders led to the plaintiff's loss of
income. "Under the policy, that's the ballgame. Coverage is
barred." Even if the exclusion did not apply, the court added that
the governmental orders were not "Covered Cause[] of Loss" or
"risks of direct physical loss."

Similar rulings dependent upon a pathogen exclusion were entered in
Creative Bus. Inc. v. Covington Specialty Ins. Co., No.
2:20-cv-02452-JTF-ATE, 2021 WL 4191466 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 9, 2021)
(mandated closure and capacity limitations on the insured's
restaurant due to COVID-19 did not constitute "direct physical loss
of or damage to" the insured property, as required for business
income coverage under the policy, but even if the coronavirus were
present at the insured premises, the policy's pathogen exclusion
precluded coverage) and Caterer's in the Park, LLC v. Ohio Sec.
Ins. Co., No. 20-6867, 2021 WL 4994463 (D. N.J. Oct. 26, 2021)
(virus exclusion excludes the plaintiff's alleged losses from
coverage).

In Nari Suda LLC v. Or. Mut. Ins. Co., No. 3:20-cv-01476-HZ, 2021
WL 4067684 (D. Or. Sept. 6, 2021), restaurants filed putative class
action claims for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, declaratory relief and violation of
California's unfair competition law against their insurer due to
its denial of their claims under business owners' policies seeking
coverage for financial losses resulting from state and local
government closure orders issued in response to COVID-19. The
policy provided for payment for the actual loss of business income
sustained due to the necessary suspension of their operations if
the suspension was "caused by direct physical loss of or damage to
property at the described premises." However, the policy contained
an exclusion related to the enforcement of an ordinance or law. The
court ruled that the "absence of facts demonstrating any physical
loss or damage to their business property is fatal to Plaintiffs'
claim." The court ruled that the plaintiffs' losses are purely
economic. "Direct physical loss of or damage to property" does not
include a loss of use or impairment of functionality of undamaged
property for its intended purpose. Because the plaintiff failed to
demonstrate that coverage exists, the court declined to determine
whether any exclusion from coverage applies.

Wage and Hour
Court Denies Effort to Enjoin New 80/20 Rule
Nathan A. Adams IV

In Restaurant Law Ctr. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, No. 1:21-cv-1106-RP,
2022 WL 526243 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2022), the plaintiffs
unsuccessfully sought permanently to enjoin the newest version of
the so-called 80/20 rule. As background, under the original 80/20
rule adopted in 1988, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) indicated
that if an employee spent "in excess of 20 percent" of the
employee's time on untipped work, that work was performed more than
"occasionally," and thus "no tip credit may be taken." In November
2018, DOL announced that it was abolishing the limitation on duties
related to the tip-producing occupation if they were performed
"contemporaneously" or within a "reasonable time" before or after
"direct-service duties." Lower courts widely disregarded the new
guidance. The DOL issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on June
23, 2021. In response to comments from the restaurant industry and
others, DOL issued a final rule on Oct. 29, 2021. The rule went
into effect on Dec. 28, 2021.

The new 80/20 rule clarifies that the tip credit is available only
for hours spent working in the tipped occupation. It codifies the
80/20 rule and adds a 30-minute limitation on non-tipped work
allowable when taking the tip credit. It elaborates on who
qualifies for the tip credit, stating that an employee is "engaged
in a tipped occupation when the employee performs work that is part
of the tipped occupation" and "may only take a tip credit for work
performed by a tipped employee that is part of the employee's
tipped occupation." It sets out the following three-part framework
to classify tipped work as: 1) work that is part of the tipped
occupation and produces tips; 2) work that is part of the tipped
occupation and directly supports tip-producing work (subject to the
30-minute rule) though it is not directly tip-producing; and 3)
other, non-tipped work that is not subject to the tip credit. The
plaintiffs challenged the rule on the grounds that it creates a new
definition of "tipped occupation" that lacks support in the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The court denied injunctive relief because it determined that the
plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to show that they will be
irreparably harmed without the injunction. The plaintiffs "claim
the main source of harm from the Rule is in the compliance costs it
entails." But the court decided the plaintiffs' arguments and
evidence of irreparable harm was speculative.

Court Certifies Delivery Driver Wage and Hour Class Action Lawsuit
Nathan A. Adams IV

In Hong v. Haiku @ WP, Inc., No. 19 Civ 5018 (NSR), 2022 WL 263575
(S.D. N.Y. Jan. 28, 2022), a former delivery driver for Haiku Asian
Bistro filed a putative class action alleging wage and hour
violations under the FLSA and New York Labor Law for violation of
the minimum wage for the first 40 hours per week and less than 1.5
times the minimum wage for each hour over 40 hours per week.

Haiku employed approximately three to five delivery persons, eight
to nine sushi bar workers, five waiters, five cooks, three fry wok
workers and two cashiers. The plaintiff claimed he had to work
through his break two days per week, did not have a fixed time for
lunch or dinner, $10 per week was deducted in cash tips, $20 to $25
per week was deducted as a meal credit and $24 per week was
deducted for transportation. He received no weekly pay statement or
notice of the deductions and was not informed of his hourly pay
rate nor any tip deductions toward the minimum wage. The plaintiff
used his own vehicle and was not reimbursed for gasoline or vehicle
maintenance. He drove an average of 2 miles each way to deliver
about 25 customer orders, totaling about 100 miles per workday. On
average, two or three orders per day were outside the 4.5-mile
delivery radius, and for making such deliveries, he earned an extra
$3 in tips.

The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion
for class certification. The court granted the motion with respect
to the conditional certification of delivery drivers and denied the
motion with respect to other non-managerial employees about whom
the plaintiff failed to meet even his modest burden of showing that
these waiters/waitresses, sushi chefs, cashiers and kitchen workers
are similarly situated to him. Because the plaintiff alleges that
the violations of wage and hour law were willful, the court
permitted notice to be distributed to all potential plaintiffs
employed within three years of the date of the filing of the
complaint and deferred consideration of the statute of limitations
until after the opt-in period.

The court required the defendants to produce electronic and other
contact information for these employees and specified what the
notice must contain: 1) the purpose of the notice; 2) the nature of
the lawsuit filed and the relief being sought; 3) the proposed
class composition; 4) the legal effect of joining the lawsuit; 5)
the fact that the court has not taken any position regarding the
merits of the lawsuit; 6) how to join the lawsuit; 7) the purely
voluntary nature of the decision and legal effect of not joining
the lawsuit; 8) the prohibition against retaliation; 9) the
relevant contact information for any inquiries; 10) warning that
opt-in plaintiffs may be required to provide information, appear
for deposition or testify in court; and 11) disclose the fee
arrangement between plaintiff's counsel and any opt-in plaintiffs.
The court set the opt-in period at 60 days, although plaintiffs
requested 90 days.

Arbitration
Pre-Dispute Arbitration Clauses No Longer Enforceable Against
Sexual Harassment Claims
Nathan A. Adams IV

The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual
Harassment Act of 2021 amended the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to
enable employees to set aside pre-dispute arbitration agreements
requiring them to arbitrate disputes involving nonconsensual and/or
unwanted sexual acts or contact, advances, physical contact that is
sexual in nature, sexual attention, sexual comments and
propositions for sexual activity, conditioning employment benefits
on sexual activity or retaliation for rejecting unwanted sexual
attention. The amendment applies whether the claims at issue arise
under federal, state, local or tribal law.

In the event of the same conduct, the employee may also set aside
pre-dispute joint-action waivers that bar employees from
participating in joint, class or collective actions concerning
sexual assault or harassment claims brought in a judicial,
arbitral, administrative or any other forum. The amendment also
requires courts, rather than arbitrators, to determine both the
applicability of HR 4445 to a given arbitration agreement and the
validity and enforceability of any agreement to which the bill
applies, regardless of whether the agreement at issue delegates
such authority to an arbitrator. The amendment states that it does
not apply retroactively to any claims that arose or accrued prior
to its enactment. The amendment does not apply to conduct other
than sexual assault and harassment. Accord Levy v. AT&T Servs.,
Inc., No. 21-11758, 2022 WL 844440 n.1 (D.N.J. March 22, 2022)
(because plaintiff brings age discrimination claims, the amendment
does not apply).

The U.S. House of Representatives passed HR 4445 by a vote of 335
to 97 on Feb. 7, 2022. The Senate passed the bill by voice vote
without amendment on Feb. 10, 2022. President Joe Biden signed the
amendment on March 3, 2022.

ADA
Drive-Thru-Only Policy Not an ADA Violation
Nathan A. Adams IV

In Szwanek v. Jack in the Box, Inc., No. 20-16942, 2021 WL 5104372
(9th Cir. Nov. 3, 2021), the court affirmed dismissal of the
plaintiffs' putative class action lawsuit grounded on the claim
that the defendant violated Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act by closing
inside seating at night in two of its restaurants and serving food
solely through drive-thru windows that are available only to
customers in motor vehicles. The court determined that a facially
neutral policy violates the ADA only if it burdens a plaintiff "in
a manner different and greater than it burdens others." The court
decided that the defendant's policy burdens the plaintiffs in the
same manner as able-bodied individuals who wish to purchase food
when indoor dining is not available and do not drive or have access
to motor vehicles. The court added there are no ADA regulations on
point and no indication that Congress meant to address this
situation. [GN]

ULTA BEAUTY: Illinois Court Tosses Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on
March 30, 2022, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois dismissed, without prejudice, a putative class
action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against a cosmetics retailer and certain of its executives.
Chandler v. Ulta Beauty, Inc., No. 18-CV-1577, 2022 WL 952441, at
*1 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2022). Plaintiffs alleged that the company
made various statements that were misleading because they failed to
disclose the company's alleged practice of reselling used returned
products. The Court held that plaintiffs failed to identify any
actionable misrepresentations and failed to adequately allege
scienter, but granted plaintiffs leave to replead.

Plaintiffs alleged that the company's personnel were instructed to
"retouch used and dirty returned products and resell them as new in
order to reduce inventory losses." Id. at *3. Plaintiffs alleged on
this basis that the company made misstatements and omissions
relating to (i) compliance with the company code of conduct, (ii)
the company's compensation program, (iii) the quality of the
company's products, (iv) the company's financial results, and (v)
the company's internal controls and reporting. Id. at *7.

