/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220426.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, April 26, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 77

                            Headlines

A.S.I. HASTINGS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chamber Alleges
AAM HOLDING: Faces Thomas Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Club Dancers
ABBOTT TRUCKING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Alleges
AGING WITH CARE: Chey Seeks Home Care Workers' OT Pay Under FLSA
AGWAY ENERGY: Bid for Summary Judgment in Martinez Suit Granted

ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Cummings Sues Over Denied ACV Replacement Cost
AMAZON.COM INC: NuDerma Wand Unsafe to Use, Clark Action Suit Says
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Pays Manual Workers Every Other Week, Huy Says
BARNARD CONSTRUCTION: Gonzalez Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
BARNARD CONSTRUCTION: Rojas Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to S.D. Cal.

BURGER KING: Cooper Sues Over Burger Buyers' Exposure to PFAS
BUSINESS MACHINES: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of June 6 Deadline
CAMELBACK RECOVERY: Gaither Class Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA
CAPCON CONSTRUCTION: Bermudez Sues Over Laborers' Unpaid Wages
CE SOLUTIONS: Faces Burton FLSA Class Suit in S.D. New York

CHILDREN'S PLACE: Gonzalez Sues Over False Retail Pricing Scheme
COFIROUTE USA: Ninth Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Thakur Class Suit
COLONIAL LIFE: Alvitre Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Salespersons
CRESTLINE HOTELS: Scherer Seeks Accessible Hotel Rooms for Disabled
CRI-HELP INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bermudez Suit Alleges

DISA GLOBAL: Kusch FCRA Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
ELON R. MUSK: Rasella Sues Over Delayed Ownership Stake Disclosure
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Fuentes Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Rivera FCRA Suit
FARMERS FINANCIAL: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

FASHION NOVA: Suppresses Lower-Starred Reviews, Hines Suit Says
FAT BRANDS: Chipman Sues Over Decline of FAT Securities' Prices
FEDEX CORPORATION: Sobaskiewicz Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial
FERRARA CANDY: Faces Biczo Suit over Mislabeled Milk Products
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Kennedy FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey

FRANK LAROSE: Gonidakis, et al., File Bid for Class Status
GENESIS ENGINEERING: Curtis' $100K Class Deal Has Prelim. Approval
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORRUGATED: Final Judgment Entered in Schumacher
GOBRANDS INC: Mahoney Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
GOL LINHAS: Court Dismisses Securities Class Suit Without Prejudice

GREATBANC TRUST: Liable to ESOP's Losses, Colon Suit Alleges
GREEN DOT: Boardman Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class, Subclass
HAT WORLD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Astudillo Suit Alleges
HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL: Louis Labor Suit Goes to N.D. California
HOST HEALTHCARE: Blount's $1.55MM Class Settlement Wins Final Nod

HOT SPRING COUNTY, AR: Easley Suit Seeks to Certify Class
HOWARD BANK: Brasko Wins Class Certification Bid
HUTTIG BUILDING: Misleads Stockholders to OK Merger, Reith Says
HYATT HOTEL: Diona Ng Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
IMERYS FILTRATION: Scheduling Order Entered in Lewis Class Suit

INTUIT: Class Action Over Tax Filing Services Pending
JOYY INC: Demmissie Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
JUUL LABS: American Leadership Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Pike County Suit Says
JUUL LABS: Chippewa Hills Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign

JUUL LABS: DeWitt Public Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Willapa Valley Suit Claims
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Colfax Claims
JUUL LABS: Faces Adna School Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Ads
JUUL LABS: Faces Hanna Public Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads

JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Fulton City Suit Claims
JUUL LABS: New Haven Sues Over Deceptive Youth E-Cigarette Campaign
JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Rensselaer Alleges
JUUL LABS: Waterloo Central Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
KEN PAXTON: Bid to Certify Class Mooted in Valadez Suit

KEURIG DR PEPPER: Faces Acevedo Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Oglesbys Contend
LG ELECTRONICS: Wheeler Sues Over Dishwashers' Control Panel Defect
LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS: Barnish Sues Over 5.6% Decline of Stock Price
LILIUM NV: Faces Gnanaraj Suit Over Misleading Business Info

LONG POINT: Kohlberg Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
LOUISIANA: Davis Appeals Dismissal Bid Ruling in Williams  Suit
LOUISIANA: Summary Judgment in Mid-City v. State Police Affirmed
M-I LLC: Hearing on Last Class Status Bid Continued to August 12
MARRIOTT INT'L: Dismissal of Branca's Claims From Hall Suit OK'd

MCNEIL NUTRITIONALS: Court Dismisses DiCroce Suit Without Prejudice
MERRILL GARDENS: Ramirez Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. California
METHOD PRODUCTS: Illinois Court Narrows Claims in Horn BIPA Suit
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: Reese Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
MICHPAT & FAM: Appeals Class Cert Bid Ruling in Valdez FLSA Suit

MIDLAND CREDIT: Geddings FDCPA Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
MILLIMAN INC: Wins in Part Bid for Summary Judgment in Healy Suit
MONDELEZ INT'L: $8M Class Settlement in McMorrow Suit Has Final OK
MURAD LLC: DeCoursey Files Suit in N.D. New York
NATIONAL SECURITY: Proxy Statement "Misleading," Cohen Suit Claims

NESTLE USA: California Court Dismisses Prescott Suit With Prejudice
NEW JERSEY: Class Clarification Order Entered in Guille Suit
NEW YORK: Scheduling Order Entered in Sughrim Class Suit
NISSAN NORTH: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss All of Martinez's Claims
O'REILLY AUTO: Class Certification Filing Continued to Dec. 5

OPHTHOTECH CORPORATION: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 6 Deadline
P.F. CHANG'S: Sandoval Seeks to Recover Civil Penalties Under PAGA
PARK HOTELS: Morana Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal
PENNSYLVANIA: DOC's Objection to Rokita's Bid for MAT Overruled
PLAN BENEFIT: Amended Bid for Class Status Granted in Chavez

PREMIUM RETAIL: Fails to Pay Timely Wages, Montenegro Suit Says
PULSES LLC: Family Health Appeals TCPA Suit Dismissal
QUATTRO GATTI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mendoza Suit Alleges
RCI DINING: Bula Files Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming
RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Tataka's 2nd Amended Suit Dismissed W/o Prejudice

RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Smith Sues Over Drop of Stock Price Below IPO
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Seeks Denial of Class Certification Bid
ROSS TOOMBS: Court Narrows Claims in Timberg Amended Complaint
SEA WORLD: Bendorf Suit Remanded to San Diego County Superior Court
SETERUS INC: Martin Lemp Loses Bid to Certify Class

SIG SAUER: Faces Glasscock Suit Over Alleged Defective P320 Pistol
SOCIAL SECURITY: Thai Appeals Ruling in Civil Rights Suit
SOLSTICE BENEFITS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Lyngaas Alleges
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Berreyes Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. Cal.
STERLING JEWELERS: McCormack Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to S.D. Cal.

STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Glancy Prongay Discloses Securities Class Suit
STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Robbins Geller Reminds of June 13 Deadline
T. MARZETTI: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Olmos Suit
TAPESTRY INC: Brooks' Bid to Appoint Interim Class Counsel Tossed
TESLA: On Cusp of Losing Securities Class Action Over 2018 Tweets

TEXAS: Ward's Bid for Class Certification Granted in Part
TOUR RESOURCE: Court Certifies Narrower Class in Delcavo Suit
TUESDAY MORNING: Fails to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked, Suit Says
TUG HILL: RUSCO Can Intervene; Rogers' Class Complaint Dismissed
U.S. BANCORP: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Bogdanovs Files Suit in C.D. California
UNIQUE HEALTHCARE: Loses Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in Farhat Suit
UNITED ROAD: Sales Wins Bid for Class Certification
UNITED STATES: Althouse Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Ragland Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages

VIAQUEST RESIDENTIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chase Alleges
VILORE FOODS: Bid to Certify Class & Subclass in Gross Suit Denied
VITAMIN SHOPPE: Wins Summary Judgment v. Ferrari and Bohr
WHOLE FOODS: N.D. Illinois Grants Bid to Toss Cerretti Class Suit
WYNDHAM VACATION: Nolen Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling

YOUTH VILLAGES: Faces Hollingsworth FLSA Suit in W.D. Tennessee
Z&S DELI: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, Luque Suit Says
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Covell Sues Over Improper OD Fee Charges
[*] Securities Class Action Filings Down 34% in 2021
[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 2 - Be A Speaker


                            *********

A.S.I. HASTINGS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chamber Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
VANESSA CHAMBERS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A.S.I. HASTINGS, INC.; and
DOES1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2022-00014229-CU-OE-CTL (Cal., Sup., San Diego Cty., April 15,
2022) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and
rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements.

Plaintiff Chambers was employed by the Defendants as staff.

A.S.I. HASTINGS, INC. provides heating and air conditioning
services. The Company offers heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning equipment and accessories. A.S.I. Hastings serves
customers in the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leonel Fletes Jr., Esq.
          Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & YAECKEL LAW GROUP, APC
          2330 Third Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 702-6760
          Facsimile: (619) 702-6761
          Email: leof@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
                 yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com


AAM HOLDING: Faces Thomas Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Club Dancers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EUNICE RAQUEL FLORES THOMAS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AAM HOLDING CORP. d/b/a
FLASHDANCERS GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, 59 MURREY STREET ENTERPRISES, INC.
d/b/a FLASHDANCERS GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, BARRY LIPSITZ, and BARRY
LIPSITZ, JR., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03110 (S.D.N.Y., April
14, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act
including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide written
wage notice, failure to provide accurate wage statements, unlawful
wage deductions, unlawful retention of gratuities, and conversion.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a dancer from September
2019 until July 2021.

AAM Holding Corp., doing business as FlashDancers Gentlemen's Club,
is an owner and operator of an adult entertainment facility located
at 320 West 45th Street, New York, New York.

59 Murrey Street Enterprises, Inc., doing business as FlashDancers
Gentlemen's Club, is an owner and operator of an adult
entertainment facility located at 59 Murrey Street, New York, New
York. [BN]

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

ABBOTT TRUCKING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
ENOCH BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ABBOTT TRUCKING INC.; and RICKY ABBOTT, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02196 (E.D.N.Y., April 18, 2022) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Brown was employed by the Defendants as driver.

Abbott Trucking, Inc. is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181


AGING WITH CARE: Chey Seeks Home Care Workers' OT Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
SOPHANNARY CHEY, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees v. AGING WITH CARE INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01490 (E.D.
Pa., April 18, 2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
prejudgment interest; liquidated damages to the fullest extent; and
litigation costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees under the the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

The Defendant owns and operates a business that provides "home
care" services to clients in and around Southeastern Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a home care worker from
November 2019 until February 2022. Like other home care workers,
the Plaintiff often worked over 40 hours per week.

The Defendant paid Plaintiff and other home care workers an hourly
wage for their work. For most of Plaintiff's employment, Defendant
paid her a straight-time wage of $11.00/hour.

The Defendant employs workers who are paid on an hourly basis to
provide home care services to Defendant's clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

AGWAY ENERGY: Bid for Summary Judgment in Martinez Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTONIO MARTINEZ, in his capacity as executor of Naomi
Gonzales' estate, Plaintiff v. AGWAY ENERGY SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 5:18-CV-00235 (MAD/ATB) (N.D.N.Y.), Judge Mae
A. D'Agostino of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of New York granted the Defendant's motion for reconsideration of
the denial of its motion for summary judgment.

I. Background

Naomi Gonzales ("Decedent") commenced the putative class action
against Defendant Agway on Dec. 6, 2017. The Decedent purported to
bring the action on her own behalf and on behalf of (1) a class
consisting of Defendant's New York and Pennsylvania customers
charged a variable rate for residential electricity services from
November 2011 to the present; and (2) a sub-class of the
Defendant's New York customers charged a variable rate for
residential electricity services from November 2011 to the
present.

The Decedent asserted five claims against the Defendant: (1)
violations of New York General Business Law ("GBL") Section 349;
(2) violations of GBL Section 349-d; (3) breach of contract; (4)
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and
(5) unjust enrichment.

On Jan. 29, 2018, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. On Oct.
22, 2018, the Court dismissed the breach of implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment claims. The
Decedent passed away and, on April 1, 2021, Antonio Martinez was
substituted as the Plaintiff.

In August 2021, the parties made a number of motions in rapid
succession: (1) the Plaintiff moved for class certification; (2)
the Defendant moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to
strike the Plaintiff's proposed expert; (3) the Defendant moved to
deny class certification; (4) the Plaintiff moved to strike the
Defendant's motion to deny class certification; and (5) the
Defendant moved to strike the Plaintiff's statement of additional
material facts.

On Feb. 2, 2022, the Court ordered that (1) the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification was granted in part and denied in part and
the Defendant's motion to deny class certification was granted in
part and denied in part; (2) the Plaintiff's motion to strike the
Defendant's motion to deny class certification was denied; (3) the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted in part and
denied in part; (4) the Defendant's motion to strike the
Plaintiff's proposed expert was granted; and (5) the Defendant's
motion to strike the Plaintiff's statement of additional material
facts was denied (the "challenged Order").

Currently before the Court is the Defendant's motion for
reconsideration of the challenged Order to the extent that it (1)
denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the
Plaintiff's claims under GBL Sections 349 and 349-d, and (2)
granted class certification as to those claims. In the alternative,
the Defendant asks the Court to certify an interlocutory appeal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b).

The Plaintiff opposes the Defendant's motion and cross-moves for
reconsideration of the challenged Order to the extend it (1)
granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the
Plaintiff's breach of contract claim, (2) denied the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification as to that claim, and (3) granted
the Defendant's motion to strike the expert testimony of Dr.
Felder.

II. Discussion

The parties do not identify an intervening change in controlling
law or new evidence not previously available. Therefore, both the
Plaintiff's and the Defendant's motions are seeking to correct a
clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.

A. Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Reconsideration

1. Timeliness

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's cross motion for
reconsideration is untimely. Local Rule 60.1 provides that, "unless
otherwise provided by the Court, by statute or rule, a party may
file and serve a motion for reconsideration or reargument no later
than 14 days after the entry of the challenged order." The
Plaintiff's cross motion for reconsideration of the challenged
Order was filed on March 9, 2022, 36 days after the challenged
Order was entered.

The Plaintiff argues that his motion was timely because it comports
with the timeliness rules for cross motions. His cross motion for
reconsideration was filed 21 days after the Defendant's motion for
reconsideration.

Even assuming that a cross motion for reconsideration would be
untimely under these circumstances, Judge D'Agostino exercises
discretion to extend the deadline and treat the motion as timely.

2. The Second Circuit's Decision in Mirkin v. XOOM Energy, LLC

The Plaintiff argues that the Court failed to address "binding
Second Circuit precedent" in Mirkin v. XOOM Energy, LLC, 931 F.3d
173 (2d Cir. 2019). He contends that Mirkin "makes clear that
Richards v. Direct Energy Services, LLC, 915 F.3d 88 (2d Cir.
2019),] is not applicable to factual circumstances similar to the
one before the Court," but that "in circumstances such as these,
utility rates can and should be considered." In opposition, the
Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff's argument "is based on a
fundamental misunderstanding" of Mirkin and Richards, which may be
reconciled as "Richards setting forth the legal standard where the
contract at issue gives the Energy Services Co. ('ESCO') discretion
to set it pricing and Mirkin as setting forth the standard when the
contract requires the ESCO to charge 'market rate.'"

Judge D'Agostino holds, as the Court concluded when deciding the
challenged Order, that the contractual language in the Agreement is
far closer to that in Richards. Unlike Mirkin, the Agreement here
clearly allowed the Defendant to set the variable rate on far more
than just its supply costs; it specifically mentions
"market-related factors" and also includes "all applicable taxes,
fees, charges or other assessments and the Defendant's costs,
expenses and margins." Thus, she rejects the Plaintiff's argument
that the Court erred in relying on Richards when concluding that
the regulated rates of the incumbent utilities could not be used to
measure the competitiveness of the Defendant's rates.

3. Law of the Case Doctrine

The Plaintiff also argues that, under the law of the case doctrine,
it was clear error for the Court to conclude "that utility rates
cannot be used to evaluate ESCO rates" because that conclusion was
"inconsistent" with the Court's prior rulings. The Court holds that
the law of the case doctrine does not preclude it from holding that
the Plaintiff cannot "measure the competitiveness of Defendant's
rates solely against the regulated rates of the incumbent
utilities."

In any event, Judge D'Agostino finds that "the law of the case
doctrine is 'discretionary and does not limit a court's power to
reconsider its own decision prior to final judgment.'" Thus, to the
extent that there was any conflict between the February 25 Order
and the challenged Order, the Court was permitted to exercise its
discretion to reconsider the February 25 Order, even "on purely
legal grounds."