The Court held that plaintiffs failed to explain why the challenged
statements were false. For example, with respect to the company's
statements about compliance with the company code of conduct --
specifically, that employees "must act ethically at all times" and
in accordance with the code of conduct, which itself provided that
employees "should not deliberately misrepresent information to
customers" -- the Court concluded that such statements were
"immaterial as a matter of law" because they were "too general to
cause a reasonable investor to rely upon them" and amounted to
"inactionable puffery." Id. at *9. With respect to statements
regarding the company's "compensation plans, practices and
policies," the Court concluded that plaintiffs did not explain how
those statements were false and further observed that the alleged
improper reselling practices were "not so closely tied to
compensation" that they were required to be disclosed in order to
prevent the compensation-related statements from being misleading.
Id. at *10. With respect to statements concerning product quality
-- specifically, that the company had a "pipeline of newness and
innovation in merchandising" -- the Court found that this statement
was referring to new types of products and it was not reasonable to
infer that the company was touting the product offerings as "being
'new' -- as opposed to used—because such a statement would only
make sense if investors believed that [the company] was selling
used products," something which the complaint alleged was being
hidden from the public. Id. at *11.

In addition, the Court held that challenged statements regarding
the company's financial performance were not adequately alleged to
be false or misleading, including because plaintiffs never alleged,
even in a general sense, "what the correct sales, income, and
inventory figures purportedly were that [the company] should have
reported." Id. at *14. Similarly, the Court rejected plaintiffs'
allegations as to statements regarding internal controls and
reporting, explaining that plaintiffs failed to allege facts
showing how such challenged statements were false or misleading and
failed to explain "how [the company's] internal controls should
have been designed differently." Id. at *21.

The Court then evaluated plaintiffs' allegations of scienter and
concluded that they failed to support a strong inference of
scienter as to either the company itself or to the CEO or CFO, who
were alleged to have made the challenged statements. The Court
rejected plaintiffs' argument that the CFO's alleged attendance at
committee meetings designed to prevent "shrink" -- losses from
customer returns of products as well as theft and in-store damage
-- showed the CFO's knowledge of the alleged improper reselling,
including because there were no allegations that the scheme was
discussed at such meetings. Id. at *23. Moreover, with respect to
the CEO's alleged approval of bonuses relating to reduced "shrink,"
the Court discounted such allegations as they were attributed to a
confidential witness who was four levels of seniority below the
CEO, and there was no alleged basis for the confidential witness's
knowledge of the CEO's alleged approval of the bonuses. Id. at *24.
The Court also noted that even if the CEO had approved such
bonuses, issues of "shrink" involved a number of different issues
and not only issues relating to the alleged reselling practices.
Id.

The Court further rejected plaintiffs' argument that the CFO and
CEO must have known about the alleged scheme given their roles and
responsibilities. The Court explained that plaintiffs did not
allege how many used products were resold or reshelved, or that
reselling used products was critical to the company's operations.
Id. at *24-26. While the Court determined that the CEO and CFO were
"likely aware of [the company's] general problem with shrink," the
Court emphasized that "it does not follow that they must have been
aware that retail stores were combating it by selling used items,"
and plaintiffs failed to "quantify[] how significant the practice
actually was." Id. at *25. Thus, the Court concluded that, even if
the alleged reselling practice was widespread, it did not support a
strong inference of scienter as to the CEO and CFO because there
was "no alleged connection" between them and the alleged practice.
Id. at *26. Similarly, the Court rejected plaintiffs' contention
that the CEO and CFO had access to weekly reports that revealed
stores were reselling used products, noting that neither executive
was plausibly alleged to have reviewed those reports, and there was
no allegation explaining how the reports would have revealed the
alleged reselling practices. Id. at *27-28. In addition, the Court
rejected plaintiffs' allegations of scienter based on the CEO's and
CFO's stock sales. The Court concluded that those sales occurred
"shortly after announcements of quarterly results, a pattern that
appears benign on its face" and were not close in time to any other
significant event. Id. at *28-29.

Finally, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that scienter
should be imputed to the company based on the allegation that
employees other than the CEO and CFO were "aware of, and even
encouraged, the resale of used products." Id. at *30. The Court
explained that those employees' alleged knowledge could not be
imputed to the company because they were "not alleged to have had
any role in promulgating the alleged misrepresentations." Id. The
Court concluded that the "most cogent explanation for [the
company's] alleged conduct is that the resale of used product was
an unfortunate and unintentional byproduct of [the company's] focus
on reducing shrink," rather than something known by the executives
responsible for the alleged misstatements. Id. at *31.

Chandler v. Ulta Beauty, Inc. [GN]

ULTIMATE KRONOS: Settles BIPA Class Action for $3.3 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that UKG will pay over $3.3 million as
part of a settlement to resolve claims its timekeeping software
violated Illinois biometric laws.

The settlement benefits individuals who scanned their fingers or
had their pictures taken in Illinois using an UltiPro TimeBase time
clock, TouchBase time clock, or NOVAtime time clock between March
3, 2015, and Dec. 29, 2021.

UKG is an HR company that provides timekeeping solutions, benefits
tracking, and other services to employers. Some of UKGs timekeeping
solutions involve biometric data such as fingerprint scans.

Although UKG is a trusted provider of HR solutions, the company
allegedly violated Illinois state law with its biometric
time-keeping products. According to a class action lawsuit against
the company, UKG violated Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy
Act (BIPA).

BIPA standardizes the way companies collect, store, share, and
destroy Illinoisans' biometric data. The law requires clear
disclosures, prior consent, and public policies about retention and
destruction schedules.

UKG violated all of these requirements through its TimeBase time
clock, TouchBase time clock, or NOVAtime time clock, the class
action lawsuit contends. Despite these products relying on
biometric data such as fingerprint scans and facial geometry scans,
UKG allegedly failed to meet BIPA disclosure and consent
requirements.

UKG agreed to resolve these allegations with a settlement worth
$3.36 million.

Under the terms of the settlement, Class Members can receive a cash
payment. Payment amounts will vary but each claimant will receive a
proportional share of the settlement fund.

The settlement website estimates payments will be between $200 and
$400 — though actual payments may be higher or lower depending on
the number of valid claims filed.

UKG has also agreed to take steps to comply with BIPA including
publicizing its biometric policies, encouraging its clients to use
UKG technology in a BIPA compliant way, and verifying that
previously collected biometrics are stored and destroyed in
accordance with the law.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 15, 2022.

The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for May
20, 2022.

In order to receive a settlement payment, Class Members must submit
a valid claim form by May 6, 2022.

Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits individuals who scanned their fingers or
had their pictures taken in Illinois using an UltiPro TimeBase time
clock, TouchBase time clock, or NOVAtime time clock between March
3, 2015, and Dec. 29, 2021.

Potential Award
$200 to $400 (Estimated).

Proof of Purchase
No proof of purchase applicable.

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

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

Claim Form Deadline
05/06/2022

Case Name
Jackson, et al. v. UKG Inc., f/k/a The Ultimate Software Group
Inc., Case No. 2020L31 in the Circuit Court of McLean County,
Illinois

Final Hearing
05/20/2022

Settlement Website
UKGBIPASettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Jackson v. UKG Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 3805
Portland, OR 97208-3805
855-604-1751

Class Counsel
Evan M Meyers
Timothy P Kingsbury
Brendan Duffner
MCGUIRE LAW PC

Defense Counsel
Melissa A Siebert
Ambria D Mahomes
SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP [GN]

UNISWAP LABS: Kim & Serritella Discloses Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kim & Serritella LLP and Barton LLP announce that a securities
class action, captioned Risley v. Universal Navigation Inc. et al.,
1:22-cv-02780-KPF (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Action") is pending against
Universal Navigation Inc. dba Uniswap Labs ("Uniswap"), Hayden Z.
Adams, Paradigm Operations LP, AH Capital Management, L.L.C. dba
Andreessen Horowitz and Union Square Ventures, LLC (collectively,
"Defendants") in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The Action asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a proposed class of
persons who purchased any of the following digital tokens on the
Uniswap exchange between April 5, 2021 and April 4, 2022 (the
"Class Period"): EthereumMax, Bezoge, Matrix Samurai, Alphawolf
Finance, Rocket Bunny, and BoomBaby.io. (the "Tokens"). The Action
seeks rescission and damages.

The Action alleges that Uniswap and the other Defendants violated
the securities laws by offering and selling unregistered securities
in the form of digital tokens on the Uniswap exchange, including
Uniswap's own token, UNI. The Action further alleges that the
Defendants violated the securities laws because the Defendants
failed to register Uniswap under applicable securities laws as an
exchange and/or broker-dealer and failed to provide investors with
registration statements for the securities they were offering and
selling, which would have apprised investors of the risks and other
important information associated with their investments. In
addition, the Action alleges that the Defendants permitted unlawful
activity in connection with tokens sold on the Uniswap exchange,
such as "rug pulls" and "pump and dumps," and that the Defendants
incentivized such unlawful activity because Uniswap collected fees
for developers (with the ability to keep a portion of those fees
for itself).

If you purchased Tokens on the Uniswap exchange during the Class
Period, you are a member of the proposed class and may move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of your choice or
may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed class.
A lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for members of
a class. Lead plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York no later than
60 days after the date on which this notice is published. Should
the court certify a class in the Action, your ability to share in
any potential recovery is not dependent upon you serving as lead
plaintiff.

A class has not yet been certified in the Action. Unless and until
a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you
retain a lawyer. You may retain counsel of your choice.

If you would like to discuss the Action, your potential claims or
have any questions regarding this notice, please contact Kim &
Serritella LLP at (212) 931-8135 or via email at
crypto@kandslaw.com [GN]

UNISWAP LABS: Launches Venture Capital Arm Amid Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Ramaswamy, writing for TechCrunch, reports that Uniswap Labs,
the company behind the popular decentralized finance (DeFi)
protocol, has launched a venture capital arm to invest in web3
projects.

Uniswap Labs Ventures, the new division, will invest in companies
across various stages and areas within web3, from infrastructure to
developer tools and consumer-facing applications, according to the
company. Investments will be made directly from the company's
balance sheet, The Block first reported, though the company did not
share any details on how large these checks will be or how much
balance sheet capital will be dedicated to the fund.

The firm is tapping Matteo Leibowitz to head up the venture arm
alongside Uniswap's chief operating officer, Mary-Catherine Lader.
Leibowitz previously worked at Uniswap as a strategy lead starting
in August 2020, and prior to that, was a research analyst at The
Block for nearly two years, according to Linkedin.

Before launching this dedicated venture arm, Uniswap invested in 11
companies and protocols across the web3 ecosystem, including
Tenderly, LayerZero, MakerDAO, Aave, Compound Protocol and
PartyDAO, the company says. The Ethereum-native exchange appears to
have largely backed other companies that are also in the Ethereum
ecosystem.

Its new ventures team plans to play an active role in on and
off-chain governance "when relevant," it says. It has specifically
announced plans to participate in the governance systems of
MakerDAO, Aave, Compound and Ethereum Name Service (ENS) so far.

The news comes about a week after a class-action lawsuit was filed
against Uniswap Labs, as well as its founder and its own backers --
Paradigm, Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) and Union Square Ventures --
for allegedly engaging in rampant fraud" on the exchange. A
spokesperson for the company said in a statement to TechCrunch that
the lawsuit was riddled with factual inaccuracies. Uniswap Labs
most recently raised $11 million in a Series A round in August
2020, which a16z led.

Uniswap joins a growing segment of crypto-native companies now
formally dedicating resources to investing in other companies in
the space, including crypto exchange FTX and DeFi protocol Cake,
which both recently launched venture funds. Companies like Uniswap,
which already have experience building in web3, can apply their
expertise and lessons learned to other areas of the crypto market
through their early-stage investments, DeFi researcher Ryan
Rasmussen of Bitwise Asset Management wrote in a tweet.

The decentralized exchange is the fifth-largest in DeFi by Total
Value Locked (TVL), a metric that represents the size of the assets
on the protocol, according to blockchain data provider DeFi Pulse.
It had $7.04 billion in TVL, around half that of the leading DeFi
platform, Maker, as of April 11, DeFi Pulse shows.

Lader told TechCrunch that the broader trend of web3 companies
making venture investments represents their desire to collaborate
rather than compete with one another.

"Decentralized finance and web3 are inherently collaborative. This
growth of strategic investing reflects the key values and ethos of
building technology in web3," she wrote in an email.[GN]

UNITED STATES: Clark Appeals Judgment in Civil Rights Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Angelica Clark, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Angelica Clark, et al. v. Chad
Wolf, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01436-IM, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Oregon, Portland.

The lawsuit is a class action brought by named Plaintiffs Angelica
Clark, Ellen Gass, Nathaniel West, and Rowan Maher. The Plaintiffs
allege they were subjected to unconstitutionally excessive force or
unlawful detention by federal officers during Portland's Black
Lives Matter protests in July of 2020. The Plaintiffs seek monetary
damages from the federal officers sued in their individual
capacities under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403
U.S. 388 (1971), for alleged violations of Plaintiffs' Fourth
Amendment rights. The Plaintiffs also seek a declaratory judgment
against all Defendants asking the Court to prohibit Defendants from
"indiscriminately us[ing] tear gas, shoot[ing], or beat[ing] them
while they are engaged in constitutionally protected assembly,
speech, and expressive conduct."

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on February 11, 2022,  the
Court entered an order granting Defendants Russel Burger, Richard
Cline, Allen Scott Jones, Mark Morgan, Gabriel Russell, and Andrew
Smith's motion to dismiss, and dismissing Plaintiff's claims
against these Defendants for failure to state a claim.

On March 25, 2022, Judge Karin J. Immergut entered Judgment
granting unopposed motion for entry of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(b) Judgment. The Court's Opinion and Order dated
February 3, 2022 fully disposed of Plaintiffs' claims against
Defendants Burger, Cline, Jones, Morgan, Russell, and Smith.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Angelica Clark, et al. v.
Gabriel Russell, et al., Case No. 22-35276, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 5, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Angelica Clark, Garrison Davis, Robert Evans,
Ellen Gass, Rowan Maher and Nathaniel West Mediation Questionnaire
was due on April 12, 2022;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by May 2, 2022;

   -- Transcript is due on May 31, 2022;

   -- Appellants Angelica Clark, Garrison Davis, Robert Evans,
Ellen Gass, Rowan Maher and Nathaniel West opening brief is due on
July 11, 2022;

   -- Appellees Russell E. Burger, Richard G. Cline, Allen Jones,
Mark Morgan, Gabriel Russell and Andrew Smith answering brief is
due on August 10, 2022; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants ANGELICA CLARK, ELLEN GASS, NATHANIEL WEST,
ROWAN MAHER, ROBERT EVANS, and GARRISON DAVIS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Michelle R. Burrows, Esq.
          MICHELLE R. BURROWS, PC
          16869 SW 65th Avenue, Suite 367
          Lake Oswego, OR 97035
          Telephone: (503) 241-1955
          E-mail: michelle.r.burrows@gmail.com

               - and -

          Nadia H. Dahab, Esq.
          SUGERMAN DAHAB
          707 SW Washington Street, Suite 600
          Portland, OR 97205
          Telephone: (503) 228-6474
          E-mail: nadia@sugermanlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Jane Leanne Moisan, Esq.
          PEOPLE'S LAW OFFICE
          8629 N. Hodge Avenue
          Portland, OR 97203
          Telephone: (971) 258-1292
          E-mail: peopleslawproject@gmail.com  

               - and -

          David Dean Park, Esq.
          ELLIOTT & PARK, PC
          324 S Abernethy Street
          Portland, OR 97239
          Telephone: (503) 227-1690
          E-mail: dave@elliott-park.com  

               - and -

          Joseph Piucci, Esq.
          PIUCCI LAW
          900 SW 13th, Suite 200
          Portland, OR 97205
          Telephone: (503) 228-7385
          E-mail: joe@piucci.com  

               - and -

          David F. Sugerman, Esq.
          DAVID F. SUGERMAN ATTORNEY, PC
          520 SW Sixth Ave.
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 228-6474
          E-mail: david@davidsugerman.com  

Defendants-Appellees GABRIEL RUSSELL, ALLEN JONES, RUSSELL E.
BURGER, ANDREW SMITH, MARK MORGAN, and RICHARD G. CLINE, are
represented by:

          Glenn Greene, Esq.
          DOJ - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P.O. Box 7146, Benjamin Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044-7146
          Telephone: (202) 616-4143  
          E-mail: glenn.greene@usdoj.gov

UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO: Claims in Tuition and Fees Suit Trimmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re University of San Diego Tuition and Fees
COVID-19 Refund Litigation. This document relates to: All actions,
Case No. 20cv1946-LAB-WVG (S.D. Cal.), Judge Larry Alan Burns of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion to
dismiss.

I. Background

In February and March 2020, COVID-19 began spreading rapidly
throughout the United States. Plaintiffs Edgar Chavarria, Catherine
Holden, Haley Martinez, and Matthew Sheridan were enrolled for the
Spring 2020 semester at the University of San Diego ("USD") when
the ubiquitous and deleterious effects of the COVID-19 pandemic
forced the University to cancel in-person classes. USD required
that all classes be taught remotely for the rest of the semester
and directed students living on campus to move out. Later, on July
29, 2020, with the pandemic still raging, USD cancelled all
in-person classes for the Fall 2020 semester. By the Spring 2021
semester, USD planned to resurrect some in-person classes, only to
shut these plans down again on Feb. 12, 2021, when the COVID
pandemic again surged.

The Plaintiffs allege that these changes drastically affected their
educational experience: no in-person classes; fewer informal
interactions with faculty and other students; no science
laboratories; no computer labs; no in-person health services and
counseling; and no athletic and recreational facilities. But at the
time of each cancellation announcement, the Plaintiffs had already
paid their tuition and fees and USD refused to offer tuition
refunds, although the University agreed to refund some fees.

In response, the Plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of themselves and
a putative class. The Court consolidated the various individual
actions into this one, and the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Class Action Complaint, asserting claims for breach of contract,
unjust enrichment, conversion, violation of California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), and violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"). USD then moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Class Action Complaint ("CCAC").

II. Discussion

A. The Educational Malpractice Doctrine Doesn't Apply to
Plaintiffs' Claims

The Plaintiffs allege that USD promised in-person instruction along
with access to physical resources, libraries, laboratories,
computer laboratories; they agreed to pay tuition and fees in
reliance on those promises; and USD failed to refund any tuition or
fees when it became clear that it wouldn't be able to fully
perform. USD argues that California's educational malpractice
doctrine bars each of the Plaintiffs' claims.

Judge Burns disagrees. He finds that many decisions applying
California's educational malpractice doctrine have held the
doctrine does not bar claims that a university promised in-person
instruction and access to physical resources and facilities but
didn't provide them as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. He agrees
with these holdings and determines that the educational malpractice
doctrine does not bar the Plaintiffs' claims.

B. Plaintiffs Allege a Concrete and Particularized Injury

USD argues next that the Plaintiffs lack Article III standing
because they allege "uncertain and speculative" damages. At the
pleading stage, a plaintiff "must clearly allege facts
demonstrating" that he: (1) suffered an injury in fact; (2) that is
fairly traceable to the challenged conduct; and (3) that is likely
to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. USD attacks the
first element, arguing that the alleged injury isn't "concrete and
particularized," but is instead "inherently speculative" because
"the Court has no method to calculate the difference in value of a
class offered online versus a class offered in person."

Judge Burns finds that this argument misreads the standing
requirements. A "concrete" injury must merely be "real" and need
not be "tangible." And a "particularized" injury "must affect the
plaintiff in a personal and individual way." At this stage of the
litigation, the Plaintiffs don't need to provide a "just and
reasonable damages model" -- that isn't required until the class
certification stage.

A plaintiff may satisfy the concrete and particularized harm
standard by alleging that he overpaid in a transaction, then
offering evidence of the difference between his payment and some
measure of the true value of the purchase. The Plaintiffs have met
that pleading hurdle: They allege that they paid for one package of
educational services and received another of lesser value. This
allegation suffices under the "actual and concrete economic injury"
standard and qualifies as an injury-in-fact for standing purposes.

C. The CCAC States a Claim for Breach of Contract

Turning to the individual claims, USD argues that the Plaintiffs'
breach of contract claim fails because: (1) the CCAC doesn't
identify any specific breached promises; (2) USD's policy
restricting refunds bars the claims; and (3) the Plaintiffs don't
allege that USD caused any damages.

Judge Burns disagrees with all three arguments. First, drawing all
reasonable inferences in the Plaintiffs' favor, the CCAC alleges
sufficient conduct to establish promises forming implied-in-fact
terms of the parties' contract. Second, USD also fails to show that
its refund policies bar the Plaintiffs' claims. Third, the CCAC
successfully pleads that USD caused the Plaintiffs' injury. Hence,
the CCAC successfully states a claim for breach of contract, so the
Motion is denied as to that claim.

D. Plaintiffs Fail to Allege a Quasi-Contract Claim for
Restitution

The Plaintiffs style their next claim as "unjust enrichment." Under
California law, "'unjust enrichment' is synonymous with
'restitution,'" which is a remedy, not a claim. But this isn't a
substantive issue warranting dismissal: Courts routinely construe
claims pled as "unjust enrichment" to be actions in quasi-contract
for restitution. Because the parties understand the nature of the
claim, the way it is titled amounts to only a semantic issue.