4. Plaintiff's Remaining Contentions

The Plaintiff's remaining contentions do not identify a clear error
of law and are improper for a motion to reconsider. Specifically,
his disagreement with how the Court interpreted and applied
Richards and Bell v. Gateway Energy Services Corp., 2018 N.Y. Slip
Op. 32370(U), 21 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 13, 2018); the Court's
analysis of the discretion afforded to the Defendant under the
Agreement; and the Court's striking of Dr. Felder's expert
testimony; amount to attempts to relitigate issues already decided.
Other arguments, such as the Plaintiff's contention that the Court
erred because, unlike Connecticut utilities, New York utilities buy
electricity on "open wholesale markets"; or that the Defendant
breached an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, are being
raised for the first time in this motion for reconsideration.

5. Conclusion

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's cross motion for reconsideration is
denied.

B. Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration

The Defendant argues that the Court should reconsider the partial
denial of its motion for summary judgment and dismiss the
Plaintiff's GBL claims. Specifically, it argues that the Court's
holdings with respect to the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim
rendered the Plaintiff's GBL claims "impossible to prove" because
both the breach of contract and GBL claims rest on a common
element; namely, whether "the Agreement contained 'deceptive and
false descriptions of the Defendant's pricing methodology' that
could 'deceive a reasonable customer.'"

The Plaintiff opposes this argument on two grounds. First, he
argues that the breach of contract claim and the GBL claims are
distinct in that they are based on different allegations;
specifically, "the crux of his contract claim is that the Defendant
breached the contract by failing to charge competitive rates based
on market costs," while "the crux of the GBL claim is that the
Defendant deceptively induced him to switch from a local utility to
the Defendant based on the use of a teaser rate and false promises
of competitive rates based on market costs." Second, the Plaintiff
argues that the challenged Order does not preclude him from proving
the GBL claims because the challenged Order held only "that he
cannot use utility rates to prove that the Defendant's rates are
not competitive," not "that it complied with the terms of its
contract."

Judge D'Agostino holds that contrary to the Plaintiff's argument,
the outcome in the challenged Order was not "consistent with
rulings in virtually identical cases." In Bell, the representation
of the variable rate as "competitive" was made in a communication
subsequent to -- and separate from -- the parties' contract, and
the court did not consider it when dismissing the breach of
contract claim. The court in Bell concluded that there was a
triable issue of fact as to whether the promise of competitive
energy rates in the separate communication was deceptive or
misleading in a material way, under the specific evidence in that
case. The Plaintiff also relies on Simmons v. Ambit Energy
Holdings, LLC, 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 32107(U), 1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct.
24, 2016), but that case was decided under the standard of a motion
to dismiss—not a motion for summary judgment -- and did not even
include a breach of contract claim.

Accordingly, the Defendant's motion for reconsideration is granted
and the Plaintiff's GBL Sections 349 and 349-d claims are
dismissed. In light of the dismissal of the Plaintiff's only
remaining claims, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
and the Defendant's motion to deny class certification are denied
as moot.

III. Conclusion

After carefully reviewing the record in the matter, the parties'
submissions, and the applicable law, and for the stated reasons,
Judge D'Agostino (i) granted the Defendant's motion for
reconsideration; (ii) denied the Plaintiff's cross motion for
reconsideration; (iii) granted the Defendant's motion for summary
judgment in its entirety; (iv) denied as moot the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification; and (v) denied as moot the
Defendant's motion to deny class certification.

The Clerk of the Court will serve a copy of the Memorandum-Decision
and Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2022 Memorandum-Decision
& Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3fu26r5e from
Leagle.com.

TODD S. GARBER, ESQ. -- tgarber@fbfglaw.com -- CHANTAL KHALIL, ESQ.
-- ckhalil@fbfglaw.com -- DOUGLAS G. BLANKINSHIP, ESQ. --
gblankinship@fbfglaw.com -- FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON
& GARBER, LLP, in White Plains, New York, Attorneys for the
Plaintiff.

BRENDAN M. SHEEHAN, ESQ. -- bsheehan@bsk.com -- SHARON M.
PORCELLIO, ESQ. -- sporcellio@bsk.com -- BOND SCHOENECK & KING,
PLLC, in Syracuse, New York, Attorneys for the Defendant.

JOHN D. COYLE, ESQ. -- info@coylelawgroup.com -- COYLE LAW GROUP
LLP, in Morristown, New Jersey, Attorneys for the Defendant.


ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Cummings Sues Over Denied ACV Replacement Cost
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAGGIWA CUMMINGS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00247-JWD-EWD (M.D.
La., April 14, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for
breach of contract.

According to the complaint, the Defendant systematically and
uniformly underpaid the Plaintiff and thousands of other putative
Class members who suffered total loss of a vehicle insured under
Allstate's automobile policy with comprehensive and collision
coverage. Insureds, such as the Plaintiff and the putative Class
members, pay a premium in exchange for Allstate's promise to repair
any damage to an insured vehicle caused by a covered peril.
However, Allstate refuses to pay the full actual cash value (ACV)
replacement cost including but not limited to any amount for, in
some cases, sales tax on the vehicle value or some or all title
transfer fees or some or all plate transfer fees and registration
fees, despite its obligation to pay the reasonably necessary costs
to buy another vehicle.

Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company is an insurance
company, with its principal place of business at 2775 Sanders Road,
Northbrook, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
         Soren E. Gisleson, Esq.
         John S. Creevy, Esq.
         Charles M. King, Esq.
         HERMAN HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
         820 O'Keefe Avenue
         New Orleans, LA 70113
         Telephone: (504) 581-4892
         Facsimile: (504) 561-6024
         E-mail: sherman@hhklawfirm.com
                 sgisleson@hhklawfirm.com
                 jcreevy@hhklawfirm.com
                 cking@hhklawfirm.com

                  - and –

         Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
         Amy L. Judkins, Esq.
         NORMAND PLLC
         3165 McCrory Place, Ste. 175
         Orlando, FL 32803
         Telephone: (407) 603-6031
         E-mail: amy.judkins@normandpllc.com
                 ed@normandpllc.com
                 ean@normandpllc.com

AMAZON.COM INC: NuDerma Wand Unsafe to Use, Clark Action Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JASMIN CLARK, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Washington corporation; DAJ
DISTRIBUTION, INC. dba ONYX DISTRIBUTION, INC.., a California 5.
VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA'S corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive,
Case No. 30-2022-01255339-CU-PL-CXC-ROA (Cal., Super., Orange Cty.,
April 18, 2022) is a class action brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and all persons that purchased a NuDenna Skin Wand via
Defendant Amazon's storefront called Pure Daily Care ("NuDerma
Wand" or "NuDerma Wands").

The Nu.Derma Wands have been described as a "system that
specializes in different areas of skin therapy like acne treatment
and wrinkle reduction but regular use provides a drastic overall
improvement in skin profile."

The NuDerma Wands were and are represented to be safe. The
Plaintiff alleges that they did not come with warning labels
regarding potential malfunction. For example, the NuDerma Wands
were advertised as follows: "Nuderma produces 10 watts of power at
high frequency 50-60Hz waves which is completely painless and
effective in reducing wrinkles and fine lines overtime by boosting
circulation and collagen product which help plump skin cells to
fill in voids which are the underlying cause of wrinkles and fine
lines."

The NuDerma Wands were  manufactured by Defendant ONYX and shipped
directly to class members from and by Defendant Amazon, after
payment was made to Defendant Amazon for the NuDerma Wands.

The Plaintiff purchased the NuDerma Wand via the Pure Daily Care
storefront and received the wand, and on April 18, 2020,
Plaintiff's purchased NuDerma Wand exploded in her hand and sliced
her finger, which necessitated stitches.

The Plaintiff alleges that she used the NuDerma Wand consistent
with how an average consumer would normally use the product.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of individuals composed of
and defined as follows:

   "All individuals in California that pnn:hased a NuDerma Wand
   from the Pure Daily Care storefront between April 18, 2018 and
   the present (the "Class Period") (the "Class" or "Class Member"

   or "Class Members").

The Defendants, and each of them, breached the implied warranty
that the NuDerma Wand was not of merchantable quality and was not
safe and fit for its intended uses, the lawsuit suit says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eduardo Martorell, Esq.
          Jean-Paul Le Clercq, Esq.
          MARTORELL LAW APC
          Playa District
          6100 Center Drive, Suite I 130
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (323) 840-1200
          Facsimile: (323) 840-1300
          E-mail: EMartorell@Martorell-Law.com
                  JPLeClercq@Martorell-Law.com

AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Pays Manual Workers Every Other Week, Huy Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LEO HUY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AMC ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC., Case No.
7:22-cv-03183 (S.D.N.Y., April 18, 2022) is a class action on
behalf of all employees of AMC 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 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 violated and continues to violate this law by
paying its manual every other week rather than on a weekly basis,
says the suit.

The Plaintiff therefore demands liquidated damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees individually and on behalf of a putative class
comprised of all manual workers employed by the Defendant in New
York State over the last six years.[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

BARNARD CONSTRUCTION: Gonzalez Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled FRANK GONZALEZ, FRANCISCO GONZALEZ RIOS, and PABLO
GONZALEZ RIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BARNARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INCORPORATED; BFBC, LLC;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
37-2021-00045784-CU-OECTL, 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 18, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00534-LL-MDD to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum and straight time wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods,
failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay
final wages at termination, failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, failure to indemnify employees for expenditures,
unfair business practices, and civil penalties.

Barnard Construction Company, Incorporated is a construction
engineering company, with its principal place of business in
Bozeman, Montana.

BFBC, LLC is a subsidiary of Barnard Construction Company, Inc.,
with its principal place of business in Bozeman, Montana. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Brandon D. Saxon, Esq.
         GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
         101 W. Broadway Suite 2000
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 544-7229
         Facsimile: (619) 696-7124
         E-mail: bsaxon@grsm.com

BARNARD CONSTRUCTION: Rojas Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to S.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARGARITO RAMIREZ ROJAS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. BARNARD CONTRUCTION; BARNARD
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. ECU002117, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Imperial, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on April 18, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00533-AJB-KSC to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest periods, waiting time penalties, wage statement violations,
failure to pay timely wages, unfair competition, and civil
penalties.

Barnard Construction is a construction firm, with its principal
place of business in Bozeman, Montana.

Barnard Construction Company, Inc. is a construction engineering
company, with its principal place of business in Bozeman, Montana.
[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Brandon D. Saxon, Esq.
         GORDON & REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
         101 W. Broadway Suite 2000
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 544-7229
         Facsimile: (619) 696-7124
         E-mail: bsaxon@grsm.com

BURGER KING: Cooper Sues Over Burger Buyers' Exposure to PFAS
-------------------------------------------------------------
RHONDA COOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BURGER KING CORPORATION d/b/a BURGER KING,
Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-21150-JAL (S.D. Fla., April 14, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendant for breach of express
warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, unjust
enrichment, and violations of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, and state consumer
protection statutes.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of
its certain food products, particularly the Whopper burger. The
Defendant failed to disclose to its consumers that its products
contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a group of
synthetic chemicals known to be harmful to both the environment and
humans. The Defendant represents that the products are safe and
effective for their intended use, and reasonable consumers expect
that the products will not contain dangerous, synthetic chemicals
like PFAS. Had the Plaintiff and the putative Class members known
the truth, they would not have purchased the products and/or would
have paid less for them.

Burger King Corporation, doing business as Burger King, is a
restaurant company based in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Daniel D. Dolan, II, Esq.
         DOLAN DOBRINSKY ROSENBLUM BLUESTEIN LLP
         2665 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 603
         Miami, FL 33133
         Telephone: (305) 371-2692
         Facsimile: (305) 371-2691
         E-mail: DDolan@DDRLawyers.com

                 - and –

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

BUSINESS MACHINES: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of June 6 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in International Business
Machines Corporation ("IBM" or the "Company") (NYSE: IBM) of a
class action securities lawsuit.

CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of
IBM investors who were adversely affected by alleged securities
fraud between April 4, 2017 and October 20, 2021. Follow the link
below to get more information and be contacted by a member of our
team:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ibm-loss-submission-form?prid=25919&wire=4

IBM investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500.

CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed 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.

WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in IBM during the relevant time
frame, 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.

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.
There is no cost or obligation to participate.

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. [GN]


CAMELBACK RECOVERY: Gaither Class Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Gaither, filing individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Camelback Recovery, L.L.C., an Arizona
Limited Liability Company, Timothy Westbrook, an unmarried
individual, and Lynda Davis, an unmarried individual, Case No.
2:22-cv-00639-SPL (D. Ariz., April 18, 2022) arises from the
illegal employment actions of Camelback Recover and Defendants
Westbrook and Davis involving violations of the overtime wage
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants allegedly misclassified Plaintiff and the Collective
Action Members as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA
and failed to pay them overtime wages when they worked over 40
hours in any workweek in violation of the FLSA.

This action is brought to recover all damages available to the
Plaintiff and the Collective Action Members under the FLSA
including such things as unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Camelback Recovery and Defendants Westbrook and Davis operate
multiple sober living residential facilities in the Phoenix,
Arizona metropolitan. Some of these facilities are for men and
others are for women.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Pruitt, Esq.
          Nathaniel Hill, Esq.
          JACKSONWHITE
          40 North Center, Suite 200
          Mesa, AZ 85201
          Telephone: (480) 464-1111
          Facsimile: (480) 464-5692
          E-mail: centraldocket@jacksonwhitelaw.com
                  mpruitt@jacksonwhitelaw.com
                  nhill@jacksonwhitelaw.com

CAPCON CONSTRUCTION: Bermudez Sues Over Laborers' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
FLORENTINO BERMUDEZ, FRANKLYN ARCHER, MIGUEL MARTINEZ, and OSCAR
SUAZO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CAPCON CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES CORP., CAPCON
CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY CORP., JAB MASONRY CORP., AGRA MASONRY INC.,
ALEX SHVARTSBERG, and DARREN CAPUTO, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-02235 (E.D.N.Y., April 19, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay spread of hours
premium, unlawful wage deductions, failure to timely pay wages,
failure to provide payroll notices, failure to provide wage
statements, retaliation, and fraudulent filing of information
returns.

Plaintiffs Bermudez and Archer were employed by the Defendants as
masons from February 2018 until August 28, 2020 and from February
2019 until March 30, 2021, respectively.

Plaintiffs Martinez and Suazo were employed by the Defendants as
laborers from August 2016 until August 18, 2020 and from September
2017 until August 21, 2020, respectively.

Capcon Construction Industries Corp. is a construction company
based in Ossining, New York.

Capcon Construction Supply Corp. is a construction company based in
Ossining, New York.

Jab Masonry Corp. is a construction services provider based in
Ossining, New York.

Agra Masonry Inc. is a construction services provider based in
Brooklyn, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Katherine Morales, Esq.
         KATZ MELINGER PLLC
         370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (212) 460-0047
         Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
         E-mail: kymorales@katzmelinger.com

CE SOLUTIONS: Faces Burton FLSA Class Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
ELIJAH BURTON, DONESHA BURTON, KELSEY FLEMING, QUINCY AUSTIN, and
EDGAR TORRES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. CE SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC, FLAGGING SPOTTING
FLIPPING SERVICES INC., CE FLAGGING PLUS CORP., ARGANI INC., EDWARD
SLININ, DORA SLININ, and GARY SAMUEL, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-03213 (S.D.N.Y., April 19, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay spread of hours
premium, failure to provide payroll notices, and failure to provide
wage statements.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt
employees at any time between from 2015 and 2022.

CE Solutions Group, LLC is a staffing company based in Brooklyn,
New York.

Flagging Spotting Flipping Services Inc. is a flagging services
provider based in Jamaica, New York.

CE Flagging Plus Corp. is a flagging services provider based in
Staten Island, New York.

Argani Inc. is a flagging services provider based in Staten Island,
New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
         Michael R. Minkoff, Esq.
         JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
         110 East 59th Street, Suite 3200
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (212) 227-5700
         Facsimile: (212) 656-1889

CHILDREN'S PLACE: Gonzalez Sues Over False Retail Pricing Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIELA GONZALEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE CHILDREN'S PLACE, INC. and DOES 1- 50,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-00816 (C.D. Cal., April 14,
2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
California's Unfair Competition Laws, False Advertising Laws, and
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged deceptive business
practice of advertising fictitious "original" prices and
corresponding phantom discounts on its e-commerce website,
childrensplace.com, where it sells children's apparel and
accessories. This practice artificially inflates the true market
price for these products by raising consumers' internal reference
price and in turn the value consumers ascribe to these products. As
a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and Class
members are misled to believe that the product they are buying has
a higher market value.

The Children's Place, Inc. is a specialty retailer of children's
apparel and accessories headquartered in New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
         Scott G. Braden, Esq.
         LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
         1350 Columbia Street, Ste. 603
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 762-1910
         Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
         E-mail: todd@lcllp.com
                 scott@lcllp.com

COFIROUTE USA: Ninth Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Thakur Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SANKET VINOD THAKUR, an individual person on behalf of
himself and all other persons and entities similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant v. COFIROUTE USA, a Delaware limited liability
company; et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 21-55364 (9th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal of the putative class action against the
Defendants-Appellees.

Mr. Thakur appeals the district court's dismissal of the putative
class action against Cofiroute, the Orange County Transportation
Authority ("OCTA"), and the Riverside County Transportation
Commission ("RCTC"). Thakur admits to driving on the 91 Express
Lanes without a transponder linked to a properly funded FasTrak
account, which is required to lawfully use the toll road. Cofiroute
sent Thakur a notice of toll evasion, which stated that Thakur
violated Cal. Veh. Code Section 23302 and encouraged him to become
a FasTrak customer. Thakur alleges that by mailing the notice,
Cofiroute provided the U.S. Postal Service with his personally
identifiable information ("PII") and marketed toll-related services
to him in violation of California law, and that OCTA and RCTC are
vicariously liable for Cofiroute's conduct. The district court
dismissed the operative complaint for failure to state a claim. The
Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1291.

Mr. Thakur's claims for statutory penalties against OCTA and RCTC
are barred by the California Government Claims Act (the "Claims
Act"). "Under the Claims Act, no suit for 'money or damages' may be
brought against a public entity until a written claim has been
presented to the entity and the claim either has been acted upon or
is deemed to have been rejected." If the public entity rejects the
claim in a written notice, a claimant has six months "after the
date such notice is personally delivered or deposited in the mail"
to file suit. Thakur filed the lawsuit nearly one year after OCTA
and RCTC rejected his claims. Those claims are thus untimely under
the Claims Act.

The Ninth Circuit declines to equitably toll the limitations period
because Thakur engaged in forum-shopping. It finds that after he
received OCTA's and RCTC's rejection letters, Thakur added them as
Defendants in a case pending in state court. Thakur voluntarily
dismissed that case after he received an unfavorable pretrial
ruling and refiled his case in federal court. The district court
dismissed Thakur's case for lack of jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act, noting that state court was a "suitable" forum
"to determine the pervasive California interests at stake." Yet
Thakur refiled the instant action in federal court, alleging a
narrower class definition. Given this conduct, Thakur cannot
establish "the reasonable and good faith pursuit of an alternative
remedy necessary to equitably toll the statute of limitations under
California law."

Even if Thakur had complied with the Claims Act, the Ninth Circuit
holds that the district court's dismissal of the operative
complaint was proper because it lacks a cognizable legal theory. It
says, California prohibits transportation agencies, like Cofiroute,
from using a nonsubscriber's PII "to market products or services to
that nonsubscriber." But, the prohibition does "not apply to
toll-related products or services contained in a notice of toll
evasion issued pursuant to Section 23302 of the Vehicle Code."

Mr. Thakur concedes that the notice he received was issued pursuant
to Cal. Veh. Code Section 23302, yet he insists that it does not
fall within Cal. Sts. & High. Code Section 31490(k)'s exception. To
support his position, Thakur isolates two virtually identical
provisions in ordinances issued by OCTA and RCTC. The provisions
provide:"Any Motorists assessed a Penalty for a Violation will be
deemed to be charged with a non-criminal, civil violation, pursuant
to Section 23302.5 subdivision (a) of the Code." Based solely on
that language, Thakur argues that Cal. Veh. Code Section 23302.5
was "the only statute" Cofiroute could cite when issuing notices of
toll evasion.

The Ninth Circuit disagrees. It holds that Thakur's restrictive
reading of the ordinance overlooks the statutory scheme that
governs how transportation agencies must enforce toll violations. A
sensible reading of the relevant law is that Cal. Veh. Code Section
23302 defines the prima facie evidence necessary to establish a
toll violation; Cal. Veh. Code Section 23302.5 specifies that a
toll violation is a civil offense; and Cal. Veh. Code Sections
40250-40273 provide "the civil administrative procedures" governing
enforcement. Consistent with Cal. Veh. Code Sections 23302.5 and
40250(a), the OCTA ordinance deems a "Violation" to be "a
non-criminal, civil violation." A "Violation," as defined by the
OCTA Ordinance, prohibits the same conduct as Cal. Veh. Code
Section 23302. And California law required Cofiroute to include a
"reference to the section violated" in notices of toll evasion.

Because the ordinances do not preclude Cofiroute from issuing
notices of toll evasion pursuant to Cal. Veh. Code Section 23302,
and the at-issue notices were issued pursuant to that statute, the
Ninth Circuit concludes that the notices fall squarely within the
exception in Cal. Sts. & High. Code Section 31490(k). Thakur's
complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory. Accordingly, the Ninth
Circuit affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2022 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3jepvz3j from Leagle.com.


COLONIAL LIFE: Alvitre Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Salespersons
--------------------------------------------------------------
SOCORRO OLIVIA ALVITRE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE
COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
22STCV12821 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 15, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of California
Labor Code's Private Attorney General Act including
misclassification of aggrieved employees as independent
contractors, failure to pay earned wages and minimum wages, failure
to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal and rest
breaks, failure to provide timely and accurate wage statements,
failure to timely provide earned wages upon separation, and failure
to reimburse business expenses.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an insurance salesperson
since May 2013.

Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Company is an American insurance
company based in Columbia, South Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Joseph Tojarieh, Esq.
         STONEBROOK LAW
         10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 100
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 553-5533
         Facsimile: (310) 553-5536
         E-mail: jft@stonebrooklaw.com

                 - and –

         Jasmine Duel, Esq.
         DUEL LAW FIRM
         270 North Canon Drive, Third Floor
         Beverly Hills, CA 90210
         Telephone: (310) 975-7095
         Facsimile: (310) 846-8549
         E-mail: jasmine@duellawfirm.com

CRESTLINE HOTELS: Scherer Seeks Accessible Hotel Rooms for Disabled
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GARY SCHERER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CRESTLINE HOTELS & RESORTS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 0:22-cv-00966-KMM-LIB (D. Minn., April 15, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendant for violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to comply with the
general accessibility mandate of the ADA by placing inaccessible
beds in its hotel rooms for people with disabilities. The Plaintiff
and Class members seek injunctive and declaratory relief to compel
the Defendant to make reasonable modifications to facilitate
accessibility by eliminating this issue in its accessible rooms.

Crestline Hotels & Resorts, LLC is a hotel company with its
principal place of business in Fairfax, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
         CARLSON BROWN
         222 Broad St.
         PO Box 242
         Sewickley, PA 15143
         Telephone: (724) 730-1753
         E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonbrownlaw.com

                 - and –

         Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
         James M. LaMarca, Esq.
         LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
         1133 Penn Avenue Floor 5
         Pittsburgh, PA 15222
         Telephone: (412) 322-9243
         E-mail: nickc@lcllp.com
                 james@lcllp.com

                 - and –

         Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
         Chad Throndset, Esq.
         THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
         Cornerstone Building
         One Central Avenue West, Suite 203
         St. Michael, MN 55376
         Telephone: (763) 515-6110
         E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com
                 chad@throndsetlaw.com

CRI-HELP INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bermudez Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN BERMUDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CRI-HELP, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22BBCV00251 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles
Cty., April 18, 2022) is an action against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and
permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Bermudez was employed by the Defendants as staff.

CRI-HELP, INC. is a drug rehab center offering rehabilitation
treatment programs for drug addiction in Los Angeles. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
          Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
          Kevin P. Crough, Esq.
          HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
          801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 696-2306
          Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
          Email: haig@hbklawyers.com
                 cathy@hbklawyers.com
                 kevin@hbklawyers.com

DISA GLOBAL: Kusch FCRA Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as David E. Kusch, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. DISA Global Solutions, Inc.,
University MRO, LLC d/b/a University Services, Case No. 220200389
was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
on April 14, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-01465 to the
proceeding.

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

DISA -- https://disa.com/ -- has been providing innovative
workplace safety and compliance services for over 25 years.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ELON R. MUSK: Rasella Sues Over Delayed Ownership Stake Disclosure
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARC BAIN RASELLA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELON R. MUSK, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-03026 (S.D.N.Y., April 12, 2022) is a federal securities
class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of all investors
who sold or otherwise disposed of Twitter, Inc. securities between
March 24, 2022, and April 1, 2022, inclusive, pursuing claims under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Elon Musk is the founder of Tesla and SpaceX, and according to
Forbes, is the richest person in the world. Beginning in January
2022, Musk started to acquire shares of Twitter. By March 14, 2022,
Musk had acquired more than a 5% ownership stake in Twitter.
Pursuant to Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 13d-1
promulgated thereunder, Musk was required to file a Schedule 13
with the SEC within 10 days of passing the 5% ownership threshold
in Twitter, or March 24, 2022.

Allegedly, Musk did not file a Schedule 13 with the SEC within the
required time and instead continued to amass Twitter shares,
eventually acquiring a 9.1% stake in the Company before finally
filing a Schedule 13 on April 4, 2022. When Musk finally filed the
required Schedule 13, thereby revealing his ownership stake in
Twitter, the Company's shares rose from a closing price of $39.31
per share on April 1, 2022, to close at $49.97 per share on April
4, 2022 - an increase of approximately 27%.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendant made materially false
and misleading statements and omissions by failing to disclose to
investors that he had acquired a 5% ownership stake in Twitter as
required by Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 13d-1
promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.13d-1, says the
suit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
          Nathaniel Silver, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
          E-mail: jeff@blockleviton.com
                  jake@blockleviton.com
                  nate@blockleviton.com

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Fuentes Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Services 2, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Sandra Fuentes,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Enhanced Recovery Services 2, Inc. doing business as: Enhanced
Recovery Services, Charles Gilley, Kimberly Gilley, Mark Nestor,
Judson Phillips, John Huffman, Mark Nonsant, Does 1-25, Case No.
1:22-cv-00317-RP (W.D. Tex., April 5, 2022).

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

Enhanced Recovery Company (ERC) -- https://enhancedrecoveryinc.com/
-- is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Trotter, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          THOMASSON PLLC
          16414 San Pedro Ave., Suite 700
          San Antonio, TX 78232
          Phone: (940) 631-0095
          Email: ben@thomassonpllc.com
                 Andrew@Thomassonpllc.com



EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Rivera FCRA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Equifax Information Services LLC filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled FRANCISCO JOEL RIVERA, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. EQUIFAX
INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-04639-AT-CCB, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The Plaintiff brings this putative class action alleging that
Defendant willfully and negligently violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA), by failing to reinvestigate certain disputed
inquiries in consumer credit files.

The Plaintiff alleges that he disputed the inclusion of this
inquiry on his Equifax credit report multiple times, but Equifax,
in line with its longstanding company practice, failed to abide by
its obligation under 15 U.S.C. section 1681i(a)(1)(A) to either
reinvestigate Plaintiff's dispute or remove the inquiry.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent the following class:

   "During the period beginning two years prior to the filing of
   this action and through the time of class notice, all persons
   residing in the U.S. and its Territories to whom Equifax sent
   a document containing a statement that "inquiries are a
   factual record of file access" in response to a written
   dispute of one or more hard inquiries."

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 28, 2021, the Hon.
Judge Christopher Bly recommended that the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification be denied.

On March 30, 2022, the Court sustained all of Plaintiff's
objections to Judge Bly's report and recommendation (R&R) but
adopted the undisputed aspects of the R&R. Thus, the Court granted
Plaintiff's motion to certify class.

The Defendant now seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Equifax Information Services LLC
v. Francisco Joel Rivera, Case No. 22-90008, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on April 13,
2022.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC is
represented by:

          Gabriel Krimm, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, LLP
          1700 Pennsylvania Ave NW Ste 200
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 737-0500

               - and -

          Zachary Andrew McEntyre, Esq.
          Billie Barker Pritchard, Esq.
          John C. Toro, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, LLP
          1180 Peachtree St Ne Ste 1600
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Telephone: (404) 572-4600

Plaintiff-Respondent FRANCISCO JOEL RIVERA, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Micah S. Adkins, Esq.
          THE ADKINS FIRM, PC
          5400 Lyndon B Johnson Fwy Ste 1200
          Dallas, TX 75240
          Telephone: (214) 974-4030

               - and -

          Clifton Dorsen, Esq.
          James Marvin Feagle, Esq.
          SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
          2374 Main St Ste B
          Tucker, GA 30084
          Telephone: (404) 373-1978

               - and -

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          Jordan M. Sartell, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, PC
          1600 Market St Fl 25 Ste 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600

               - and -

          Robert S. Sola, Esq.
          ROBERT S. SOLA, PC
          1500 SW 1st Ave Ste 800
          Portland, OR 97201

FARMERS FINANCIAL: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Farmers Financial
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Farmers Financial
Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03117 (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2022).

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

Farmers Financial Solutions, LLC --
https://www.farmers.com/financial/ -- operates as an investment
advisory firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FASHION NOVA: Suppresses Lower-Starred Reviews, Hines Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
KERRY HINES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FASHION NOVA, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-02241 (D.N.J.,
April 18, 2022) is a class action regarding the Defendant's
intentional suppression of hundreds of thousands of 1-star, 2-star,
and 3-star consumer reviews from its online website to artificially
inflate the value of its products.

When shopping online, consumers heavily rely on reviews from fellow
shoppers. In fact, 93% of adults in the United States read reviews
before making online purchases.

Fashion Nova, an almost exclusively online retailer, has made
millions of dollars selling clothing, apparel, accessories, and
more on its website, fashionnova.com.

Taking advantage of the fact that prospective consumers rely on
fellow consumers' reviews prior to making an online purchase, the
Defendant intentionally suppressed Lower-Starred Reviews for all
Products on its website, the suit says.

Specifically, the Federal Trade Commission found that "from as
early as late 2015 through mid-November 2019, Fashion Nova chose to
have four- and five-star reviews automatically post to the website
but did not approve or publish hundreds of thousands lower-starred,
more negative reviews."

Had Defendant not engaged in these alleged deceptive and unfair
practices, the average ratings, and inherent value to prospective
consumers, of Defendant's Products would have been lower. Moreover,
the written reviews would have provided more information to
prospective consumers, including concerns over the quality of the
Products, prior to deciding whether to purchase said Products.

Aa result, had Defendant not suppressed the Lower-Starred Reviews,
Plaintiff and other consumers would not have purchased a number of
Products, or would have paid substantially less for the Products,
because the Products would have been rated poorly and deterred
Plaintiff and other consumers from making purchases, the suit
added.

The Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of herself and similarly
situated purchasers of Defendant’s Products for violations of the
consumer protections laws of New Jersey.

Ms. Hines purchased multiple shirts, dresses, jeans, and skirts
from Defendant's website in February 2018, September 2018, October
2018, and November 2018. Ms. Hines reviewed and relied on the
highly rated consumer reviews on the Products prior to purchasing
said Products. Had Defendant not suppressed the Lower-Starred
Reviews of the Products, Ms. Hines would not have purchased the
Products or would have paid substantially less for them.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          Max S. Roberts, Esq.
          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Rachel L. Miller, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
                  mroberts@bursor.com
                  ltfisher@bursor.com
                  rmiller@bursor.com

FAT BRANDS: Chipman Sues Over Decline of FAT Securities' Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
KERRY CHIPMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FAT BRANDS INC., ANDREW WIEDERHORN, RON ROE,
REBECCA HERSHINGER, and KEN KUICK, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-02541 (C.D. Cal., April 15, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) regarding FAT Brands' business, operational and
financial results in order to trade FAT Brands securities at
artificially inflated prices between December 4, 2017 and February
18, 2022. Specifically, the Defendants 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 CEO and COO were under
investigation regarding transactions with the company; and (6) as a
result, the Defendants' public statements were materially false
and/or misleading at all relevant times.

When the truth emerged, FAT Brands' class A common stock price,
class B common stock, preferred stock price, and warrants' price
fell 23 percent, 17 percent, 30 percent, and 35 percent,
respectively, on February 22, 2022, on unusually heavy trading
volume, damaging investors, says the suit.

FAT Brands Inc. is a franchising company with its principal
executive offices at 9720 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 500, Beverly Hills,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
         POMERANTZ LLP
         1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Telephone: (310) 405-7190
         E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

                 - and –

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
         60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 697-6484
         Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
         E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

FEDEX CORPORATION: Sobaskiewicz Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Shannon Sobaskiewicz, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled HERMAN OVERPECK, et
al., Plaintiffs v. FEDEX CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No.
18-cv-07553-PJH, pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.