Judge Burns construes the claim as seeking restitution in
quasi-contract. Bur he finds that the CCAC can't state such a
claim. The parties agree that the Plaintiffs paid their tuition and
fees pursuant to an agreement covering that compensation. If that
agreement required USD to perform in ways that it didn't, the
Plaintiffs' recourse is in contract. If the agreement didn't
require USD to do those things, the Court can't augment the
contract by finding that a second contract involving the same
compensation was implied-in-law. The CCAC's claim for unjust
enrichment is dismissed with prejudice.

E. The CCAC Fails to State a Claim for Conversion

The Plaintiffs likewise fail to state a claim for conversion.
Successful conversion claims "typically involve those who have
misappropriated, commingled, or misapplied specific funds held for
the benefit of others."

Judge Burns finds that that's not what the Plaintiffs allege. They
allege that they paid USD money in exchange for services that were
only partially rendered. The Plaintiffs can't point to a specific
and identifiable sum that USD allegedly converted because, as they
concede, USD provided some services with non-specific value in
exchange for their tuition and fees. For this reason, the CCAC
can't state a claim for conversion, so that claim is dismissed with
prejudice.

F. Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim under CLRA

Plaintiffs' fourth cause of action relies on the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750-1785. A pleading seeking
to state a claim under the CLRA must meet the heightened standard
of Rule 9(b) and allege violative conduct causing damage to the
claimant.

USD argues that the CCAC fails to allege any actionable
misrepresentations. The Plaintiffs counter that two sets of alleged
representations match the descriptions of Cal. Civ. Code Sections
1770(a)(5) and (7). One consists of the pre-pandemic
representations that form the basis of the Plaintiffs' contract
claim. But the Plaintiffs don't allege that USD knew that COVID-19
would render those representations false, nor do they contend that
the representations were false at the time they were made. See
Wilson, 668 F.3d at 1145. It isn't enough to allege that USD made
promises it believed it could keep, but proved unable to, so those
allegations can't support Plaintiffs' CLRA claim.

The second set of representations includes USD's purported promises
to conduct classes in person for the Spring 2021 semester. While
the specific content of these statements isn't alleged, the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to take judicial notice of them to satisfy
Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard. USD doesn't oppose this
request, so Judge Burns grants it but nonetheless finds the
statements insufficient to support the CLRA claim.

Because the CCAC doesn't allege any "representations that USD's
services had characteristics that they did not have or were of a
particular, standard, quality, or grade but were another," it
doesn't allege a violation of those sections of the CLRA. That
claim is dismissed with prejudice.

G. The CCAC Fails to State a UCL Claim

USD last argues that Plaintiffs aren't entitled to any relief under
California's Unfair Competition Law because they have failed to
allege that USD engaged in an "unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent" act
or practice. The UCL's "larger purpose" is "protecting the general
public against unscrupulous business practices," and courts must
construe it accordingly.  Following this construction, Judge Burns
holds that the CCAC doesn't allege any conduct that violates the
UCL.

The parties agree that the "unlawful" prong is fulfilled only if
the CCAC states a claim under CLRA. Because it doesn't, the
Plaintiffs haven't stated a UCL claim under the "unlawful" prong.
Because Judge Burns already determined that USD's statements, as
alleged, were neither unlawful nor fraudulent, he won't expand the
meaning of those two terms by deeming the statements unfair. Hence,
the CCAC doesn't allege any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent acts or
practices, so its UCL claim is dismissed with prejudice.

III. Conclusion

The motion to dismiss is granted in part. Judge Burns finds that
the Plaintiffs' quasi-contract claim is barred by the existence of
a contract covering the same subject matter; the economic loss
doctrine bars their claim for conversion; they don't allege any
false representations to support their CLRA claim; and they don't
identify any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent practice violating the
UCL. The quasi-contract claim and the conversion claim are
dismissed with prejudice. The CLRA and UCL claims are dismissed
without prejudice. The CCAC properly states a claim for breach of
contract, so as to that claim the Motion is denied in part.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p8z9znn from Leagle.com.


VERTIV HOLDINGS: Vincent Wong Reminds of April 11 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Attention Vertiv Holdings Co ("Vertiv") (NYSE: VRT) shareholders:

The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on April 11 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased
between April 28, 2021 and February 23, 2022.

If you suffered a loss on your investment in Vertiv, contact us
about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost
or obligation to you.

https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/vertiv-holdings-co-loss-submission-form?prid=25746&wire=4

ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Vertiv includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
Company could not adequately respond to supply chain issues and
inflation by increasing its prices; (2) as a result of the
increasing costs, Vertiv's earnings would be adversely impacted;
and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

DEADLINE: May 23, 2022

Aggrieved Vertiv investors only have until May 23, 2022 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not required
to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]

VIATRIS INC: Judge Narrows Charges in EpiPen Price Hike Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole DeFeudis, writing for Endpoints News, reports that second
time's the charm for Viatris and a suite of pharmacy benefit
managers in a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging collusion over
price hikes for the company's EpiPen.

After trying -- and succeeding, in part -- to get claims against
them dismissed back in 2021, the defendants celebrated a win on
April 5 when a Minnesota federal judge dismissed a large chunk of
the claims due to a lack of evidence.

The case stems back to a complaint filed in 2020 alleging that
Mylan -- before it combined with Pfizer's Upjohn unit to form
Viatris -- colluded with a range of PBMs including CVS Caremark,
Express Scripts, United Health and OptumRx to spike the price of
EpiPen list prices. Plaintiffs accused Mylan of paying bribes and
kickbacks to PBMs, in return for favorable placement on
formularies, and the elimination of price constraints.

EpiPen list prices surged between 2012 and 2016, increasing from
$240 to $609, according to court documents.

PBMs are "the gatekeepers of which drugs will be covered by their
health plan/insurer clients," the complaint states, and thus have
influence over which drugs are prescribed and purchased. Plaintiffs
argued that PBMs benefited from EpiPen's rising cost because the
alleged kickbacks were generally calculated as a percentage of the
wholesale price.

The complaint was filed by Rochester Drug Co-Operative, on behalf
of itself and other direct purchasers of EpiPen.

"Plaintiffs, who paid the list price for EpiPens, were left to bear
the burden of these steep price increases," they said in the
complaint.

Mylan argued that plaintiffs didn't plausibly allege that the
behavior excluded competitors from the market, or was "outside
industry norms such that other competitors [could not] compete in
the same way."

Judge Eric Tostrud dismissed some claims against the PBMs back in
2021 with prejudice, meaning plaintiffs can't refile the claim in
the same court. However, he denied the Mylan defendants' motion to
dismiss.

On April 5, however, he narrowed the case even more, while
postponing a decision on the timeliness of the antitrust claims.

"Because Plaintiffs could save some aspects of their Sherman Act
claims with evidence of continuing violations, a final decision on
the timeliness of the antitrust claims will be postponed until such
discovery can be taken," he wrote.

A Viatris spokesperson said in an emailed statement to Endpoints
News that the company will continue to fight the remaining claims:

The Company is pleased with the Court's decision to significantly
narrow the case and will continue to defend itself vigorously
against the remaining claims.

Just last month, a Kansas federal court signed off on a settlement
that will see Viatris pay $264 million to resolve claims that it
conspired with Pfizer to "monopolize the market" for its EpiPens.
That case dates back to 2017 when plaintiffs filed a complaint
alleging Viatris "devised an illegal scheme" to prevent EpiPen
competitors from coming to market.

Viatris has denied any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $264 million to
resolve the cases pending in the US District Court for the District
of Kansas. [GN]

VOLTA INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of May 31 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Volta Inc. investors who suffered significant
losses to submit your losses now. A securities fraud class action
has been filed and investors with significant losses have the
opportunity to lead the case.
.
Class Period: Aug. 2, 2021 - Mar. 28, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 31, 2022
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/VLTA
Contact An Attorney Now: VLTA@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

Volta Inc. (VLTA) Securities Fraud Class Action:

The lawsuit focuses on whether Volta properly followed accounting
rules governing restricted stock unit ("RSU") compensation leading
up to and after its consummation of the merger with special purpose
acquisition company Tortois Acquisition Corp. II in late August
2021.

The complaint alleges that Defendants made misleading statements or
failed to disclose that: (1) Volta had improperly accounted for
RSUs issued in connection with the business combination; (2) Volta
understated its net loss for Q3 2021; (3) there were material
weaknesses in Volta's internal controls over financial reporting
resulting in material financial reporting errors; and, (4) as a
result, Volta would be required to restate its previously filed
financials.

On Feb. 28, 2022, Volta announced the accounting date of RSUs
should have been assessed at Aug. 26, 2021, about the same time as
the merger, and that the adjustments would result in approximate
net losses for the 3 and 9 months ended Sept. 30, 2021 of $14.5
million and $69.7 million, respectively.

On Mar. 2, 2022, Volta said the adjustments would result in an
increase in approximate net losses for the 3 and 9 months ended
Sept. 30, 2021 to $69.7 million and $155.5 million, respectively.

And, on Mar. 28, 2022, Volta announced that its CEO (Scott Mercer)
and its President (Christopher Wendel) abruptly resigned.

These events drove the price of Volta shares sharply lower.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Volta intentionally
understated compensation expenses before and after the Tortois
merger," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the
investigation.

If you invested in Volta and have significant losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Volta
should consider their options to help in the investigation or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or
email VLTA@hbsslaw.com.

About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law
firm focusing on corporate accountability through class-action law.
The firm is home to a robust securities litigation practice and
represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers
and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by
corporate negligence and fraud. More about the firm and its
successes can be found at hbsslaw.com.

Contact:
Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN]

WALMART INC: Rodriguez Sues Over Sale of Lidocaine Patch Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Naomy Altagracia Gonzalez Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Walmart Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02991 (S.D.N.Y., April 11, 2022) seeks to remedy the
deceptive and misleading business practices of Walmart with respect
to the marketing and sale of the Defendant's various pain relief
lidocaine patch products throughout the state of New York and
throughout the country, including, but not limited to, the
following products:

   -- Equate Maximum Strength Lidocaine Pain Relieving Patch; and

   -- Equate Lidocaine Menthol Pain Relief Patch.

Lidocaine belongs to the family of medicines called local
anesthetics. It prevents pain by blocking the signals at the nerve
endings in the skin. Lidocaine patches are often prescribed by
doctors, but the Defendant offers the Products over-the-counter to
consumers.

The Defendant manufactures, sells, and distributes the Products
using a marketing and advertising campaign that represents that its
lidocaine patches provide "pain relieving/pain relief," that is
"maximum strength," through an "easy to apply," and "stay-put,
flexible patch" that will last "up to 12 hours."