The lawsuit is a putative class action brought by current or former
long-haul and local delivery drivers who provided transportation
and delivery services in California for defendants FedEx Ground
Package System, Inc. ("FedEx Ground") and FedEx Corp.
(collectively, "the FedEx defendants" or "FedEx"). The Plaintiffs
allege that FedEx's labor force was previously made up of
individual drivers that FedEx hired directly and labeled as
independent contractors. They allege that, following litigation
challenging the "independent contractor" classification, FedEx then
pivoted to an "independent service provider" ("ISP") model. The
Plaintiffs allege that the ISPs are "little more than job placement
outfits," and that the ISP model is "just a continuation of FedEx's
continuing practice of misrepresenting and obscuring the true
relationship between FedEx and its drivers: That of
employer-employee."

On Dec. 14, 2018, Plaintiffs Herman Overpeck and Kevin Sterling
filed a putative class action against FedEx. On Jan. 29, 2020, the
Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint ("FAC"),
which added a new named Plaintiff, Shannon Sobaszkiewicz, and
alleged 12 causes of action: (1) Common Law Fraudulent
Misrepresentation; (2) Common Law Conversion; (3) Failure to Pay
for All Hours Worked, Cal. Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 204,
221-23, and 226.2; (4) Failure to Provide Meal Periods, Cal. Labor
Code Sections 226.7, 512 and 8 Cal. Code Regs. Section 11090; (5)
Failure to Provide Rest Periods, Cal. Labor Code Section 226.7 and
8 Cal. Code Regs. Section 11090; (6) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages,
Cal. Labor Code Sections 1182.11-82.12, 1194, and 1197-97.1; (7)
Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation, Cal. Labor Code Sections 510,
515.5, 1194, and 1198 et seq.; (8) Failure to Keep Accurate Payroll
Records, Cal. Labor Code Sections 1174-74.5; (9) Failure to Furnish
Accurate Wage Statements, Cal. Labor Code Section 226; (10) Waiting
Time Penalties, Cal. Labor Code Sections 201-03; (11) Unfair
Competition and Unlawful Business Practices, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Section(12) Private Attorneys General Act violations, Cal. Labor
Code Section 2698, et seq.

On March 12, 2021, the Plaintiffs sought to certify the following
class: "All individuals transporting packages for FedEx Ground
Package System, Inc. (FedEx Ground) in California, pursuant to an
Independent Service Provider Agreement (ISPA) and/or Transportation
Service Provider Agreement (TSPA) between FedEx Ground and a
Contract Service Provider (CSP) and while using a vehicle that is
operated by FedEx Ground under Department of Transportation (DOT)
regulations, at any time from Dec. 14, 2014 until the date class
notice is provided under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)."

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 12, 2022, Judge
Phyllis J. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and their motion to seal.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Shannon Sobaskiewicz, et al. v.
FedEx Corporation, et al., Case No. 22-80028, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 11,
2022.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners SHANNON SOBASKIEWICZ and KEVIN STERLING,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, and as
a proxy of the State of California on behalf of aggrieved
employees, and Herman Overpeck individually, only, are represented
by:

          Joshua G. Konecky, Esq.
          Nathan Bunnell Piller, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY, LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com
                  npiller@schneiderwallace.com  

               - and -

          Jeremy Pasternak, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JEREMY PASTERNAK, P.C.
          354 Pine Street, Fifth Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 693-0300
          E-mail: jdp@pasternaklaw.com       

Defendants-Respondents FEDEX CORPORATION and FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE
SYSTEM, INC. are represented by:

          Christopher M. Ahearn, Esq.
          FEDEX-FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
          3620 Hacks Cross Road
          Memphis, TN 38125
          Telephone: (949) 798-9090
          E-mail: cahearn@fisherphillips.com

               - and -

          Amberly A. Morgan, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP
          300 S Grand Avenue, Suite 1500
          Los Angeles, CA 90072
          Telephone: (213) 337-6568


FERRARA CANDY: Faces Biczo Suit over Mislabeled Milk Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA BICZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FERRARA CANDY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-01967 (N.D. Ill., April 16, 2022) is an action against the
Defendant's representation to its caramel candy as "Made with Real
Milk" and "Rich and Creamy," with a pitcher of milk under the
Brach's Milk Maid brand ("Product").

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's representations that the
Product is "Made With Real Milk," and "Rich and Creamy," with a
pitcher of milk, causes consumers to expect a non-de minims amount
of milk fat.

However, the representations are false, deceptive, and misleading,
because the fat content is exclusively from vegetable fat. Had the
Plaintiff and proposed class members known the truth, they would
not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it.

FERRARA CANDY COMPANY manufactures and distributes confectionery
products. The Company offers chocolates, candies, lemonhead, baked
beans, fruit stripes, gums, and chuckles. Ferrara Candy serves
customers in the States of Illinois and Pennsylvania. [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
          Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Kennedy FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sandra Kennedy, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc.,
Case No. ESX-L-007051-21 was removed from the New Jersey Superior
Court, Law Div - Essex County, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on April 14, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-02205 to the
proceeding.

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

Financial Recovery Services, Inc. -- https://www.fin-rec.com/ --
provides debt collection services. The Company offers comprehensive
coverage, auditing, monitoring, electronic file transfer, legal
collections, skiptracing, bilingual capability, and comprehensive
data security services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Aleksander P. Powietrzynski, Esq.
          WINSTON & WINSTON, P.C.
          75 South Broadway, Ste. 443
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Phone: (212) 532-2700
          Fax: (212) 922-9484
          Email: alex@winstonandwinston.com


FRANK LAROSE: Gonidakis, et al., File Bid for Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL GONIDAKIS, ET AL.,
v FRANK LAROSE and Ohio Redistricting Commission, Case No.
2:22-cv-00773-ALM-ART-BJB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs Reverend
Kenneth Simon, Reverend Lewis Macklin, II and Helen Youngblood, ask
the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying that this action may be maintained and proceed
      as a class action against defendants;

   2. appointing them as class representative; and

   3. appointing Percy Squire, as Counsel for the Class and as
      Liaison Counsel for the Class.

The Plaintiffs brings this action as a Class Action under Rules
23(a), (b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of the class of Black voters in Mahoning
County, Ohio, of Black voters previously certified as a class in
Armour v. Ohio, 775, F. Supp. 1044 (6 th Cir. 1998).

The Class consists of thousands of persons located throughout
Northeast Ohio, thus, the members of the Class are so numerous that
joinder of all Class members is impracticable. The exact number of
Class members is not presently known to Plaintiffs but can readily
be determined by appropriate discovery, the lawsuit says.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 29,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uQZydc
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Percy Squire, Esq.
          PERCY SQUIRE CO., LLC
          341 S. Third Street, Suite 10
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 224-6528
          Facsimile: (614) 224-6529
          E-mail: psquire@sp-lawfirm.com

GENESIS ENGINEERING: Curtis' $100K Class Deal Has Prelim. Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES CURTIS, et al., Plaintiffs v. GENESIS
ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. GJH-21-722 (D.
Md.), Judge George J. Hazel of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, Southern Division, granted James Curtis'
second consent Motion for Preliminary Approval of a Settlement
Agreement.

I. Background

Mr. Curtis brings the second consent Motion for Preliminary
Approval that purports to settle claims on behalf of himself and
potential classes against Defendant Genesis. The proposed
Settlement Agreement settles various wage and hour violations under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 207(a)(1), the
Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Md. Code. Ann., Lab. & Empl. Section
3-415(a), and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, Md.
Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. Section 3-502.

Plaintiff Curtis worked as a Procurement Specialist for Defendant
on federally-funded service contracts from June 2019 until February
2021. Over the years, the Plaintiff received various promotions and
raises, but at no time did he receive a salary. He often worked
between 50 and 60 hours a week and did not receive overtime pay.

The Plaintiff filed the Complaint on March 22, 2021. He brought
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C.
Section 201 et seq., and Maryland wage and hour laws, Md. Code
Ann., Lab. & Empl. Section 3-415(a) ("MWHL"), and Md. Code, Lab. &
Empl. Art., Section 3-502 ("MWPCL"). He brought the claims on
behalf of himself, on behalf of potential FLSA collective action
members, and on behalf of potential class members. The core of the
Plaintiff's claims is that he and other employees were unlawfully
denied overtime compensation under both the FLSA and Maryland state
wage laws.

On June 18, 2021, the parties jointly notified the Court that they
were in the process of finalizing a Settlement Agreement. On July
2, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a consent Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement. On Dec. 10, 2021, the Court
denied preliminary approval without prejudice. It explained that,
because the settlement agreement is a "hybrid action," or one that
purports to settle both FLSA and state law wage claims on behalf of
a group of employees, the settlement agreement and the associated
notices must conform with requirements of both the FLSA and Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23. It identified several deficiencies with
the proposed Settlement Agreement and Notice and recommended
amendments to cure them.

The Plaintiff filed the second Motion for Preliminary Approval of a
Class Action Settlement on Jan. 17, 2022. In the Motion, the
Plaintiff requests that the Court preliminarily approves the
Settlement Agreement; conditionally certifies a settlement class
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; preliminarily approves
the settlement of the Rule 23 class' claims; conditionally
certifies an FLSA collective under Section 216(b); preliminarily
approves the settlement of the FLSA collective's claim;
preliminarily approves Plaintiff as representative of the Rule 23
class and the FLSA class; preliminarily approves Goodley McCarthy
LLC and Goodley Law LLC as the Class Counsel for the Rule 23 and
the FLSA Class; preliminarily approves RG2 Claims Administration as
the Settlement Administrator; preliminary approves the Settlement
Administrator's costs of claims administration, in an amount not to
exceed $6,000; approves the revised Settlement Notices; and
approves the proposed procedure and schedule for completing the
final approval process.

II. Discussion

The Settlement Agreement seeks to settle FLSA and state wage claims
for $100,000 on behalf of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
class and a FLSA Section 216(b) collective. After deductions for
attorney fees and litigation costs ($27,000), settlement
administration costs ($6,000), and a service award to Plaintiff
($5,000), the remaining $62,000 is to be divided among members of
the classes according to the number of actual overtime hours
worked. Each class member will receive about 138% of the actual
wages owed, assuming the Defendant's liability under the FLSA and
state wage laws.

Judge Hazel finds that the revised version of the Settlement
Agreement addresses all the previously identified deficiencies. He
also finds that the proposed Settlement Agreement comports with the
requirements of both Rule 23 and Section 216(b). In addition, the
proposed Notices are also adequate and appropriate.

III. Conclusion

For these reasons, Judge Hazel granted the consent Motion for
Preliminary Approval. A separate Order follows.

In summary, he preliminarily (i) certified both the Rule 23 class
and the Section 216(b) collective; (ii) approved the Settlement
Agreement under both Rule 23 and the FLSA; (iii) approved Plaintiff
James Curtis as the representative of the Rule 23 class and the
Section 216(b) collective; (iv) approved Goodley McCarthy LLC and
Goodley Law LLC as the Class Counsel for the Settlement Class and
the FLSA Class; (v) approved RG2 Claims Administration as
Settlement Administrator; and (vi) approved the Settlement
Administrator's costs of claims administration, in an amount not to
exceed $6,000.

The Plaintiff is authorized to mail the proposed Settlement Notices
to putative class and collective members.

Judge Hazel gave approval to the following schedule:

     a. Seven calendar days after the date the Court enters the
Order, the Defendant will transfer to the Administrator a payment
in the amount of $100,000, plus the amount necessary to cover any
payroll taxes/withholdings borne by employers.

     b. Thirty days after the Court enters the Order, the
Administrator will mail to each Settlement Class member a package
containing the applicable Notice.

     c. The deadline for Settlement Class members to object or
request exclusion from the Settlement Class will be 45 days after
the Administrator mails the Notices.

     d. The Class Counsel will file the Motion for Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement, with supporting documentation, no later
than 14 days before the Final Approval Hearing.

     e. The parties will contact chambers to schedule a date for
the Final Approval Hearing.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2dcyjrhk from Leagle.com.


GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORRUGATED: Final Judgment Entered in Schumacher
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACOB SCHUMACHER, GENARO VERGARA, and DONALD GIBSON,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORRUGATED LLC, a
Delaware Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. CV 19-8632-DMG (AFMx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dolly M. Gee of
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
enters Final Judgment in the case in accordance with the terms of
the Joint Stipulation of Class Action and PAGA Settlement, and the
order granting final approval of class action settlement.

In light of the Court's Order granting final approval of the
Settlement in the action, Judge Gee enters Final Judgment in the
case. The terms of the order granting final approval are
incorporated in the Final Judgment.

As of the Effective Final Settlement Date and upon fully funding
the Settlement consistent with sections I.R. and III.I.2. of the
Settlement, the Plaintiffs/Class Representatives and the Class
Members will have, by operation of the order granting final
approval and the Judgment, fully, finally, and forever released,
relinquished, and discharged the Released Parties from the Released
Claims and the Plaintiffs' general release of claims as those terms
that are respectively defined in the Settlement, and are forever
barred and enjoined from prosecuting such released claims against
the Released Parties.

There have been no objections to the Settlement, and no Class
Members have requested to be excluded from the Settlement.

Without affecting the finality of the order granting final approval
and/or the Judgment, the Court reserves exclusive and continuing
jurisdiction over the case, the Plaintiffs, the Class Members, and
the Defendant for the purposes of supervising the implementation,
enforcement, construction, and interpretation of the Settlement,
the order granting final approval, and the Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2022 Judgment is available
at https://tinyurl.com/r8kwmc32 from Leagle.com.


GOBRANDS INC: Mahoney Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MAHONEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GOBRANDS, INC., Case No.2:22-cv-01502-CFK (D. Pa.,
April 19, 2022) is a civil rights action against the Defendant to
enforce Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which
requires. among other things, that an owner and operator of a place
of public accommodation (1) not deny persons with disabilities the
benefits of its services, facilities, privileges and advantages;
(2) provide such persons with benefits that are equal to those
provided to nondisabled persons; (3) provide auxiliary aids and
services-including electronic services for use with a computer
screen reading program-where necessary to ensure effective
communication with individuals with a visual disability, and to
ensure that such persons are not excluded, denied services,
segregated or otherwise treated differently than sighted
individuals, and (4) utilize administrative methods, practices, and
policies that provide persons with disabilities equal access to
online content.

By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, GO PUFF deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of its places
of public accommodation-all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among these Americans that Title ill was meant to redress, says the
suit.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.1 million who are blind and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2016 report, approximately 300,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of Pennsylvania.

"Being unable to access website puts individuals at a great
disadvantage in today's society, which is driven by a dynamic
electronic marketplace and unprecedented access to information."

The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and
a member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA.

The Plaintiff requires screen-reading software to read website
content using his computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.

The Defendant is an Online Delivery Service that owns and operates
physical locations offering, that offer Pickup. and Walk-In Retail.
and related services, including the Physical Locations.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Glanzberg, Esq.
          GLANZBERG TOBIA LAW PC
          123 Broad St., Ste., 160
          Philadelphia, PA 19109

GOL LINHAS: Court Dismisses Securities Class Suit Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE GOL LINHAS AEREAS INTELIGENTES S.A. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 20-CV-4243(RPK)(TAM)(E.D.N.Y.), Judge Rachel
P. Kovner of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint without prejudice.

I. Background

Plaintiffs Artur Timotheo and Juan Jimenez bring the putative
securities class action against Brazilian airline GOL and a number
of GOL officers -- CEO Paulo Kakinoff and CFO Richard Lark. They
invoke Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("the
Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, as and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a).

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants are civilly liable under
those sections for statements in a May 2020 earnings report. That
report, issued several months into the COVID-19 pandemic, touted
GOL's "effective and structured liquidity management," reported a
profit for the airline's loyalty program, and noted the company's
experience navigating times of stress. Those statements were
misleading, the Plaintiffs argue, because the Defendants failed to
disclose alongside those claims that GOL's auditor had substantial
doubt about GOL's ability to continue as a going concern and had
identified material weaknesses in GOL's internal controls over
financial reporting ("ICFR"). While GOL disclosed these findings in
June 2020, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants must have
known of them by the time of the May earnings report.

The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action in September 2020,
and filed the operative amended complaint in March 2021. They name
as Defendants GOL; Kakinoff, GOL's CEO; Lark, GOL's CFO, and
Constantino de Oliveira Junior, the chairman of GOL's board of
directors; and three other individuals (the "Board Defendants") who
served on both the Board of Directors and GOL's Audit Committee.

GOL, Kakinoff, and Lark have moved to dismiss the complaint, as
have the Board Defendants. Among other arguments, the Defendants
contend that the Plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege that
any of the Defendants' public statements were materially false or
misleading. They also argue that the Plaintiffs have not adequately
pleaded corporate or individual scienter as required to state a
claim under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. Finally, the Defendants
argue that because the Plaintiffs fail to establish a primary
violation of the Exchange Act, their control-person liability claim
under Section 20(a) against the individual defendants must fail as
well.