The Defendant claims that the topical patches provide "pain
relieving/pain relief," that is "maximum strength," through an
"easy to apply," and "stay-put, flexible patch" that will last "up
to 12 hours."

However, Defendant's claims, representations, and warranties are
allegedly false and misleading. Despite proper application, within
a short time the Products commonly fall off of consumers' bodies,
thus depriving consumers of the advertised benefits (i.e.- they
don't provide "pain relieving/pain relief," that is "maximum
strength," through an "easy to apply," and "stay-put, flexible
patch" that will last "up to 12 hours" as promised).

Moreover, Defendant labels some of the Products as providing a
"maximum strength" dose despite these Products only containing 4%
lidocaine. The Defendant's "maximum strength" claims are false and
deceptive because there are other products available that offer
lidocaine patches containing 5% lidocaine.

The Defendant's conduct violated and continues to violate, inter
alia, New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350, and the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The Defendant breached and continues to
breach its warranties regarding the Products. Defendant has been
and continues to be unjustly enriched. Accordingly, Plaintiff
brings this action against Defendant on behalf of herself and Class
Members who purchased the Products during the applicable statute of
limitations period.

Lidocaine patches, akin to the Products, utilize lidocaine, an
anesthetic, to cause loss of feeling in the skin and surrounding
tissues to help alleviate pain in the applied bodily area.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          Joseph Lipari, Esq.
          Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
          270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (845) 483-7100
          Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
          E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                  liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                  markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com

WELLS FARGO: CFPB Files Amicus Brief in RESPA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Volkova, writing for Housing Wire, reports that the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau chimed in on an appeal to the McCoy vs.
Wells Fargo Bank case, arguing that a borrower should be able to
get information about their loan from their loan servicer.

The CFPB filed its amicus brief on April 4, in a class action
lawsuit before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, alleging that
Wells Fargo flouted its obligations to answer questions about two
loans it serviced in 2020. The CFPB said the alleged oversight
amounted to a failure to comply with the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (RESPA) and Regulation X, which the agency has
jurisdiction over.

According to the lawsuit, in 2018 and 2019 Wells Fargo declined to
provide information to either borrower because both accounts were
in active foreclosure ligation.

Wells Fargo and the CFPB declined to comment.

In a blog posted on the CFPB's website, Seth Frotman, general
counsel for the bureau, argued that Wells Fargo's reasoning for not
responding to the plaintiffs was not justified.

"A pending lawsuit does not take away a borrower's right to a
response from their loan servicer under Regulation X," Frotman
wrote. "When this case got to court, Wells Fargo didn't even try to
argue that it was entitled to ignore the borrowers' requests
because of the foreclosure proceedings.

"Instead, Wells Fargo argued that even after the CFPB's 2013
amendments, Regulation X didn't require it to respond to the
borrowers' requests, which asked for things like transaction
histories and the identities of their loans' owners."

Additionally, Frotman wrote that Wells Fargo has misinterpreted
CFPB's amendments to Regulation X, which requires servicers to
provide information requested by borrowers. He said the depository
is working under an outdated interpretation of the law.

"But that's not what Regulation X says, that's not what the CFPB
intended, and that's not what mortgage borrowers need in the modern
mortgage market," Frotman said.

RESPA, which was originally passed in 1975, and most recently
amended in 2008, requires mortgage servicers to respond to
borrowers seeking information about a mortgage loan within 10
business days. The CFPB amended the law's Regulation X rule in 2013
broadening servicers' obligations, requiring them to respond to
requests for information even if it does not specifically relate to
servicing.

The class action suit was dismissed in September 2021 based on a
failure to state a claim, but a month later the plaintiffs appealed
the decision, sending it to the Ninth Circuit.

In the class action lawsuit filed on Jan. 31, 2021, in the U.S.
District Court of Oregon, the two plaintiffs alleged that Wells
Fargo failed to comply with the RESPA and Regulation X by not
providing information that plaintiffs sought.

The lawsuit also claimed that after Wells Fargo received qualified
written requests in the form of a notice of error, it did not
investigate the errors as required by Regulation X.

The two named plaintiffs, Donald McCoy and Maximiliano Olivera,
said in the class action suit that they sent numerous request for
information letters to Wells Fargo from 2018 to 2019 seeking
information about their mortgage loans. The requests ranged from a
payoff statement to contact information of the loan's assignee,
court papers show. McCoy and Olivera claim they did not receive the
information that they asked for.

Eight months later, on Sept. 28, 2021, the court dismissed the case
because the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for relief and that
their inquiries were not related to servicing, but instead
pertained to the validity and origination of their respective
loans.

In December 2021, oral arguments were held to appeal the decision.

The case could impact the basis for determining the CFPB's
authority, as well as the interpretation of regulatory language,
according to Richard Horn, partner at Garris Horn LLP.

Horn is currently involved in litigation against the CFPB which
will test the agency's interpretation of another statute, and its
authority to police redlining. In the Wells Fargo case, Horn said
that although the CFPB expanded the scope of qualified written
statements in its 2013 servicing rule to include requests for
information, the court disagreed.

"There is confusion about this requirement, in part because the
regulatory text is not the clearest about whether requests for
information include qualified written requests, or if qualified
written requests include requests for information," he said.

He noted that from the CFPB's amicus brief it becomes clear that
the bureau intended to expand the scope of qualified written
requests.

The CFPB has been outspoken in the past year about heightened
scrutiny of servicers. So far, however, there has been little
public enforcement action.

Most recently, the CFPB warned that it is closely monitoring how
servicers conduct themselves to help borrowers avoid foreclosures.

In January 2021, the bureau put the industry on alert, warning that
it would direct its attention to how mortgage servicers were
helping borrowers with COVID-19 forbearance.  At the time, the
bureau promised aggressive action. Soon after, it told servicers
that "unprepared was unacceptable," as the end of forbearance
approached.

"Instead of a direct relationship between banks and their
customers, the modern mortgage market is a complex web that often
also involves securitized trusts and multiple servicers," wrote
Frotman in the blog post. "People need a banking system that
provides high-quality customer service, and banks should focus on
relationship banking by treating customers fairly and attending to
their needs." [GN]

WELLS FARGO: Transfer of Forsburg Suit to N.D. California Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael F. Urbanski of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Virginia, Harrisonburg Division, refused to
transfer the case, GERALD FORSBURG, et al., Plaintiffs v. WELLS
FARGO & CO., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-00046 (W.D. Va.),
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

I. Background

The matter is before the Court on a motion filed by Forsburg and
other named Plaintiffs in the proposed class action, to transfer
the case to the Northern District of California. Defendants Wells
Fargo & Co. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (collectively "Wells
Fargo"), oppose transfer.

Pending before the Court are two related, yet different, putative
class action cases. The cases are related in that they arise from
actions allegedly taken by Wells Fargo to place mortgage loan
accounts into forbearance status at the outset of the COVID-19
pandemic.

The Harlow adversary proceeding, No. AP 20-07028, filed in the
bankruptcy court in the district on June 26, 2020, alleges a
pattern of racketeering activity by the "Wells Fargo Enterprise,"
defamation, and other claims associated with the bankruptcy
process. The Harlow case seeks class certification of a class
comprised of Chapter 13 debtors who have been subject to false
forbearance notices filed in their Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases. Two
of the named plaintiffs in the Harlow case are Virginia residents,
one resides in North Carolina and one in Texas. None are from
California.

The Forsburg case, filed in the district court on July 23, 2020,
makes widespread claims against Wells Fargo stemming from the
issuance of forbearance notices, including RICO, fraud, conspiracy,
gross negligence, defamation, and various statutory claims. The
Forsburg case does not include claims related to the bankruptcy
process and seeks certification of a class including persons not
involved in bankruptcy proceedings. The original complaint named
only Gerald Forsburg as Plaintiff. The complaint alleged that
Forsburg owns property in Virginia. The Forsburg complaint has been
amended twice, and each time new named plaintiffs were added. On
Sept. 1, 2020, Jenna Doctor, a resident of Florida, and Luis and
Marisol Castro, residents of Texas, were added. On Sept. 25, 2020,
Barbara Prado, a resident of California, was added.

In 2020, Wells Fargo asked the Court to withdraw the reference of
the Harlow case to the bankruptcy court and consolidate it with
Forsburg. The Court granted that motion on Jan. 6, 2021, and
immediately thereafter, on Jan. 8, 2021, the Forsburg Plaintiffs
moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of California.
After the matter was briefed, the parties asked to Court to stay
the proceeding to facilitate mediation. The stay was extended at
the request of the parties, and it ultimately was lifted on Oct. 5,
2021. Additional briefs were filed and oral argument was held on
the motion to transfer and motion to dismiss on Dec. 16, 2021.

As explained at the hearing and in briefing, the Harlow and
Forsburg cases are but two of several putative class action cases
filed regarding Wells Fargo forbearance practices. At the time of
the motions hearing, there were two pending class action cases in
the Northern District of California and two in the Southern
District of California also seeking relief against Wells Fargo for
allegedly placing its mortgage loan accounts into forbearance
without consent.

The cases filed in the Northern District of California are Green,
et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank & Co., et al., No. 3:20-cv-5296 (N.D.
Cal., filed July 31, 2020), and Delpapa, et al. v. Wells Fargo
Bank, NA., et al., No. 3:20-cv-6009-JD (N.D. Cal., filed Aug. 26,
2020). The two cases filed in the Southern District of California
are Urista v. Wells Fargo & Co., et al., No. 20-cv-1689-H-AHG (S.D.
Cal., filed Aug. 29, 2020), and Healy, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., et al., No. 3:20-cv-1838-H-AHG (S.D. Cal., filed Sept. 18,
2020).

Early on, Wells Fargo sought to transfer the California cases to
the Western District of Virginia so they could all be decided with
the earlier filed Harlow and Forsburg cases, but the California
courts declined to transfer those cases to Virginia. A docket text
order was entered in Delpapa, and written orders were entered in
Healy and Urista.

Subsequently, the counsel for the plaintiffs in Healy, Urista,
Green, Delpapa, and Forsburg entered into a joint prosecution
agreement and agreed to seek consolidation of those five cases in a
single matter pending in the Northern District of California. At
the time of the hearing on the motion for transfer, the Healy and
Urista plaintiffs had filed motions to transfer those cases from
the Southern District of California to the Northern District of
California to consolidate them with the Delpapa case. Since then,
both Urista and Healy have been transferred to the Northern
District of California. Additionally, the Northern District of
California granted the plaintiffs' motion to relate Urista and
Healy with Delpapa, so all four cases will now be heard by the same
district judge.

After the filing of the motion to transfer, an additional case was
filed in the Western District of Washington, seeking the same
relief against Wells Fargo for its alleged practice of placing
consumers' loans into forbearance without consent. The latest case
is Echard, et. al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. C21-0111-JCC)
(W.D. Wash., filed Jan. 28, 2021). Echard involves an Ohio resident
and Ohio property, and was briefly transferred to the Northern
District of California before moving on to the Southern District of
Ohio.

II. Discussion

A. General Personal Jurisdiction

The parties disagree as to whether one of the two Wells Fargo
entities sued in this case is subject to general personal
jurisdiction in the Northern District of California. The parties
agree that the holding company, Wells Fargo & Co., is based in San
Francisco and is subject to general personal jurisdiction there.
But Wells Fargo contends that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., a national
banking association having its main office in South Dakota, is only
subject to general personal jurisdiction in South Dakota.

Construing the jurisdictional allegations in the second amended
complaint and the assertions in the motion to transfer briefing in
the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs as required by Fourth
Circuit precedent, Judge Urbanski is unable to conclude that the
Forsburg Plaintiffs have sufficiently made a prima facie showing of
general personal jurisdiction over Wells Fargo Bank in the Northern
District of California. While the facts alleged and the record in
the cases cited in Urista and Healy were sufficient to convince
those courts that Wells Fargo Bank's principal place of business
was in San Francisco, insufficient facts are alleged and otherwise
adduced in the case.

As such, Judge Urbanski will deny without prejudice Forsburg's
motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California.
He will grant the Forsburg Plaintiffs leave ofCcourt to file a
Third Amended Complaint within 14 days, and will allow the parties
to engage in an expedited period of jurisdictional discovery for 60
days. Should the Forsburg Plaintiffs renew their motion to
transfer, the Court will conduct an evidentiary hearing on the
issue as to whether Wells Fargo Bank is subject to personal
jurisdiction in the Northern District of California. The counsel is
directed to confer and schedule an evidentiary hearing no later
than in June or July, 2022.

B. Section 1404(a)

While the question of general personal jurisdiction remains open
pending filing of the third amended complaint and completion of
jurisdictional discovery, Judge Urbanski concludes that the Section
1404(a) factors support transfer of the case. The Plaintiffs argue
that the convenience of the parties, including convenience to Wells
Fargo in not having to litigate similar, almost identical claims,
on both the east and west coasts at the same time, justifies
transfer to the Northern District of California. They point out
that when Wells Fargo sought to have Delpapa transferred to this
district, it acknowledged that "the parties are substantially
similar, the issues are substantially similar," and asserted that
allowing separate cases to proceed would oppose the interest of
justice and convenience.

Wells Fargo argues that witness convenience disfavors transfer
because "the moving party must make a specific showing" that the
current venue is inconvenient to the witnesses to demonstrate that
transfer is proper. It claims that if the moving party fails to
identify witnesses, the convenience of the witnesses disfavors
transfer. It also contends that because each of the 15 party
witnesses Wells Fargo has identified do not live in the Northern
District of California, that district would be inconvenient for
them.

Judge Urbanski holds that the convenience of the parties and
witnesses clearly favors transfer in the case since each pending
case would likely have some or all of the same witnesses, and
transfer would prevent these witnesses from having to travel back
and forth across the country to testify in multiple courts.
Importantly, while one of the Forsburg plaintiffs, Barbara Prado,
lives in the Northern District of California, none live in the
Western District of Virginia.

The interests of justice favor transfer because it would allow five
of the six pending putative class action cases to be considered
together by the same district judge. While the relative case loads
in the Northern District of California and the Western District of
Virginia support retaining Forsburg, that statistical advantage is
more than offset by the manifest inefficiency in having competing
class actions pending in California and Virginia addressing the
same issues.

C. Jurisdiction Retension

Forsburg was previously consolidated with a related case, Harlow,
et. al v. Wells Fargo & Co., et. al., Adversary No. 20-07028.
Jurisdiction over the Harlow case was withdrawn from bankruptcy
court largely because of Count I, alleging a class-wide RICO claim.
However, Harlow also involves a number of bankruptcy-specific
issues not present in Forsburg or the cases pending in the Northern
District of California. Further, the Plaintiffs in Harlow ask the
Court to certify a different class involving Chapter 13 debtors.
The differences in the claims alleged and the proposed class in
Harlow render negligible the judicial efficiencies to be gained by
transferring it to California. Further, while none of the Forsburg
Plaintiffs live in the Western District of Virginia, two of the
Harlow plaintiffs, Troy Harlow and Mark Estes, are residents of the
Western District of Virginia, making it more inconvenient for them
to have their case litigated in California. Likewise, none of the
Harlow Plaintiffs are California residents. Accordingly, the Court
will retain the Harlow case on the docket of the Western District
of Virginia.

III. Conclusion

Judge Urbanski opines that although there are four other identical
proposed class actions against Wells Fargo pending in the Northern
District of California, the Plaintiffs' allegations are
insufficient at this stage to allow the Court to conclude that they
have met their burden of making a prima facie showing of general
personal jurisdiction over Wells Fargo Bank in the Northern
District of California. At the same time, however, Judge Urbanski
concludes that the convenience of the parties and the interests of
justice would compel a transfer of the Forsburg case to the
Northern District of California should a sufficient prima facie
showing of general personal jurisdiction be established.

As such, Judge Urbanski denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
motion to transfer the Forsburg case to the Northern District of
California. He granted the Plaintiffs in the Forsburg case leave of
court to file a Third Amended Complaint containing personal
jurisdiction allegations concerning Wells Fargo Bank within 14
days.

Because the Court is granting the Forsburg Plaintiffs leave to
amend, the pending motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
in the Forsburg case is denied as moot without prejudice.

The parties will be permitted to conduct expedited jurisdictional
discovery for a period of 60 days. Judge Urbanski directed the
parties to confer and schedule an evidentiary hearing on the issue
of whether Wells Fargo Bank is subject to personal jurisdiction in
the Northern District of California immediately following the
expedited jurisdictional discovery period, and no later than in
June or July 2022.

Judge Urbanski denied the Plaintiffs motion to transfer the Harlow
case to the Northern District of California.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2022 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p88zytc from Leagle.com.


WHOLE FOODS: Court Dismisses Akridge's 1st Amended Class Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HOWARD AKRIDGE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 20 Civ. 10900 (ER) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York granted Whole Foods' motion to dismiss the first
amended complaint.

I. Background

Mr. Akridge brings the putative class action under the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2),
against Whole Foods, alleging that Whole Foods has engaged in a
pattern of mislabeling certain prepared foods and thereby failing
to identify the presence of allergens. Akridge seeks injunctive
relief and monetary damages for violations of Sections 349 and 350
of the New York General Business Law ("GBL"), as well as related
claims for negligent misrepresentation, fraud, breach of warranty,
and unjust enrichment.

Whole Foods operates nearly 500 stores across North America that
sell natural and organic foods, including a range of products in
the prepared foods sections of its stores and fresh packaged goods
sold under its 365 Everyday Value Brand. These products include
soups, cheeses, bakery products, fish, and prepared entrees.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued Whole Foods CEO John
Mackey a warning letter on December 16, 2020, as part of the
agency's "ongoing efforts to address undeclared allergens as the
leading cause of food recalls in the United States." The FDA
Warning Letter explains that Whole Foods has "engaged in a pattern
of receiving and offering for sale misbranded food products," and
that from October 2019 to November 2020, the company "recalled 32
food products due to undeclared allergen(s)."

Whole Foods had a similar pattern of recalling foods that contained
undeclared allergens in previous years. he FDA Warning Letter
further states that the products at issue were misbranded within
the meaning of Section 403(w) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
("FDCA"), 21 U.S.C. Section 301 et seq., and were therefore in
violation of the FDCA's requirement that finished product labels
declare all major food allergens present in the products.

Federal and state regulations require that the presence of common
allergens in foods, including milk, eggs, fish, crustacean
shellfish, tree nuts, wheat, peanuts, and soybeans, be disclosed
immediately after the ingredient list, preceded by the word
"Contains." Akridge alleges that Whole Foods has a longstanding
pattern of violating these requirements and failing to properly
disclose the presence of allergens in prepared foods and certain
packaged goods sold under its private label brand. Akridge alleges
that Whole Foods' recalls "have been characterized as 'systemic.'"
He further alleges that the mislabeling is not unique to any
particular Whole Foods store or region, and that Whole Foods has
reportedly failed to update its computer labeling software, leading
to the mislabeling.

Had Mr. Akridge and the putative class members known about Whole
Foods' practices, they would not have bought as much, or any, of
the prepared foods and would either have paid less for the products
or would not have bought them at all, because they would not have
paid higher prices for products that fail to disclose the presence
of allergens. Akridge is "reluctant to continue his purchases from
Whole Foods' prepared foods sections because he does not want to
take a chance that the company has failed to modify its practices,"
but once Whole Foods rectifies those practices, he "will no longer
feel reluctant" to purchase such products.

Mr. Akridge intends to seek injunctive relief under Rule 23(b) on
behalf of a proposed class of all purchasers of the products in New
York during the applicable statutes of limitations.

Mr. Akridge brought the action on Dec. 23, 2020. On July 1, 2021,
after Whole Foods requested a pre-motion conference to bring a
motion to dismiss, Akridge filed the First Amended Complaint
("FAC"). On Aug. 26, 2021, Whole Foods moved to dismiss the FAC, or
in the alternative, for a more definite statement.

II. Discussion

A. Article III Standing

To establish standing under Article III of the Constitution, a
plaintiff must show "(1) that he or she suffered an injury in fact
that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent, (2) that
the injury was caused by the defendant, and (3) that the injury
would likely be redressed by the requested judicial relief."
Moreover, in a putative class action, the named plaintiff must
allege that he was personally injured by defendants' conduct. To
establish class standing, a plaintiff must show that (1) "he
'personally has suffered some actual injury as a result of the
putatively illegal conduct of the defendant,' and (2) such conduct
implicates 'the same set of concerns' as the conduct alleged to
have caused injury to other members of the putative class by the
same defendants."

Whole Foods challenges whether Akridge has established Article III
standing because the FAC does not allege facts plausibly
demonstrating that he actually purchased any of the products that
were the subject of the FDA Warning Letter or that allegedly failed
to disclose allergens. Thus, it mounts a facial challenge, based on
the allegations of the complaint, to the Court's subject matter
jurisdiction.