II. Discussion

Judge Kovner explains that the Plaintiffs have failed to adequately
plead that the May 2020 earnings report contained material
misstatements or omissions of fact, as necessary for liability
under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, because they have not
adequately pleaded that the Defendants knew of the auditor findings
at the time of the May report. The Plaintiffs have also failed to
set out facts supporting a strong inference that the Defendants
acted with an intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud, as
required for liability under those provisions due to the heightened
pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"). Hence, the
Plaintiffs' claims against the individual Defendants under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act must be dismissed because of the failure
of their primary claims under the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.

III. Conclusion

For these reasons, Judge Kovner dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims
without prejudice. The Plaintiffs have 30 days to file a revised
complaint. The new complaint must be captioned "Second Amended
Complaint" and bear the same docket number as the Order. If the
Plaintiffs do not file a Second Amended Complaint within 30 days,
judgment will be entered dismissing the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2022 Memorandum & Order
is available at https://tinyurl.com/pwdx6vtm from Leagle.com.


GREATBANC TRUST: Liable to ESOP's Losses, Colon Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHANA COLON, as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, and on behalf of the Advanced Diagnostic Group
Employee Stock Ownership Plan, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEVIN G. JOHNSON, DALE L.
HERSEY, NATHAN S. WARD, SHAUN L. MCGRUDER, MICHAEL L. SCHMICKLE,
MICHAEL J. CHALHUB, GREATBANC TRUST CO., and JOHN and JANE DOES
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-00888 (M.D. Fla., April 14,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to comply with
ERISA's fiduciary standards of prudence and loyalty in the process
of approving the share price due to the Advanced Diagnostic Group
(ADG) Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) in connection with the
sale of ADG to Akumin. Based on Defendant GreatBanc's approval of
the Akumin sale on terms that failed to reflect ADG's fair value,
GreatBanc failed to prudently and loyally discharge its fiduciary
duties. The ESOP would have received a higher price for its ADG
shares had the Defendants complied with their fiduciary obligations
in connection with the determination and approval of the ADG sale
price. As a result of the Defendants' misconduct, the Plaintiff and
other ESOP participants, suffered losses, says the suit.

GreatBanc Trust Co. is a financial services company based in Lisle,
Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
         Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
         Amanda E. Heystek, Esq.
         WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
         1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 224-0431
         Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
         E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                 lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                 aheystek@wfclaw.com

                 - and –

         Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
         Brock J. Specht, Esq.
         Brandon McDonough, Esq.
         Jacob T. Schutz, Esq.
         Caroline E. Bressman, Esq.
         NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
         4700 IDS Center
         80 South 8th Street
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Telephone: (612) 256-3200
         Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
         E-mail: lukas@nka.com
                 bspecht@nka.com
                 bmcdonough@nka.com
                 jschutz@nka.com
                 cbressman@nka.com

GREEN DOT: Boardman Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class, Subclass
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA BOARDMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GREEN DOT CORPORATION, Case No. 3:21-cv-00174-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying this action as a class action for all purposes
      of liability and relief under Federal Rule of Civil
      Procedure 23;

   2. certifying the proposed Class and Subclass;

      Class: All persons in the United States, for the time
             period beginning April 20, 2017 to the present,
             whose telephone number is identified in the opt-out
             spreadsheet produced by Defendant at GreenDot-
             Boardman00000129-AEO, and Defendant sent, in any
             12-month period, two or more "marketing" (as that
             term was defined by Defendant's Rule 30(b)(6)
             witnesses) text messages to that telephone number
             after the opt-out date reflected in the opt-out
             spreadsheet;" and

   Subclass: All persons in the United States, for the time
             period beginning April 20, 2017 to the present,
             whose telephone number is identified in the opt-out
             spreadsheet produced by Defendant at GreenDot-
             Boardman00000129-AEO, and Defendant sent, in any
             12-month period, two or more "marketing" (as that
             term was defined by Defendant's Rule 30(b)(6)
             witnesses) text messages to that telephone number
             after the opt-out date reflected in the opt-out
             spreadsheet, and who did not opt-in after the opt-
             out request before receiving the two or more text
             messages;"

   3. appointing Plaintiff as representatives of the Class and
      Subclass; and

   4. appointing Plaintiff's counsel as counsel for the Class
      and Subclass.

This case concerns the Defendant's violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). "Americans passionately disagree
about many things. But they are largely united in their disdain for
robocalls. The Federal Government receives a staggering number of
complaints about robocalls -- 3.7 million complaints in 2019 alone.
The States likewise field a constant barrage of complaints."

Green Dot is an American financial technology and bank holding
company headquartered in Austin. It is the world's largest prepaid
debit card company by market capitalization. Green Dot is also a
payments platform company and is the technology platform used by
Apple Pay Cash, Uber, and Intuit.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 30,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vrgW7d
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ignacio Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH Law
          1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1950
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (786) 496-4469
          E-mail: IJhiraldo@Hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          Florida Bar No. 030380
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
          THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
          11 N. Market Street
          Asheville, NC 28801
          Telephone: (828) 258-299
          Facsimile: (828)257-2767
          E-mail: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com

HAT WORLD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Astudillo Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
WALTHER ASTUDILLO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAT WORLD, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02191 (E.D.N.Y., April 15, 2022) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Astudillo was employed by the Defendant as staff.

HAT WORLD, INC. doing business as LIDS Sports Group, retails sports
products. The Company offers sports headwear, apparel, novelty
hats, accessories, and other related products. LIDS Sports Group
serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          Email: ykopel@bursor.com
                 aleslie@bursor.com


HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL: Louis Labor Suit Goes to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PATRICIA LOUIS and MORGAN MURRAY, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL
STAFFING, INC. and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
21CV004391, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on April 19, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-02436 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay all wages, failure to pay minimum
wages for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime for all
overtime hours worked, failure to provide meal periods, failure to
provide rest periods, failure to reimburse all business-related
expenditures, failure to provide complete and accurate itemized
wage statements, failure to timely pay all final wages, failure to
pay all owed wages on regular paydays, unfair competition, and
civil penalties.

Healthsource Global Staffing, Inc. is a staffing company based in
California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Paul S. Cowie, Esq.
         Brian S. Fong, Esq.
         Amanda E. Beckwith, Esq.
         Victoria B. Ayeni, Esq.
         SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
         Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
         Telephone: (415) 434-9100
         Facsimile: (415) 434-3947
         E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com
                 bfong@sheppardmullin.com
                 abeckwith@sheppardmullin.com
                 vayeni@sheppardmullin.com

HOST HEALTHCARE: Blount's $1.55MM Class Settlement Wins Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SARAH BLOUNT, as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOST HEALTHCARE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-310-MMA (WVG) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Michael
M. Anello of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California grants the Plaintiff's motions:

   -- for final approval of a class settlement pursuant to
      Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e); and

   -- for an award of attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
      Rule 23(h), as well as a class representative service
      award.

I. Background

Defendant Host Healthcare is a healthcare staffing company. From
November 2019 to September 2020, the Plaintiff worked for the
Defendant as a non-exempt Account Coordinator. She was paid on an
hourly basis, plus bonuses and commissions.

On Oct. 22, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Labor Code
Violations with the California Labor and Workforce Development
Agency ("LWDA"). On Nov. 16, 2020, the Plaintiff, on behalf of
herself and other aggrieved employees, filed a putative class
action complaint in the San Diego Superior Court alleging the
following: (1) failure to pay all regular and minimum wages; (2)
failure to pay overtime wages; (3) meal period violations; (4) rest
period violations; (5) untimely payment of wages; (6) wage
statement violations; (7) wage statement penalties; (8) failure to
reimburse business expenses; and (9) violations of the Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.
("UCL").

On Jan. 4, 2021 -- after the 65-day period following the Private
Attorneys General Act, Cal. Labor Code Section 2698 et seq.
("PAGA") notice expired -- the Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint ("FAC"), adding claims for civil penalties under PAGA. On
Feb. 18, 2021, the Defendant filed an answer to the FAC. The
following day, on Feb. 19, 2021, it removed the action under
relevant provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C.
Section 1711 et seq., to the Court.

On April 9, 2021, Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo held a
telephonic status conference. Judge Gallo then held an Early
Neutral Evaluation conference ("ENE") on April 14, 2021. The ENE
was continued to May 18, 2021, during which time Judge Gallo
assisted the parties in resolving the case on a class-wide basis
via oral stipulation. The parties fully and finally executed a
settlement agreement on July 9, 2021.

The Settlement class consists of all individuals employed by
Defendant in California as an hourly worker and/or non-exempt
employee, including those employed in California as a corporate
employee and travel nurse, during the Class Period (Nov. 16, 2016
through July 30, 2021). Some Class Members also fall into a
sub-category of PAGA class members -- individuals who worked during
the PAGA Period (Oct. 22, 2019 through July 30, 2021) ("PAGA
Class"). There are 1,097 total Class Members, and 13 individuals
submitted a valid and timely request to exclude themselves from the
Settlement. Thus, there are 1,084 participating Class Members.

The Defendant will pay a total sum of $1.55 million (the "Gross
Settlement Amount") in full settlement of all claims. The parties
have allocated $50,000 of the Gross Settlement Amount as penalties
under PAGA ("PAGA Penalty"). This represents just over 3% of the
Gross Settlement Amount.

As to deductions, the parties agreed to the following: (1)
attorney's fees in the amount of $465,000 (30% of the Gross
Settlement Amount); (2) actual litigation costs of $6,421.50; (3) a
service award to Plaintiff of $10,000; (4) $37,500, or 75%, of the
PAGA Penalty to the LWDA; and (5) settlement administration costs
of $15,000. After deductions, the current estimated net settlement
amount is $1,016,078.50 (the "Net Settlement Amount"). The parties
have agreed that no portion of the Gross Settlement Amount will
revert to the Defendant.

The Net Settlement Amount will be distributed pro rata to the Class
based on a share that is equal to the number of weeks the Class
Member worked during the Class Period divided by the total number
of weeks worked by all participating members. The remaining 25% of
the PAGA Penalty will be distributed to the PAGA Class based on the
same pro rata method. Settlement payments are allocated 20% to
wages and 80% to interest, penalties, and reimbursements.

Individual settlement payments are estimated to average $925.81,
with the highest totaling $7,713.06.

The Defendant filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion.
The Court has received no objections to the Settlement.

II. Discussion

Upon due consideration, Judge Anello finds that the Class
Settlement is on balance "fair, reasonable, and adequate" under
Rule 23(e)(2) and therefore grants the Plaintiff's motion for final
approval of the Settlement.

He also finds that the Settlement Agreement's $50,000 PAGA Penalty
is reasonable, fundamentally fair, and adequate. The PAGA penalty
represents roughly 3.2 percent of the Gross Settlement Amount,
which is within the range of penalties approved by courts. Further,
the Settlement Agreement provides that 75% of the PAGA Penalty will
be paid to the LWDA and 25% will be paid to the PAGA Class, in
accordance with California Labor Code Section 2699(i).

Lastly, Judge Anello finds that (i) the requested award of $465,000
-- 30% of the Gross Settlement Amount -- represents a performance
multiplier of approximately 2.4 over the lodestar figure; (ii) the
Class Counsel's out-of-pocket costs were reasonably incurred in
litigating the action and were advanced by counsel for the benefit
of the Class; and (iii) a substantial incentive award is
appropriate in the case in light of the time and effort the
Plaintiff expended on the litigation, the benefit obtained for the
class, and the risks associated with bringing a class action
lawsuit against a former employer.

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Judge Anello grants the Plaintiff's motion
for final approval of the class settlement and grants the
Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees, costs, and an incentive
award.

Judge Anello certifies the Settlement Class for the purposes of the
Settlement. He approves the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and
adequate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). He
orders the parties to undertake the obligations set forth in the
Settlement Agreement that arise out of the Order.

Judge Anello awards (i) attorneys' fees to the Class Counsel in the
amount of $465,000 and costs in the amount of $6,421.50; and (ii)
to the Plaintiff an incentive payment for work performed as the
class representative in the amount of $10,000.

Judge Anello directs the Clerk of Court to enter a separate
judgment of dismissal in accordance therewith, see Fed. R. Civ. P.
58(a), and to close the case.

Without affecting the finality of the Order, the Court maintains
jurisdiction over the matter for purpose of enforcing the
Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2022 Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p8hdws7 from Leagle.com.


HOT SPRING COUNTY, AR: Easley Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cynthia Easley and Terry
Easley, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
TERESA HOWELL in her official capacity as PROSECUTING ATTORNEY FOR
MALVERN/HOT SPRING COUNTY, MIKE CASH in his official capacity as
HOT SPRING COUNTY SHERIFF, Case No. 6:21-cv-06125-SOH (W.D. Ark.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their
motion for class certification of:

   "All people in the state of Arkansas who are or will be
   unable to afford rent and who are being or will be prosecuted
   or who are or will be at risk of prosecution under Arkansas
   Code section 18-16-101."

Malvern is a city in and the county seat of Hot Spring County,
Arkansas, United States. Founded as a railroad stop at the eastern
edge of the Ouachita Mountains, the community's history and economy
have been tied to available agricultural and mineral resources.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 31,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Om1PVn
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Phil Telfeyan, Esq.
          Natasha Baker, Esq.
          Edward Pruette, Esq.
          EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW
          400 7th St. NW, Suite 602
          Washington, D.C. 20004
          Telephone: (202) 505-2058
          E-mail: ptelfeyan@equaljusticeunderlaw.org
                  nbaker@equaljusticeunderlaw.org
                  epruette@equaljusticeunderlaw.org

HOWARD BANK: Brasko Wins Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD BRASKO, et al., v.
HOWARD BANK, successor by merger to FIRST MARINER BANK, Case No.
1:20-cv-03489-SAG (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class.

The Court hereby concludes that the Plaintiffs and the proposed
class and subclasses have satisfied the requirements of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) as follows:

   1. The proposed class and subclasses are so numerous that
      joinder of all members is impracticable. Fed. R. Civ. P.
      23(a)(1).

   2. There are questions of fact and law common to the class
      and subclasses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2).

   3. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the
      class's and subclass's claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3).

   4. The named Plaintiffs have the same interests as the class
      and subclasses and are adequate representatives. Fed. R.
      Civ. P. 23(a)(4).

   5. Michael Smith and Melissa English, of Smith Gildea &
      Schmidt LLC, and Timothy Maloney and Veronica Nannis, of
      Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A., are qualified and
      adequate Class Counsel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4).

   6. Questions of law or fact common to the members of the
      class and subclasses predominate over questions affecting
      only individual members. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).

   7. A class action is a superior method of adjudication.

The following class and subclasses are certified under Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as follows:

   "All individuals in the United States who were borrowers on a
   mortgage loan obtained from First Mariner Bank for which All
   Star Title, Inc. provided a settlement service, as identified
   in Section 1100 on the borrower's HUD-1 or Closing
   Disclosure, between January 1, 2012 and January 31, 2016."

   Exempted from this class is any person who, during the period
   of January 1, 2012 through January 31, 2016, was an employee,
   officer, member and/or agent of First Mariner Bank, Howard
   Bank, or All Star Title, Inc.

The RICO Subclass is comprised of all members of the First Mariner
Class.

The RESPA Subclass is comprised of all members of the First Mariner
Class who were borrowers on a federally related mortgage loan (as
defined under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C.
section 2602) between January 1, 2012 and January 31, 2016.

The Plaintiffs Richard and Lorraine Brasko, and Plaintiff Eric
Rubinstein are appointed class representatives.

Michael Smith and Melissa English, of Smith Gildea & Schmidt LLC,
and Timothy Maloney and Veronica Nannis, of Joseph, Greenwald &
Laake, P.A., are appointed Class Counsel.

The parties shall confer and submit to the Court a proposed form of
Notice to the Class no later than 30 days from the entry of this
Order.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 29, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rzIDKd at no extra charge.[CC]

HUTTIG BUILDING: Misleads Stockholders to OK Merger, Reith Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DON REITH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. HUTTIG BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., JON P. VRABELY,
PATRICK L. LARMON, JAMES F. HIBBERD, GINA G. HOAGLAND, J. KEITH
MATHENEY, DONALD L. GLASS, and DELBERT H. TANNER, Defendants, Case
No. 2022-0332 (Del. Ch., April 14, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties owed to the Plaintiff and other stockholders of
Huttig Building Products in connection with the proposed
acquisition of the company by Woodgrain, Inc. Huttig filed a
materially misleading recommendation statement with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to convince its
stockholders to accept the offer price and tender their shares to
purchaser pursuant to the tender offer. The recommendation
statement fails to provide Huttig's shareholders with material
information regarding the background of the proposed transaction,
which is critical for stockholders to make an informed decision on
whether to tender their shares in the tender offer or seek
appraisal, says the suit.