Judge Ramos determines that Akridge's FAC must be dismissed for
lack of standing because he has not alleged an injury in fact.
Akridge, does not specifically allege that he actually purchased
products containing unidentified allergens. Class action cases in
this Circuit involving other consumer products brought by
plaintiffs who purchased some, but not all, of the products they
challenge are also instructive, although these decisions turn on
class standing rather than Article III standing. Fundamental to all
of those decisions was that the plaintiff seeking to bring a class
action had actually alleged that they had purchased at least one of
the products challenged as falsely advertised. Akridge's claims
therefore fail to clear the low threshold required to establish an
injury in fact and do not even constitute "general factual
allegations of injury."

Because he concludes that Akridge has not plausibly alleged
standing, Judge Ramos holds that the Court lacks jurisdiction to
consider Whole Foods' Rule 12(b)(6) motion on the merits. Nor does
he reach Whole Foods' 12(e) motion for a more definite statement.

B. Leave to Amend

Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
the court should grant leave to amend "freely when justice so
requires." The Second Circuit has noted that the rule is
"applicable to dismissals for failure to plead an adequate basis
for federal jurisdiction," and courts should grant leave to amend
at least once as matter of course "where the possibility exists
that the defect can be cured and there is no prejudice to the
defendant." Because it is possible that Akridge may be able to
establish standing, Judge Ramos grants him leave to amend.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons he discussed, Judge Ramos granted Whole Foods'
motion to dismiss. Akridge may file any amended complaint by April
20, 2022. If he does not, the case will be closed.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the
motion, Doc. 22.

A full-text copy of the Court's March 30, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2s44dcap from Leagle.com.


WILLIAM OSLER: Certification of Privacy Breach Action Overturned
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joannie Fu, Esq., and Kevan Hanowski, Esq., of McCarthy Tetrault
LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that for nearly a decade, a
nurse repeatedly viewed healthcare records of patients in order to
steal prescription medication from a hospital. The access to the
patient records was fleeting -- the nurse was interested in the
medication, not the information, and spent no more than a few
seconds on any particular patient's page. Over time, she accessed
more than 11,000 records and stole nearly 25,000 Percocet pills.

Do such facts permit the certification of a class action for the
recently recognized tort of intrusion upon seclusion? In a Stewart
v. Demme, 2022 ONSC 1790, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
(Divisional Court) said that they do not. Rather, the court
concluded that it was plain and obvious that these facts did not --
and could not -- amount to the tort of intrusion upon seclusion,
because the nature of the intrusion was not sufficiently serious.

As we have previously reported, Ontario courts have not been afraid
to strike down putative class actions for intrusion upon seclusion
where the claims do not involve the type of intentional and highly
offensive conduct described by the Court of Appeal in Jones v.
Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32 ("Jones").

Stewart is yet another example of Ontario courts taking a cautious
and restrained approach to this new privacy tort in the class
action context. This decision may also provide guidance to Canadian
courts considering statutory privacy claims. For example, the
British Columbia Privacy Act, RSBC 1996, c 37 creates a statutory
tort for breach of privacy that bears many analogs to the common
law tort, including because it is actionable without proof of
damage.

Background
In Jones, Ontario Court of Appeal established a limited and
specific tort of "intrusion upon seclusion". The elements of the
tort are as follows:

(1) the defendant's conduct must be intentional (which includes
recklessness);

(2) the defendant must have invaded, without lawful justification,
the plaintiff's private affairs; and

(3) a reasonable person would regard the invasion as highly
offensive causing distress, humiliation or anguish.

We discussed this decision in detail in a previous article, found
here.

Certification Decision (2020 ONSC 83)
Justice Morgan certified Ms. Stewart's claim for intrusion upon
seclusion. In reaching this decision, he concluded that, despite
the fleeting nature of the defendant's access to patient files, it
was not plain and obvious that a claim for intrusion upon seclusion
would fail. In particular, he concluded that it was the nature of
the privacy interest -- and not the magnitude of the infringement
-- that is relevant when determining whether a reasonable person
would regard the invasion as "highly offensive". In particular, he
found that any intrusion into the realm of private health
information could be considered "highly offensive".

Divisional Court (2022 ONSC 1790)
The Divisional Court overturned Justice Morgan's decision and
dismissed the plaintiff's certification motion. Key aspects of the
Divisional Court's decision include the following:

The Divisional Court disagreed with the certification judge's
conclusion that any intrusion into private health records, no
matter how small, may be considered highly offensive. When
determining whether an intrusion is "highly offensive", the court
must view the conduct objectively having regard to all of the
circumstances. Here, those circumstances involved the brief
exposure of patient data that was not particularly sensitive. If a
reasonable person would not view the intrusion as "causing
distress, humiliation or anguish", then it does not rise to the
requisite level of severity to ground a claim for intrusion upon
seclusion.

The significance of the intrusion must be assessed individually,
not collectively: "The fact that there were over 11,000 such
intrusions does not mean that each intrusion was significant and
highly offensive." This interpretation of the Jones framework is
particularly significant in the class action context, which has
seen a trend of plaintiffs attempting to certify class actions for
minor breaches of privacy that occurred in relation to a large
class of persons.

The fact that intrusion upon seclusion is actionable without proof
of damage heightens the threshold that courts should apply when
considering its availability. Only "deliberate and significant"
intrusions may give rise to this tort: [27] . . . To find otherwise
would be to "open the floodgates" to claims such as the one at
issue in this proceeding, where the intrusions were fleeting, the
information accessed was not particularly sensitive within the
realm of health information, the intruder was not "after" the
information itself, which was otherwise available to her and/or a
number of other hospital staff, and there was no discernible effect
on the patients. [GN]

WITHERSPOON URBAN: Professor in Tenant Suit to Face Eviction
------------------------------------------------------------
nj.com reports that a Princeton University emeritus history
professor who filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and
40 other tenants in an apartment building for "unlawful living
conditions" last fall is now facing eviction, his attorney and son
said.

Arno Mayer, 95, who lives in an apartment in Witherspoon House, on
55 Witherspoon St. in Princeton, filed the lawsuit against
Witherspoon Urban Renewal Associates, LLC; Callaway
Henderson/Sotheby's International Realty, LLC; and John Does 1-10
in September of 2021.

In the lawsuit, Mayer alleges: an ongoing rodent infestation;
multiple evacuations for elderly tenants due to fire code
violations in the building's restaurants; a defective intercom
system; refusal to issue COVID relief to tenants; and prior
violations of the township's noise ordinance that the landlord pled
guilty to.

Mayer and his son held a news conference to discuss the lawsuit's
contents. He is not currently teaching, his son said.

Represented by his son Carl Mayer, an attorney and former member of
the township committee, Arno Mayer is asking for monetary damages
and injunctive relief.

Carl Mayer said his father's landlord, Jack Morrison, started
eviction proceedings against his father at the end of February and
sent out a notice of eviction two days ago.

"It's a matter of life and death for my father," Mayer said, noting
his father is disabled and a World War II veteran. "He's still
there now. But the landlord is trying everything he can to have him
thrown out on the street where he can't survive because he needs
24/7 health aides."

Morrison did not respond to NJ Advance Media for a request for
comment. Robert Casey, the attorney at Lenox Law Firm representing
Morrison, also didn't respond to a request for comment.

Arno Mayer, who lives on a university pension and whose finances
are subsidized by his son, typically pays $3,875 in rent per month,
but has withheld rent payments since March 2020, Carl Mayer said.

The apartments at 55 Witherspoon St. are luxury residential
apartments, according to its website.

Also in the building are two restaurants, Witherspoon Grill and
Kristine's, that are owned by Morrison, Carl Mayer said, which he
believes contributes to the rodent issues.

Mayer called on state officials, the Mercer County Prosecutor's
Office, and other local authorities to investigate Morrison and
halt the eviction.

"Every time there's a choice between a commercial property for the
landlord and his tenants, (Morrison) chooses commercial priority,"
Mayer said, "which is a very un-Princeton thing to do, which is why
we're in court." [GN]

[*] BakerHostetler Sees Increase in Duplicative Data Breach Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jill McKeon, writing for HealthITSecurity, reports that as
healthcare data breaches continue to impact small and large
organizations across the country, accompanying data breach lawsuits
are becoming increasingly common. Law firm BakerHostetler's latest
data security incident report showed an increase in duplicative
lawsuits, often resulting in steep defense and settlement costs.

BakerHostetler analyzed more than 1,200 data security incidents
from 2021 that its Digital Assets and Data Management Practice
Group members helped clients manage. The incidents spanned a
variety of sectors, but the results showed that healthcare was the
most impacted industry, with 23 percent of the analyzed incidents
affecting the sector.

The report revealed that 23 of the incidents resulted in one or
more lawsuits. While this may not seem like a big number, over 58
lawsuits stemmed from those 23 incidents.

"Previously, there was always a risk of multidistrict litigation
following large data incidents. However, now we are seeing multiple
lawsuits following an incident notification in the same federal
forum. Or, in the alternative, we see a handful of cases in one
federal forum and another handful of cases in a state venue," the
report noted.

"This duplicative litigation trend is increasing the 'race to the
courthouse' filings and increasing the initial litigation defense
costs and the ultimate cost of settlement, due to the number of
plaintiffs' attorneys involved."

What's more, 43 of the more than 58 lawsuits were filed against
healthcare organizations specifically.

As recent cases have shown, it is difficult to succeed in
healthcare data breach lawsuits from a plaintiff's perspective.
This is partly thanks to Ramirez v. TransUnion, in which the
Supreme Court ruled that data breach victims must demonstrate
actual injury and prove that the defendant's conduct caused the
damage.

The June 2021 ruling signified a significant shift in how data
breaches are handled in court. Plaintiffs must now prove that they
suffered a concrete injury to claim Article III standing. For
example, in February 2022, a judge recommended the dismissal of a
class-action lawsuit against medical management company
Practicefirst, citing insufficient evidence of actual harm
resulting from a December 2020 breach.

"Over the past decade, there have been very few published class
certification rulings following data incidents, but the majority
that existed were favorable to the defense," BakerHostetler noted.

"However, 2020 and 2021 brought two critical class certification
rulings that are emboldening plaintiffs' firms, in both the number
of their litigation filings and their negotiation tactics during
mediations."

The class certification rulings, In re Brinker Data Incident Litig.
and Fero v. Excellus Health Plan, Inc., brought new arguments to
the surface.

In Brinker, the defendant reasoned that the plaintiffs, whose
payment card information had been breached, could not prove
causation because at least one of them was impacted by a previous
breach. The court ruled that the "multiple breach issue" did not
disqualify causation.

"We predict that this same reasoning will not be applied to
non-payment card cases, but its holding will need to be considered
in any litigation strategy, as long as it remains good law," the
report stated.

In Fero v. Excellus Health Plan, Inc., the court "certified an
injunctive relief-only class but denied certification of all
damages," the report explained.