Huttig Building Products, Inc. is a wholesale distributor of
specialty building products based in Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
         BIELLI & KLAUDER, LLC
         1204 N. King Street
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 803-4600
         E-mail: rernst@bk-legal.com

                 - and –

         Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
         WEISSLAW LLP
         476 Hardendorf Ave. NE
         Atlanta, GA 30307
         Telephone: (404) 692-7910
         Facsimile: (212) 682-3010

HYATT HOTEL: Diona Ng Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
---------------------------------------------------------
DIONA NG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. HYATT HOTEL CORPORATIONS, OFS-HP LLC d/b/a HYATT
PLACE, MJFT HOTELS OF FLUSHING LLC d/b/a HYATT PLACE, and JOHN DOE
CORPORATIONS 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 708457/2022 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Queens Cty., April 19, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendants for retaliation and violations of the New York Labor Law
including unpaid overtime wages, time shaving, failure to timely
pay wages and statutory penalties.

The Plaintiff worked as a gallery host at the Hyatt Place
Flushing/LaGuardia Airport located at 133-42 39th Avenue, Queens,
New York from April 2015 to September 2017.

Hyatt Hotel Corporations is a hotel owner and operator,
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.

OFS-HP LLC, doing business as Hyatt Place, is a hotel company based
in New York.

MJFT Hotels of Flushing LLC doing business as Hyatt Place, is a
hotel company based in New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         C.K. Lee, Esq.
         Anne Seelig, Esq.
         LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
         148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
         New York, NY 10011
         Telephone: (212) 465-1188
         Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

IMERYS FILTRATION: Scheduling Order Entered in Lewis Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Lewis v. Imerys
Filtration Minerals, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00785-MCS-KS
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi entered a scheduling
order:

                    Event                     Date

  -- Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off:        January 23, 2023

  -- Expert Disclosure (Initial):         January 3, 2023

  -- Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal):        January 23, 2023

  -- Expert Discovery Cut-Off:            February 13, 2023

  -- Deadline to File a Motion            August 22, 2022
     for Class Certification:

  -- Deadline to File an Opposition       September 12, 2022
     to the Motion for Class
     Certification:

  -- Deadline to File a Reply in          October 3, 2022
     Support of the Motion for
     Class Certification:

  -- Hearing Date on Motion for           October 17, 2022
     Class Certification:

Imerys operates mines and processing plants.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rCBPvb at no extra charge.[CC]

INTUIT: Class Action Over Tax Filing Services Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Megan Leonhardt, writing for Fortune, reports that for decades,
corporate America has held the upper hand when it came to disputes
with consumers and workers. But that could be changing.

Buried deep in the fine print of user agreements and employment
contracts, mandatory arbitration clauses force Americans to take
their lawsuits out of the federal court system and resolve
complaints in the private arbitration system -- a separate legal
dispute resolution process without some of the same protections
afforded in court cases.

Many have argued that arbitration discourages consumers and workers
from even raising the dispute at all. But the status quo may be
shifting due to the use of "mass arbitration" against corporations
-- a process in which thousands or even tens of thousands file
individual arbitration cases against a company in a coordinated
effort.

TurboTax's parent company, Intuit, is the latest major corporation
facing a barrage of arbitration claims after consumers were blocked
from moving forward with a class action lawsuit courtesy of
mandatory arbitration stipulations. And how Intuit navigates the
deluge could lead other companies to reconsider how they engage
with legal disputes.  

The latest target of "mass arbitration": Intuit
Intuit's legal proceedings started in 2019, when consumers filed a
class-action lawsuit against the tax giant, claiming the company's
"free" tax filing products were misleading and they ended up paying
for services that should have been free.

An audit by the Treasury inspector general for tax administration
released in 2020 found that the Free File Program -- a service
designed to allow Americans to prepare and file their taxes online
for free -- run in partnership with Intuit, H&R Block, and others,
charged 14 million Americans for tax filing services despite their
being eligible for free filing.

But Intuit and H&R Block both have forced-arbitration clauses in
their service contracts, and successfully argued that consumers
needed to individually argue their claims in arbitration.

"Intuit has at all times been clear and fair with our customers,
and we believe that arbitration can provide a quick and
individualized resolution to any customer who has a real dispute,"
a company spokesman told Fortune.

Normally, that would have ended most of the cases -- it's typically
not cost effective for a law firm to bring individual arbitration
cases.

But Keller Lenkner, the law firm representing consumers against
Intuit, has flooded the arbitration system with tens of thousands
of arbitration claims. The firm says it represents more than
100,000 consumers harmed by Inuit's actions.

Keller did not immediately respond to Fortune's request for
comment.

That mass arbitration strategy of individual people is taking a
toll. Last year, 17% of all closed consumer arbitration cases
involved Intuit or H&R Block, according to a new analysis by the
American Association for Justice (AAJ), an advocacy and lobbying
organization for plaintiffs lawyers.

The sheer volume of arbitration cases makes it very expensive for
Intuit to fight this battle. Typically, companies pay organizations
like the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and JAMS to
arbitrate a case. The arbitrator or panel of arbitrators then hears
the case, makes a ruling and determines the appropriate
restitution, if any, and determines how attorneys' fees will be
split.

Intuit has argued that Keller is weaponizing the arbitration
process.  

"The game is that by filing these arbitrations, and collecting
clients on Facebook and Twitter and other social media, the Keller
firm is able to threaten companies—Intuit's not alone—into
paying $3,000 in arbitration fees for a $100 claim," a lawyer for
Intuit argued at a hearing in December 2020.

As of last December, the tax software giant was on the hook for at
least $33 million in administrative fees to AAA, the arbitration
venue contracted by Intuit to handle its arbitration cases,
according to Reuters. To arbitrate just 125 cases, Intuit paid
$220,000 in administrative fees, ProPublica reported in February.
And that's not including restitution awarded when consumers win, or
cases in which Intuit has been ordered to pay consumers' legal
fees.

If Intuit really did arbitrate 100,000 cases (some of the cases
initially filed have already been dropped), the company would be on
the hook for $175 million in fees, ProPublica reports. The money at
stake hasn't escaped Intuit, which did offer to settle the claims
for $40 million in late 2020, but a federal judge rejected the
offer.

"Intuit was, in Hamlet's words, hoisted by their own petard," Judge
Charles Breyer said in December 2020. "I think arbitration is the
petard that Intuit now faces."

Intuit told Fortune that to date, the company has won more than 80%
of arbitration cases related to its provision of free tax
preparation. "We continue to have very real concerns about law
firms that file thousands of claims that they later withdraw, and
that bring claims on behalf of people who never used TurboTax or,
if they did, filed their taxes for free," the spokesman said.

H&R Block told Fortune it does not comment on ongoing legal
proceedings.

How the arbitration landscape is changing
The Intuit legal saga follows similar strategies employed against
Amazon, Chipotle, DoorDash, and Family Dollar, where consumers and
employees flooded the companies with thousands of arbitration
claims. (It's worth noting that Keller was involved in both the
Amazon and DoorDash cases.)

Last July, Amazon ended its use of mandatory arbitration in user
agreements after it faced 75,000 arbitration demands from users of
Echo, the company's smart home device that users claimed secretly
recorded their conversations. Now Amazon allows customers to sue
the company in federal court.

"Companies want to use forced arbitration when they can
unilaterally force it on their workers and on their unsuspecting
consumers," Julia Duncan, director of federal programs for AAJ,
told Fortune. "They want to use it to shut down cases."

When companies fail to shut down the claims by forcing consumers or
workers to individually file arbitration claims, you see them
typically try to then get out of arbitration, Duncan says. "It
reveals the ultimate hypocrisy of the companies, and it reveals the
ultimate truth of forced arbitration: which is that forced
arbitration is not and never has been a true alternative forum for
cases. Forced arbitration has always been where the majority of
cases go to die."

But Duncan doesn't see most companies following Amazon's lead.
Rather than compel companies to drop their arbitration clauses,
"mass arbitration" may instead cause companies to "tweak" their
existing arbitration rules, Duncan says. For example, companies
could alter their fee structures with arbitration forums like AAA
to make the consumer pay a portion of the cost, or stipulate that
arbitration take place only in certain states.

"They can do that because there are no rules," she said. "This
obviously needs to be a policy determination about how and when we
restore the right to seek justice for workers and consumers."

Federal lawmakers are cracking down on arbitration. In February,
Congress passed legislation that nullified mandatory arbitration
for sexual assault and sexual harassment claims.

The House of Representatives also passed the FAIR Act in March,
which would end forced arbitration in consumer and employment
contracts. The House passed the legislation in 2019, but it stalled
in the Senate. Americans would still be able to arbitrate their
claims, but the process would be voluntary and they could bring
their case as a lawsuit in federal court instead if they chose to
do so.

But the legislation has yet to be picked up in the Senate. So until
that happens, Americans will be forced to use arbitration to
resolve most disputes with major corporations. [GN]


JOYY INC: Demmissie Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs GEDION DEMMISSIE, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ED J. HERSHEWE, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JOYY INC. f/k/a
YY, INC., DAVID XUELING LI, BING JIN, and ERIC HE, Case No.
2:20-cv-10611, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, Los Angeles.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit seeks to
recover compensable damages under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 arising from the Defendants' issuance of false and misleading
statements resulting to the precipitous decline in the market value
of the Company's securities.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and other persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
JOYY securities between April 28, 2016 and November 18, 2020,
inclusive.

On April 28, 2016, the Company, then called YY, Inc., filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission its Annual Report on Form
20-F for the year ended December 31, 2015 and was signed by
Defendant Li. Attached to the 2015 20-F were certifications
pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) signed by
Defendants Li and He attesting to the accuracy of financial
reporting, the disclosure of any material changes to the Company's
internal control over financial reporting and the disclosure of all
fraud. This was followed by a series of disclosures that the
Company filed with the SEC regarding its Annual Reports within the
Class period.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and
failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the
Company's business, operational and financial results, which were
known to the Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.
Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) JOYY dramatically
overstated its revenues from live streaming sources; (2) the
majority of users at any given time were bots; (2) the Company
utilized these bots to effect a round-tripping scheme that
manufactured the false appearance of revenues; (3) the Company
overstated its cash reserves; (4) the Company's acquisition of Bigo
was largely contrived to benefit corporate insiders and (5) as a
result, the Defendants' public statements were materially false
and/or misleading at all relevant times.

On November 18, 2020, while the market was open, Muddy Waters
Research published a report alleging that JOYY, among other things,
had: (i) reported fraudulent revenue; (ii) component businesses
that were a fraction of the size that it reports; and (iii)
acquired BIGO as part of a scam that benefitted corporate insiders.
The report further alleged that up to 90% of JOYY's live revenue
was fake and that the Company JOYY engaged in a round-tripping
scheme where the majority of the live performers' gift revenue came
from themselves and JOYY-controlled bots.

On this news, JOYY's American Depository Receipts (ADRs) fell
$26.53 per share, or 26.4%, to close at $73.66 per share on
November 18, 2020, damaging investors, the suit says.

On March 10, 2022, a Final Judgment entered by Judge Stanley
Blumenfeld, Jr. granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' second amended complaint. The Court held that Lead
Plaintiffs Gedion Demmissie and Suresh Goyal take nothing on their
claims against Defendants; that Lead Plaintiffs' claims are
DISMISSED with prejudice; and that the claims of the putative class
members are DISMISSED without prejudice.

The Plaintiffs are taking an appeal from this ruling.

Their appellate case is captioned as Ed Hershewe, et al. v. JOYY,
Inc., et al., Case No. 22-55377, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 13, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Gedion Demmissie and Suresh Goyal Mediation
Questionnaire was due on April 20, 2022;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by May 9, 2022;

   -- Transcript is due on June 7, 2022;

   -- Appellants Gedion Demmissie and Suresh Goyal opening brief is
due on July 18, 2022;

   -- Appellees Eric He, JOYY, Inc., Bing Jin and David Xueling Li
answering brief is due on August 17, 2022; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants GEDION DEMMISSIE, and SURESH GOYAL, Co-Lead
Plaintiffs, are represented by:

          Steve Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN
          1301 2nd Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC (NY)
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484

               - and -

          Kevin Kamuf Green, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          533 F Street, Suite 207
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 929-3340

               - and -

          Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 405-7190
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees JOYY, INC., FKA YY, Inc.; DAVID XUELING LI;
BING JIN; and ERIC HE, are represented by:

          Stephen Patrick Blake, Esq.
          James G. Kreissman, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          2475 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 251-5000
          E-mail: sblake@stblaw.com

JUUL LABS: American Leadership Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMERICAN LEADERSHIP ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A
PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02354 (N.D. Cal., April 15,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

American Leadership Academy Charter School is a unified school
district with its offices located at 898 West 1100 South in Spanish
Fork, Utah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Causes Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Pike County Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PIKE COUNTY SCHOOL CORPORATION AND METROPOLITAN SCHOOL DISTRICT OF
WABASH COUNTY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; ALTRIA
GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY; NU MARK LLC; NU MARK INNOVATIONS, LTD.; PHILIP MORRIS USA,
INC.; and ABC CORPORATIONS 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
3:22-cv-02398 (C.D. Cal., April 18, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for public nuisance, civil conspiracy, Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Consumer Sales, deceptive trade practices,
Breach of Implied Warranties, negligence, common law fraud, and
unjust enrichment/restitution.

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

Pike County School Corporation is a public school district in
Petersburg, Indiana.

Metropolitan School District of Wabash County is a public school
district located in the city of Wabash, Wabash County, Indiana.

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

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

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

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

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

Nu Mark LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Altria Group, Inc.,
with its principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.

Nu Mark Innovations, Ltd. is a subsidiary of Nu Mark LLC located in
Beit Shemesh, Israel. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Randi Kassan, Esq.
         Melissa Sims, Esq.
         Vicki Maniatis, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN
         100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
         Garden City, NY 11530
         Telephone: (516) 741-5600
         Facsimile: (516) 741-0128
         E-mail: rkassan@milberg.com
                 msims@milberg.com
                 vmaniatis@milberg.com

JUUL LABS: Chippewa Hills Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHIPPEWA HILLS SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02359 (N.D. Cal., April 15, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Chippewa Hills School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 3226 Arthur Road in Remus, Michigan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: DeWitt Public Sues Over Youth's E-Cigarette Addiction
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEWITT PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-02358 (N.D. Cal., April 15, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

DeWitt Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices
located at 2957 West Herbison Road in DeWitt, Michigan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Willapa Valley Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLAPA VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02387 (N.D. Cal., April 18, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Willapa Valley School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 22 Viking Way, Raymond, Washington.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Triggers Youth Health Crisis, Colfax Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
COLFAX SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02360 (N.D. Cal., April 15, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Colfax School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 1207 North Morton Street in Colfax, Washington.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Faces Adna School Suit Over Youth's E-Cigarette Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADNA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-02382 (N.D. Cal., April 18, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Adna School District is a unified school district with its offices
located at P.O. Box 118 in Adna, Washington.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Faces Hanna Public Suit Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HANNA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-02362 (N.D. Cal., April 15, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Hanna Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices
located at 301 Second Street in Hanna, Oklahoma.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth, Fulton City Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
FULTON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02384 (N.D. Cal., April 18, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Fulton City School District is a unified school district with its
offices located at 129 Curtis Street in Fulton New York.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: New Haven Sues Over Deceptive Youth E-Cigarette Campaign
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW HAVEN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02386 (N.D. Cal., April 18, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

New Haven Community Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 30375 Clark Street P.O. Box 482000 New Haven,
Michigan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, Rensselaer Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RENSSELAER CENTRAL SCHOOL CORPORATION, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02351 (N.D. Cal., April 15, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Rensselaer Central School Corporation is a public school district
with its offices located on East Washington Street in Rensselaer,
Indiana.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
         Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
         Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
         WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
         4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
         Kansas City, MO 64112
         Telephone: (816) 701-1100
         Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
         E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
                 jpkieffer@wcllp.com
                 thudson@wcllp.com

                 - and –

         Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
         Brad Honnold, Esq.
         GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
         9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
         Overland Park, KS 66207
         Telephone: (913) 451-3433
         E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
                 bhonnold@gohonlaw.com

                 - and –

         Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
         Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
         BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
         234 Commerce Street
         Montgomery, AL 36103
         Telephone: (334) 269-2343
         E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com

                 - and –

         Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
         PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
         11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Telephone: (310) 477-1700
         Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
         E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com

                 - and –

         John P. Fiske, Esq.
         BARON & BUDD, P.C.
         11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
         San Diego, CA 92127
         Telephone: (858) 251-7424
         Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
         E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com

                 - and –

         Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
         WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
         650 California Street, 26th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94108
         Telephone: (415) 617-1269

JUUL LABS: Waterloo Central Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
------------------------------------------------------------------
WATERLOO CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02383 (N.D. Cal., April 18, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Waterloo Central School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 109 Washington Street Waterloo, New York.

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

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

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

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

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

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

KEN PAXTON: Bid to Certify Class Mooted in Valadez Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Valadez, et al., v. Ken
Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00519
(W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Robert Pitman entered an order mooting
motion to certify class.

In light of the Court's denial of Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary iInjunction. The Plaintiffs' request to consider class
certification at this preliminary stage is moot.

The nature of suit states violation of Civil Rights.[CC]

KEURIG DR PEPPER: Faces Acevedo Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN DERICK MORALES ACEVEDO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KEURIG DR PEPPER, INC. and
DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02157
(E.D.N.Y., April 14, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor
Standards Act including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
provide written wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage
statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a truck checker and
warehouse supervisor from approximately November, 2020 until
February 2022.

Keurig Dr Pepper, Inc. is a manufacturer of beverages, with its
principal place of business at 6425 Hall of Fame Lane, Frisco,
Texas.

Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. is a soft-drink manufacturing company
based in Plano, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Daniel Tannenbaum, Esq.
         580 Fifth Avenue, Suite 820
         New York, NY 10036
         Telephone: (212) 457-1699

LAKEVIEW LOAN: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Oglesbys Contend
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY OGLESBY, and TERESA OGLESBY, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case
No. 7:22-cv-01247-TMC (D.S.C., April 18, 2022) is a class action
complaint against Lakeview seeking recovery on behalf of the
Plaintiffs and over 2.5 million similarly situated people based
upon Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard its
customers' sensitive personally identifiable information (PII).

Allegedly, the Defendant failed to properly protect Plaintiffs' and
Class Members'names, addresses, loan numbers and Social Security
Numbers, and other information provided in connection with a loan
application, loan modification, or other items regarding loan
servicing. This information is considered PII because it can be
used to distinguish or trace an individual's identity, either alone
or when combined with other personal or identifying information.

The Defendant discovered that an unauthorized actor gained access
to its file servers in December 2021. The Defendant later
determined that an unauthorized party gained access to Defendant's
server from October 27, 2021 to December 7, 2021, and that the data
on this server included Plaintiffs' and Class Member's PII (the
"Data Breach").

Despite learning of the data breach in December, Defendant did not
notify Plaintiffs and Class Members until mid-March 2022 ("Notice
of Data Breach Letter"). As required by state laws across the
country, the Defendant sent templates of Notice of Data Breach
Letter to state attorneys general. Specifically, Defendant sent a
template of Notice of Data Breach Letter to the Maine Attorney
General and identified that approximately 2,537,261 individuals
like Plaintiffs had their PII accessed, exfiltrated, and/or
compromised on the Data Breach. The Defendant also reported the
Data Breach to the California Attorney General's Office as well as
the Texas Attorney General's Office.

The Data Breach allegedly occurred because Defendant did not
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols to protect the PII of Plaintiffs and Class Members, the
suit says.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          T. Ryan Langley, Esq.
          Matthew T. Foss, Esq.
          HODGE & LANGLEY LAW FIRM, PC
          229 Magnolia Street
          P.O. Box 2765
          Spartanburg, SC 29304
          Telephone: (864) 585-3873
          E-mail: Rlangley@HodgeLawFirm.com
                  MFoss@HodgeLawFirm.com

LG ELECTRONICS: Wheeler Sues Over Dishwashers' Control Panel Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Wheeler, on Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly
Situated v. LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-00459-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal., April 19, 2022) arises from LG's
knowing sale of QuadWash-enabled dishwashers ("Class Dishwashers")
equipped with defective LED control panels ("Control Panels") and
identified by the following model numbers: LDF5545, LDP6797,
LDT7797, LDT5665, LDT5678, and LDT7808.

LG designed Class Dishwashers with Control Panels that are "easy to
see and use," and uniformly marketed each and every Class
Dishwasher as "among the most energy-efficient in [their] class"
and utilizing "energy- and water-saving features that help reduce
your energy and water consumptions."

Unfortunately for consumers, each and every Control Panel—all of
which are identical from an assembly and mechanical engineering
standpoint regardless of the model in which they are equipped --
suffer from an identical, latent, and pervasive defect in
materials, workmanship, and/or design that eventually renders Class
Dishwashers inoperable well in advance of the end of their expected
useful life and, thus, unsuited for their ordinary and intended
purpose (the "Control Panel Defect"), says the suit.

Specifically, the alleged Defect allows moisture to penetrate the
Control Panels, damaging the sensitive electronic components housed
therein. When the Defect first manifests, the Control Panel's
buttons and/or LED display will appear to simply malfunction,
either blinking the Panel's various lights or shutting off
completely, which can cause Class Dishwashers to stop mid-cycle or
fail to re-start once a cycle is complete. Ultimately, the Defect
renders the Control Panels unresponsive, and without a functioning
Control Panel Class members cannot commence a wash cycle or use
their Class Dishwashers as expected and intended.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, bring this action to redress LG's violations of
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California's
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), the California's False Advertising
Law, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and also seeks recovery
for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, common
law fraud, and unjust enrichment.

Mr. Wheeler purchased a Class Dishwasher, model LDT5678SS for
personal and family use on November 29, 2019, from a Lowes Store
located in Bakersfield, California for approximately $616.48.

LG markets all its appliances as top-of-the-line, efficient, and
trustworthy products hat "offer innovative solutions to make life
good." LG's website boasts superior consumer goods "with intuitive,
responsive controls, sleep, stylish designs, and eco-friendly
features" and promises that their team will "be there for you every
step of the way."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex R. Straus, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
           PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          280 S. Beverley Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (917) 471-1894
          Facsimile: (310) 496-3176
          E-Mail: astraus@milberg.com

LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS: Barnish Sues Over 5.6% Decline of Stock Price
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRA K. BARNISH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS CORP. F/K/A. PERIDOT
ACQUISITION CORP., AJAY KOCHHAR, and BRUCE MACINNIS, Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02222 (E.D.N.Y., April 19, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) regarding Li-Cycle's business in order to trade
Li-Cycle securities at artificially inflated prices between
February 16, 2021 and March 23, 2022. Specifically, the Defendants
failed to disclose that: (1) Li-Cycle's largest customer, Traxys,
is not actually a customer, but merely a broker providing working
capital financial to the company while Traxys tries to sell
Li-Cycle's product to end customers; (2) the company engaged in
highly questionable related party transactions; (3) the company's
mark-to-model accounting is vulnerable to abuse and gave a false
impression of growth; (4) a significant portion of the company's
reported revenues were derived from simply marking up receivables
on products that had not been sold; (5) the company's gross margins
have likely been negative since inception; (6) the company will
require an additional $1 billion of funding to support its planned
growth (which is a figure greater than the company raised via the
merger); and (7) as a result, the Defendants' public statements
were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times.

When the truth emerged, Li-Cycle shares fell $0.47 per share, or
approximately 5.6 percent, to close at $7.93 per share on March 24,
2022, on unusually heavy trading volume, damaging investors.

Li-Cycle Holdings Corp., formerly known as Peridot Acquisition
Corp., is a lithium-ion battery recycling company, headquartered in
Toronto, Canada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         275 Madison Ave., 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 lrosen@rosenlegal.com

LILIUM NV: Faces Gnanaraj Suit Over Misleading Business Info
------------------------------------------------------------
MANIRAJ ASHIRWAD GNANARAJ, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LILIUM N.V. F/K/A QELL ACQUISITION CORP.,
BARRY ENGLE, DANIEL WIEGAND, and GEOFFREY RICHARDSON, Case No.
2:22-cv-02564 (C.D. Cal., April 18, 2022) is a class action on
behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded Lilium securities between March 30, 2021 and March
14, 2022, inclusive seeking to recover compensable damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

During the Class Period, the Company and the Individual Defendants,
individually and in concert, directly or indirectly, disseminated
or approved the false statements, which they knew or deliberately
disregarded were misleading in that they contained
misrepresentations and failed to disclose material facts necessary
in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which they were made, not misleading.

The Company and the Individual Defendants acted with scienter in
that they knew that the public documents and statements issued or
disseminated in the name of the Company were materially false and
misleading; knew that such statements or documents would be issued
or disseminated to the investing public; and knowingly and
substantially participated, or acquiesced in the issuance or
dissemination of such statements or documents as primary violations
of the securities laws. These defendants by virtue of their receipt
of information reflecting the true facts of the Company, their
control over, and/or receipt and/or modification of the Company's
allegedly materially misleading statements, and/or their
associations with the Company which made them privy to confidential
proprietary information concerning the Company, participated in the
alleged fraudulent scheme.

The market price of the Company's securities was artificially
inflated during the Class Period. In ignorance of the falsity of
the Company's and the Individual Defendants' statements, Plaintiff
and the other members of the Class relied on the statements
described above and/or the integrity of the market price of the
Company's securities during the Class Period in purchasing the
Company's securities at prices that were artificially inflated as a
result of the Company's and the Individual Defendants' false and
misleading statements.

Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class been aware that
the market price of the Company's securities had been artificially
and falsely inflated by the Company's and the Individual
Defendants' misleading statements and by the material adverse
information which the Company's and the Individual Defendants did
not disclose, they would not have purchased the Company's
securities at the artificially inflated prices that they did, or at
all, says the suit.

The Plaintiff purchased the Company's securities at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the
revelation of the alleged corrective disclosure.

Defendant Lilium purports to be a next-generation transportation
company focused on developing an electric vertical
take-off-and-landing (eVTOL) aircraft, the Lilium Jet, for use in a
new type of high-speed air transport system for people and
goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

LONG POINT: Kohlberg Appeals Securities Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Marjorie Kohlberg, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled MARJORIE KOHLBERG,
individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Edmund Kohlberg,
DAVID EIJADI, individually and as Trustee of the David Azziz Eijadi
and Barbara Anne Eijadi Revocable Trust Dated May 27, 2015, THOMAS
MCDOUGALL, individually and as Trustee of the Thomas G. McDougall
Trust dated November 17, 2005, PETER D. OTTAVIO, individually and
as Trustee of the Peter D. Ottavio Revocable Living Trust dated
February 19, 2016, MELISSA LASSOR, MARY LOU JURKOWSKI, JASON
STEINBOCK, and BETSY SEARS, all on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of Nominal
Defendants EYP HOLDINGS, INC. and EYP GROUP HOLDINGS, INC.,
Plaintiffs v. TOM BIRDSEY, LONG POINT CAPITAL, INC., LONG POINT
CAPITAL FUND II. L.P., LONG POINT CAPITAL PARTNERS II, L.P., LONG
POINT CAPITAL FUND III, L.P., LONG POINT CAPITAL PARTNERS III,
L.P., IRA STARR, NORMAN SCHERR, ERIC VON STROH, DAVID WATKINS, and
GREATBANC TRUST COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-06250, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(New York City).

Defendant Tom Birdsey is the former CEO of EYP and Long Point's
Starr.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is a class
action against the Defendants for securities fraud, breach of
fiduciary duty, conspiracy, and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, the Defendants implemented Employee
Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) transactions at EYP as a scheme and
artifice to defraud the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated in
connection with the purchase and sale of EYP's securities,
including stock and notes. Moreover, the Defendants made material
misrepresentations and omissions to the Plaintiffs and Class
members in connection with the purchase and sale of EYP's
securities, including:

     (1) the highly profitable business from SUNY Polytechnic
Institute had been improperly obtained and would likely decline
substantially or disappear. Among others, the lawsuit claims the
Defendants included SUNY Polytechnic Institute contracts in revenue
projections that were used to help establish the financial terms
for EYP's employee stock ownership plan in 2016;

     (2) Stantec had not been a viable candidate for acquiring EYP.
The alleged ESOP scheme caused the EYP board of directors in
November 2015 to reject an offer to sell the company to Stantec,
which would have provided greater financial benefits to the ESOP's
minority stockholders;

     (3) Long Point's relationship with and the corruption of
GreatBanc Trust.

The Defendants made these material misrepresentations and omissions
to induce the Plaintiffs and the Class to sell their stock, says
the complaint.

As a result of the Defendants' misrepresentations and omissions,
the Plaintiffs and Class members lost the value of their stock and
the principal and interest on their notes, and suffered other
losses caused by the Defendants' fraud, the complaint adds.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Opinion and Order
and Judgment dated March 31, 2022, granting Defendants' motions for
dismiss.

The appellate case is captioned Kohlberg v. Birdsey, Case No.
22-742, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on April 11, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Marjorie Kohlberg, individually and as
Administrator of the Estate of Edmund Kohlberg; David Eijadi,
individually and as Trustee of the David Azziz Eijadi and Barbara
Anne Eijadi Revocable Trust Dated May 27, 2015; Thomas McDougall,
individually and as Trustee of the Thomas G. McDougall Trust dated
November 17, 2005; Peter D. Ottavio, individually and as Trustee of
the Peter D. Ottavio Revocable Living Trust dated February 19,
2016; Melissa Lassor, all on behalf of Themselves and all others
similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendants
EYP Holdings Inc. and EYP Group Holdings, Inc.; Mary Lou Jurkowski,
all on behalf of Themselves and all others similarly situated and
derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendants EYP Holdings Inc. and
EYP Group Holdings, Inc.; Jason Steinbock, similarly situated and
derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendants EYP Holdings Inc. and
EYP Group Holdings, Inc.; and Betsy Sears, all on behalf of
Themselves and all others similarly situated and derivatively on
behalf of Nominal Defendants EYP Holdings Inc. and EYP Group
Holdings, Inc., are represented by:

          Phillip Rakhunov, Esq.
          POLLACK SOLOMON DUFFY LLP
          101 Huntington Avenue
          Boston, MA 02199
          Telephone: (617) 960-3118
          E-mail: prakhunov@psdfirm.com

               - and -

          Anne K. Bowling, Esq.
          RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC
          1600 Liberty Building
          424 Main Street
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 854-3400
          E-mail: bowling@ruppbaase.com  

Defendants-Appellees Tom Birdsey; Long Point Capital, Inc.; Long
Point Capital Fund II. L.P.; Long Point Capital Partners II L.P.;
Long Point Capital Fund III, L.P.; Long Point Capital Partners III,
L.P.; Ira Starr; Norman Scherr; Eric Von Stroh; and Greatbanc Trust
Company are represented by:

          Eloy A. Peral, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN, LLP
          101 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 808-7945
          E-mail: eperal@kelleydrye.com

               - and -

          Scott Watnik, Esq.
          WILK AUSLANDER LLP
          1515 Broadway
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 981-2300
          E-mail: swatnik@wilkauslander.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Michael Sperling, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          The New York Times Building
          620 8th Avenue
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 841-1000
          E-mail: jsperling@cov.com

               - and -

          Roger H. Stetson, Esq.
          BARACK, FERRAZZANO, KIRSCHBAUM & NAGELBERG LLP
          200 West Madison Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 629-7339
          E-mail: roger.stetson@bfkn.com

LOUISIANA: Davis Appeals Dismissal Bid Ruling in Williams  Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lamar A. Davis, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the
Louisiana State Police, filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit styled Remingtyn A. Williams, Lauren E. Chustz,
Bilal Ali-Bey, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated v. Shaun Ferguson, in his official capacity as
Superintendent of the New Orleans Police Department; Lamar A.
Davis, in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Louisiana
State Police; Joseph P. Lopinto, III, in his official capacity as
Sheriff of Jefferson Parish; Officer Travis Johnson, Officer Jason
Jorgenson, Officer Devin Joseph, Officer Michael Pierce, Officer
David DeSalvo, Officer Wesley Humbles, Officer Arden Taylor, Jr.,
Officer Frank Vitrano, Lieutenant Merlin Bush, Officer Michael
Devezin, Officer Bryan Bissell, Officer Daniel Grijalva, Officer
Brandon Abadie, Officer Devin Johnson, Officer Douglas Boudreau,
Officer Matthew Connolly, Sergeant Terrence Hilliard, Sergeant
Travis Ward, Sergeant Evan Cox, Officer Jonathan Burnette, Officer
Justin McCubbins, Officer Kenneth Kuykindall, Officer ZacharyVogel,
Sergeant Lamont Walker, Officer Denzel Millon, Officer Raphael
Rico, Officer Jamal Kendrick, Sergeant Daniel Hiatt, Officer
Jeffrey Crouch, Officer John Cabral, Officer Matthew Ezell, Officer
James Cunningham, Officer Demond Davis, Officer Joshua Diaz,
Sergeant Stephen Nguyen, Officer Vinh Nguyen, Officer Matthew
Mckoan, Captain Brian Lampard, Captain LeJon Roberts, Deputy Chief
John Thomas, John Does 1-100, New Orleans Police Department; John
Poes 1-50, Louisiana State Police Department; Case No.
2:21-cv-00852-GGG-MBN, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans.