"Ultimately, certification of only injunctive claims can be a
hollow victory for plaintiffs because it eliminates the possibility
of a large monetary judgment and because most defendants who have
suffered a data breach will have made significant changes to their
data security posture by the time the case gets to trial."

Interestingly, smaller data breaches resulted in more lawsuits than
larger ones. BakerHostetler found that 8 of the 23 lawsuits
resulted from data breaches that impacted more than 1.2 million
individuals, while 11 lawsuits resulted from breaches that impacted
less than 700,000 individuals.

In addition to litigation insights, the report noted that 37
percent of the 2021 incidents could be attributed to ransomware,
compared to 27 percent in 2020. The firm also observed hackers
using double or triple extortion tactics to increase pressure on
victims.

"A key difference between organizations that had meaningful
ransomware events and those that did not was the use of a fully
deployed endpoint detection and response tool that was set in
enforcement mode with the anti-uninstall feature enabled," Craig
Hoffman, co-leader of BakerHostetler's national digital risk
advisory and cybersecurity team, said in a press release.

"Organizations that were affected by a ransomware attack in 2021
were more likely to have effective backups to restore from.
Ransomware attacks are not going away. In addition to an EDR tool
and a robust business continuity plan, effective measures to combat
this risk include multi-factor authentication, effective patch
management and addressing remote desktop protocol. These measures
apply to both the organization and its vendors." [GN]

[*] Legislation Not Required to Level Meat Packing Playing Field
----------------------------------------------------------------
Real Agriculture reports that the cattle value chain has undergone
significant pressure both to the upside and down since 2019. A
major fire at a plant in the U.S. caused a backlog of processing.
Soon after, COVID-19 hit. During 2020 and 2021, demand both at home
and abroad skyrocketed.

In short, for an industry that has to plan for 3-plus-year cycles,
ranchers, feeders, and processors have all had to endure swings in
prices and volatility.

These conditions have also meant that there have been some mighty
fine margins in some circumstances, but not necessarily equitably
along the chain. In the U.S., there is legislation in the works to
dictate a certain amount of cash trade to inject some transparency
into the market. Even a Canadian senator has an opinion on the
state of the processing value chain, and suggests something needs
to be done to level the playing field. There are also class action
lawsuits underway in the U.S. and just beginning in Canada,
levelling charges of wrong-doing at meat packing companies.

Kevin Grier of Kevin Grier Market Analysis doesn't agree with the
angle of the lawsuits or that legislation is required to "fix" what
isn't broken.

As he lays out in the audio below, market factors already guide the
cattle market -- and that if retail demand weren't so strong even
at high prices, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

For example, just a few years ago, there was a large number of
cattle but packing capacity had been reduced. Why? Because packers
had been losing their shirts. Now, the cattle cycle is turning as
the number of cows is declining in both United States and in
Canada.

That means that market leverage will be shifting more and more
towards the cattle feeder in the coming years, a function of an
open market. Grier adds that the U.S. pushing for added capacity
could end up coming on line at exactly the wrong time -- further
skewing the market balance. [GN]

[*] Price Fixing Class Action Among Food Price Inflation Factors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Winson, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that
Canadian consumers have become increasingly alarmed by dramatic
price increases in a variety of products they purchase for their
weekly food basket. Economic analysts and professional economists
have explained away this food inflation as a consequence of supply
chain issues and surging consumer demand. But the recent
application by a Quebec consumer group to pursue a class action
lawsuit for alleged price fixing against the foreign beef
processors that dominate the Canadian industry points to a more
powerful explanation of food price inflation: market power derived
from food industry concentration.

And it's not just the beef industry, where Cargill, Tyson, JBS and
the National Beef Packing Company control an estimated 85 per cent
of the packing capacity. In 2019 a class action lawsuit against the
largest bread makers and grocery retailers was launched, with
George Weston Ltd., parent of Loblaw and the bakery Weston Foods
(which has since been sold), admitting a price-fixing scheme was in
place. The Canada Bread Company, Metro, Walmart, Sobeys and Giant
Tiger were also mentioned in the suit that claimed consumers were
overbilled $5-billion over 16 years. Those companies have denied
participating in the alleged scheme.

Most other major Canadian food sectors are also dominated by a very
few industry giants with global operations and considerable ability
to influence food prices, including dairy (Kraft, Agropur, Lactalis
and Saputo), chicken (Maple Leaf, Maple Lodge, Olymel, Lilydale and
Exceldor) and pork processing (Maple Leaf, Olymel and Charoen
Pokphand Foods). Where farmers have not managed to gain supply
management that can counter processor market power, they have very
limited ability to influence the prices they receive from
processors. In the United States, a September, 2021, report on the
meat packing industry consolidation in recent decades released by
the Biden administration states that "record profits, income, and
margins underscore the role that meat-processors' dominant market
position and power play in increasing meat prices." And this is in
a country with less industry concentration in the food sector than
in Canada.

Add to this the fact that the food retail sector, overwhelmingly
dominated by supermarket chain-store corporations, is among the
most highly concentrated in the Western world with only five
companies (Loblaw, Sobeys, Metro, Costco and Walmart) controlling
over 60 percent of retail food sales. Recent moves by the big three
supermarket chains to cut their employees' pandemic-related pay
bonuses all within a day of each other prompted the House of
Commons industry committee to hold hearings on the issue. Its
subsequent 2021 report called for a change in Canada's competition
laws to prohibit cartel-like practices that could result in
wage-fixing deals in the supermarket sector. Notably, the
Government's Commissioner of Competition, Matthew Boswell, told the
committee that the Competition Bureau lacked the powers to convict
corporations around wage-fixing practices, and that the Bureau is
"one of the least-funded competition enforcement agencies" in the
developed world and has had its budget and personnel reduced in
recent years.

Supply chain issues and spikes in consumer demand may play a
temporary, if limited, role in food inflation, but the fundamental
cause that is never addressed is the remarkable degree to which the
Canadian food industry has fallen into a few corporate hands. And
while in 2021 south of the border the Biden White House proclaimed
it was "taking bold action to enforce the antitrust laws, boost
competition in meat-processing, and push back on pandemic
profiteering that is hurting consumers, farmers, and ranchers
across the country," in Canada the federal government lacks the
will and the Competition Bureau lacks the teeth to pursue similar
objectives.

Canada's failure to deal with food industry concentration is
nothing new, and can be dated back at least as far as the Great
Depression. At that time, the historically significant 1937 Royal
Commission on Price Spreads argued that, with respect to the
meat-packing industry's ability to protect its profits in the
context of the economic depression, "the manner in which these
results have been achieved has a direct relation to the
monopolistic character of the structure of the industry." Too much
concentration of the food supply by processors and retailers to the
detriment of consumers and producers is hardly anything new, then.
Until competition laws and government priorities are changed,
consumers may only have recourse to class-action lawsuits to
address this pressing issue. [GN]

[*] U.S. Tech Workers Collective Actions Tripled Since 2019
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Griffith, writing for PCMag, reports that from coffee shops to
newsrooms and well beyond, the US seems to be entering another
heyday for organized labor. One area that hasn't traditionally
experienced much union activity is the tech industry -- but that's
changing.

According to data assembled by Collective Action in Tech that's
further quantified in the chart below from Statista, tech workers
lifted a lot more fists starting in 2019. The number of actions in
that year was more than for the previous four years combined, and
it went up again in 2020, dipping only slightly in 2021.

Note that the numbers are for all types of union efforts, not just
for new unions actually launching: The efforts include doing or
threatening to do walkouts, strikes, and protests, as well as votes
to organize -- or even simply circulating petitions or writing open
letters. Collective Action in Tech documented 481 actions, as of
this writing, going back to 2015. But 352 of them happened in the
past three years.

The list is not limited to the US -- a few of the actions listed
for 2021 included work stoppages against the British delivery
platform Deliveroo; same for Gorillas in Berlin, Germany; and in
South Africa, drivers filed a class-action suit against Uber.

The site lists only five actions for 2022 thus far, all from
January, including actions at Activision Blizzard Studios,
Facebook/WhatsApp, and Google Fiber. So it doesn't yet include the
history-making vote to organize at an Amazon warehouse, which took
place on Staten Island on April 3. Another vote a different Amazon
warehouse on Staten Island is coming up on April 25. [GN]

[*] Use of "Costs Referees" Cut $11MM from Class Action Legal Bills
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Pelly, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that a class actions expert has hailed the use of "costs referees"
as a crucial factor in higher returns for litigants, saying more
than $11 million has been cut from legal bills over the past four
years.

Vince Morabito of Monash University has compiled a report of claims
in the Federal Court that shows judges are increasingly turning to
expert advice when asked to approve settlements.

He cites a comment from Justice Michael Lee in a 2018 hearing:
"Solicitors retaining an independent expert is an insult to
everyone's intelligence, frankly."

Professor Morabito reviewed 35 Federal Court class actions in which
a judge appointed a contradictor/costs referee to review the
reasonableness of the costs claimed in settlement approval
applications.

Of the 30 finalised cases, they recommended cuts in 23 to legal
fees and disbursements sought by plaintiffs.

The total deductions came to $12,211,464.24, with judges
implementing cuts worth $11,458,401.74.

The first referral was made in July 2017, but the pace has
accelerated: of the 35 referrals, 23 have been ordered since June
2019. The majority were shareholder claims.

The biggest deduction came in Prygodicz v The Commonwealth (the
Robodebt case), in which Justice Bernard Murphy accepted a
recommendation to decrease the fees and disbursements by
$4,016,982. The claim was settled for $1.2 billion.

Professor Morabito said: "Regardless of one's ideological,
conceptual or theoretical views on class actions and/or financial
interest in this type of litigation, it cannot be denied that this
finding provides strong objective evidence that the judicial
appointment of costs referees has been an extremely positive
development in the judicial protection of the interests of class
members."

The Coalition wants to mandate the use of contradictors as part of
a package of class action reforms that seeks to increase returns to
class members. It is one of the few measures that has the support
of Labor.

The study excluded the Banksia Securities class action, which was
settled for $64 million and approved by the Supreme Court of
Victoria in 2018. In 2019, the Court of Appeal refused to sign off
on the legal fees ($4.75 million) and funder's commission ($12.8
million) after a group member challenged the amounts.

Justice John Dixon then appointed a contradictor, which ultimately
led to an $11.7 million penalty plus a costs order of around $10
million. Those involved also gave up any claim on costs. [GN]

[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 2 - Register Now
------------------------------------------------------------------
Register for the 6th Annual Class Action Money & Ethics Conference,
Monday, May 2nd, at the Harmonie Club.

New speakers are announced weekly.  If your firm is interested in
sponsorship or a speaking opportunity, please 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 ***