According to the complaint, on the night of June 3, 2020, Remingtyn
Williams, Lauren Chustz, and Bilal Ali-Bey, along with several
hundred other protestors, gathered on the Crescent City Connection
to demonstrate against the "death of George Floyd." Around 9:30
p.m., the protestors marched up the westbound lanes of Highway 90
toward the bridge. On the roadway, New Orleans Police Department
("NOPD") officers were waiting at a police barricade. When the
protestors reached the barricade, they asked the officers to "put
down their shields [and] batons" in "solidarity" with the
demonstration. After a lengthy standoff, the officers declined and
a "group of agitated demonstrators passed through an opening in the
police line." At that time, 10:25 p.m., the officers started firing
tear gas and rubber bullets at the protestors. The protestors
largely dispersed and quickly withdrew from the bridge.

The Plaintiffs have brought suit against NOPD, the Louisiana State
Police, and the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office. Generally, the
Plaintiffs contend the "Defendants had no legitimate basis to
disperse the peaceful gathering on the night of June 3, 2020 with
such extreme use of force" and without warning. Specifically, the
Plaintiffs raise nearly a dozen claims against the police officers
and their supervisors: (1) aggravated assault and battery; (2)
Louisiana's freedom of speech violations; (3) Equal Protection
clause violations; (4) Substantive Due Process violations; (5)
negligence; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (7)
negligent infliction of emotional distress; (8) Monell and
Supervisory liability for First Amendment freedom of speech
violations; (9) Monell and Supervisory liability for Fourth
Amendment excessive force violations; (10) vicarious liability for
aggravated assault and battery; and (11) Title VI violations. The
Plaintiffs have categorized the Defendants and their claims against
them accordingly: the first claim is raised against the "Defendant
Officers," claims (2)-(7) are brought against "All Defendants," and
the remaining claims target the "Defendant Supervisors."

On March 30, 2022, Judge Greg Gerard Guidry entered an order
granting in part and denying in part Col. Davis' Motion to Dismiss.
Judge Guidry held that in regard to the claims brought against Col.
Davis, the motion is DENIED; in regard to the Plaintiffs' Monell
claims against Col. Davis, the motion is GRANTED, and the claims
are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; in regard to the Title VI claim
against Col. Davis, the motion is GRANTED, and the claim is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and in regard to the state law claims
brought against Col. Davis, the motion is DENIED.

Col. Davis now seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Williams v. Davis, Case No.
22-30181, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, filed on April 13, 2022.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant Lamar A. Davis, in his official capacity as
Superintendent of the Louisiana State Police, is represented by:

          Gregory Charles Fahrenholt, Esq.
          BURGLASS & TANKERSLEY, L.L.C.
          5213 Airline Drive
          Metairie, LA 70001
          Telephone: (504) 836-0408
          E-mail: gfahrenholt@burglass.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Remingtyn A. Williams, Lauren E. Chustz, and
Bilal Ali-Bey, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Stephanie L. Willis, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          1340 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70112-0000
          Telephone: (504) 522-0628
          E-mail: swillis@laaclu.org

LOUISIANA: Summary Judgment in Mid-City v. State Police Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MID-CITY AUTOMOTIVE, L.L.C., v. STATE OF LOUISIANA,
THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS, OFFICE OF STATE
POLICE, Case Nos. 2021 CA 1024 and 2021 CW 0680 (La. App.), the
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, affirmed the summary
judgment ordering the State of Louisiana, through the Department of
Public Safety and Corrections, Office of State Police, to reimburse
the Plaintiff class $851,185.83, as well as judicial interest and
costs.

The amount was collected pursuant to a schedule of fines that was
declared unconstitutional.

I. Background

Mid-City instituted the suit for declaratory judgment and
injunctive relief, challenging the constitutionality of certain
provisions of LAC 55:1.1907(A), including the schedule of fines
promulgated by the Office of State Police pursuant to its
regulatory authority under The Louisiana Towing and Storage Act. In
Mid-City I, the Court of Appeal rendered judgment declaring that
the schedule of fines set forth in LAC 55:1.1907(A)(4) was invalid
due to an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to
the Office of State Police and issued an injunction against further
enforcement of the fines.

Mid-City then amended its petition to add Riverside Towing, Inc.,
as a plaintiff and assert a class action seeking reimbursement of
all fines paid under the provision declared invalid in Mid-City I.
The trial court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and certified the class of Plaintiffs to include "all
persons, natural and/or juridical, who have paid a fine pursuant to
the Schedule of Fines, LAC 55:I.1907(A), in the state of Louisiana
from October 20, 2009, through the present, as a result of the
application of LAC 55:I.1907(A)" (Mid-City II). The Office of State
Police appealed and this court affirmed the trial court's judgment,
rejecting the Office of State Police's argument that the
Plaintiffs' claims were prescribed.

Following the Court of Appeal's decision in Mid-City II, the
Plaintiff class filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking full
repayment of the amounts the Office of State Police fined and
collected from them under LAC 55:I.1907(A), which totaled
$851,185.83. The Plaintiffs argued that since the Court of Appeal
declared the schedule of fines to be unconstitutional, the
provision is void ab initio and all acts done pursuant thereto are
void and of no effect. They further argued that since the
unlawfully collected fines were their private property, the Office
of State Police was obligated to refund them.

The Office of State Police then filed an exception of lack of
subject matter jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity. The Office
of State Police contended the Plaintiffs' claims were for unjust
enrichment and "could only be characterized as quasi-contractual in
nature." Consequently, the Office of State Police argued, the
Plaintiffs' claims do not fall within the scope of the state's
waiver of sovereign immunity from suits in contract or tort found
in La. Const. art. XII, Sect. 10(A), and the Court lacked
jurisdiction to entertain them.

The Plaintiffs' disputed the Office of State Police's
characterization of their claims as quasi-contractual. They argued
that the state is not immune from suits brought against it where a
public entity is proceeding in violation of law, which they point
out has been determined in the case; therefore, they contended, due
process demands the return of their unconstitutionally taken
property. They further argued that the licensee and licensor
relationship between them and the state is contractual and falls
within the state's waiver of sovereign immunity.

In its opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the Office of
State Police contended that the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate
they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law, raising the same
issue of sovereign immunity. Alternatively, it argued that issues
of fact precluded the retroactive application of Mid-City I and the
Court of Appeal's declaration that LAC 55:1.1907(A) is
unconstitutional. In essence, the Office of State Police argued
that reimbursement would result in injustice and hardship on the
state and its citizens because the money has already been spent on
governmental operations and programs.

The trial court denied the Office of State Police's exception of
lack of subject matter jurisdiction and granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment, ordering the Office of Sate Police to
repay the Plaintiffs $851,185.83, plus judicial interest and court
costs. The Office of State Police suspensively appealed the summary
judgment and filed an application for supervisory writ that seeks
review of the trial court's ruling on the exception.

II. Discussion

A. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

After careful review, the Court of Appeal finds no merit to the
Office of State Police's arguments that sovereign immunity bars the
exercise of subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff class'
claims for repayment of the fines collected under the
unconstitutional fine schedule. Accordingly, it denies the
application for supervisory writ filed by the Office of State
Police and considers the summary judgment granted by the trial
court.

B. Summary Judgment

After de novo review, the Court of Appeal finds that the Plaintiff
class satisfied its initial burden on the motion for summary
judgment by offering proof of the amounts the Plaintiffs paid under
the provision declared unconstitutional in Mid-City I. The burden
of proof then shifted to the Office of State Police, which
reiterated its argument regarding lack of subject matter
jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity.

Having determined that argument lacks merit, the Court of Appeal
turns to the Office of State Police's alternative argument that
issues of fact preclude the retroactive application of Mid-City I
and the Court's declaration that LAC 55:I.1907(A) is
unconstitutional. It finds no merit to the Office of State Police's
argument that Mid-City I should be applied only prospectively. In
accordance with the general rule regarding application of judicial
decisions, LAC 55:I.1907(A)(4) is null and void ab initio, as if it
had never been passed. Consequently, the Office of State Police has
failed to carry its burden of proof in opposing the Plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment.

III. Conclusion

The Court of Appeal denied the writ application filed by the Office
of State Police. It affirmed the June 3, 2021 judgment of the trial
court, which granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff
class and ordered the Office of State Police to return $851,185.83
to the Plaintiffs. Costs of the appeal in the amount of $4,656 are
assessed to the State of Louisiana, Department of Public Safety and
Corrections, Office of State Police.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yckrm68e from Leagle.com.

Dennis J. Phayer, Jenna H. Lin, in Metairie, Louisiana, Attorney
for the Defendant/Appellant, The State of Louisiana, through the
Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Office of State
Police.

Larry S. Bankston -- larry@bblawyers.net -- in Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs/Appellees, Mid-City
Automotive, LLC, Riverside Towing, Inc., and similarly Situated
individuals and entities.


M-I LLC: Hearing on Last Class Status Bid Continued to August 12
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONOVIN LAST, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
v. M-I, L.L.C., Case No. 1:20-cv-01205-DAD-BAK (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered an order granting
the parties' second stipulation requesting to extend the briefing
and hearing dates for Plaintiff's pending motion for class
certification:

   1. The Defendant's opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class
      certification shall be filed by May 6, 2022;

   2. The Plaintiff's reply to the opposition shall be filed by
      June 3, 2022; and

   3. The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification,
      currently set for July 15, 2022, is continued to August
      12, 2022 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (EPG) before
      Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean.

The parties request a two-week extension of Defendants' opposition
deadline, the Plaintiff's reply deadline, and the hearing date
because there have been scheduling conflicts with certain witness
depositions.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37y2d2m at no extra charge.[CC]

MARRIOTT INT'L: Dismissal of Branca's Claims From Hall Suit OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TODD HALL, KEVIN BRANCA, and GEORGE ABDELSAYED
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 19cv1715-JO-AHG (S.D. Cal.), Judge Jinsook Ohta
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
granted Plaintiff Branca's motion for voluntary dismissal of his
claims, and denied the Defendant's request for costs as
procedurally improper.

I. Background

Mr. Branca, one of three named Plaintiffs in the class action
lawsuit, moved for voluntary dismissal of his claims under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The Defendant does not oppose
dismissal, but requests that the Court (1) preserves its claims for
fees and costs, and (2) awards it costs in the amount of $2,844.35
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d).

II. Discussion

A. Voluntary Dismissal

Plaintiff Branca seeks dismissal of his claims with prejudice. A
voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) should be granted, "unless
a defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice
as a result."

The Defendant does not oppose the Plaintiff's request for voluntary
dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2), nor does it contend
that it will suffer legal prejudice. The Defendant merely notes
that it may request sanctions, fees, and costs in the future.
Accordingly, Judge Ohta granted the Plaintiff's motion for
voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2), without prejudice to the
Defendant's right to make such requests in a time and manner as
required under applicable law and local rules.

B. Request for Prevailing Party Costs

Next, Judge Ohta declines to consider the Defendant's request for
costs under Rule 54(d). She holds that the Defendant's request for
affirmative relief is not properly presented because it is raised
for the first time on Opposition, and the Defendant has not
complied with Southern District of California Civil Local Rule
54.1. Should the Defendant wish to seek costs under Rule 54(d), it
should file a proper motion in accordance with the applicable
rules.

C. Denial of Request to File Additional Briefing

In its exercise of discretion, Judge Ohta denies the Defendant's
request to file a sur-reply in opposition to Plaintiff Branca's
motion for voluntary dismissal. She says, permitting the filing of
a sur-reply is within the discretion of the district court. A
district court may allow a surreply to be filed, but only where a
valid reason for such additional briefing exists, such as where the
movant raises new arguments in its reply brief."

While the Defendant identifies a new argument in the Plaintiff's
reply disputing the Defendant's ability to seek sanctions in the
future, the Court has not considered these arguments in resolving
the Plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal. Thus, Judge Ohta
finds the proposed sur-reply, the Plaintiff's opposition to the
sur-reply, and the Defendant's reply to the sur-reply unnecessary.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons she stated, Judge Ohta granted the Plaintiff's
motion for voluntary dismissal and denied the Defendant's request
to file a sur-reply.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8hz8xk from Leagle.com.


MCNEIL NUTRITIONALS: Court Dismisses DiCroce Suit Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KRISTIN DICROCE, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. McNEIL NUTRITIONALS, LLC,
and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., Defendants, Civil Action No.
21-11660-PBS (D. Mass.), Judge Patti B. Saris of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss without prejudice.

In the putative class action, Plaintiff DiCroce brings deceptive
trade practices and false advertising claims against McNeil and
Johnson & Johnson ("J&J"). At issue are certain statements on the
packaging of the Defendants' product Lactaid that allegedly portray
Lactaid as a drug rather than a dietary supplement. McNeil and J&J
moved to dismiss.

The Defendants' Motion raises serious arguments against the
Complaint's viability on the merits. But "because Article III
standing is a sine qua non to federal judicial involvement, a
federal court must resolve any doubts about such standing before
proceeding to adjudicate the merits of a given case."

Judge Saris holds that DiCroce's standing argument is hard to
digest. It rests on the single factual assertion that "had the
Lactaid Supplements been labeled in compliance with applicable
state and federal law," she "would not have been misled by the
claims on the Supplements' label" and "this would have affected her
purchasing decisions."

Ms. DiCroce does not assert that Lactaid was defective or failed to
work as promised. She does not even allege that she would not have
purchased the supplement but for the allegedly misleading
advertising. Her vague claim of an "effect" on her "purchasing
decisions" cannot support a finding of Article III standing.

Judge Saris finds that DiCroce has failed to plausibly allege an
injury-in-fact. Therefore, she allowed the Defendants' motion to
dismiss without prejudice to filing an amended complaint within 30
days.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5a3apscu from Leagle.com.


MERRILL GARDENS: Ramirez Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARIA BUSTOS RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MERRILL GARDENS, LLC; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV08363, was removed from the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on April 18, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-02584 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods, failure to
authorize and permit rest breaks, failure to indemnity necessary
business expenses, failure to timely pay final wages at
termination, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
and unfair competition.

Merrill Gardens, LLC is an owner and operator of senior living
communities, with its principal place of business in Seattle,
Washington. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Diane Marie O'Malley, Esq.
         Samantha A. Botros, Esq.
         HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
         425 Market Street, 26th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94105
         Telephone: (415) 777-3200
         Facsimile: (415) 541-9366
         E-mail: domalley@hansonbridgett.com
                 SBotros@hansonbridgett.com

METHOD PRODUCTS: Illinois Court Narrows Claims in Horn BIPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVEN HORN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. METHOD PRODUCTS, PBC, Defendant,
Case No. 21 C 5621 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Sara L. Ellis of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division:

   -- grants in part and denies in part Method's motion to
      dismiss Horn's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
      Procedure 12(b)(6); and

   -- denies Method's motion to stay.

I. Background

Plaintiff Stephen Horn, who worked for Defendant Method in
Illinois, alleges that Method required its employees to provide
biometric scans each time they clocked in and out of work. He filed
the putative class action lawsuit claiming that Method violated
Section 15(a), (b), and (d) of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act ("BIPA"), 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 14/1 et seq.

Method used a biometric timekeeping device to track its employees'
time, requiring its employees, including Horn, to scan their
fingerprints every time they clocked in and out of their work
shifts. It stored Horn's biometric information in its database and
then used that information to identify him and track his time.
Method did not inform Horn in writing of the purpose of its
collection of his biometric information or the length of time it
would store and use that information. It also did not provide Horn
with a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for
permanently destroying his biometric information or obtain Horn's
written consent to the collection and disclosure of that
information. Nor did Method destroy his biometric information as
required by statute.

Method has moved to dismiss Horn's complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). It also seeks a stay of the
proceedings pending resolution of four other BIPA cases.

II. Analysis

1. Method's Motion to Dismiss

A. Negligent, Intentional, or Reckless Conduct

First, Method argues that Horn has failed to state a plausible BIPA
claim because he has not sufficiently pleaded that Method acted
negligently, intentionally, or recklessly. BIPA provides that a
plaintiff may recover statutory damages of $1,000 for negligent
violations and $5,000 for intentional or reckless violations. But
the need to demonstrate negligence, intentional action, or
recklessness impacts a plaintiff's recovery, not the underlying
substantive BIPA violation.

Judge Ellis opines that Rule 8 does not require a plaintiff to
plead damages with particularity and instead only requires "a
demand for the relief sought." Horn has sufficiently complied with
this requirement. And even treating state of mind as an element of
a BIPA claim, by alleging that Method has made no effort to comply
with BIPA, Horn has pleaded facts to suggest that Method acted with
negligence, recklessness, or intent.

B. Section 15(d) Claim (Count III)

Next, Method argues that Horn has not sufficiently pleaded his
Section 15(d) claim because the complaint does not suggest that
Method ever disclosed Horn's biometric information. Section 15(d)
provides that private entities in possession of biometric
information cannot disclose such information except under certain
circumstances.

The complaint alleges that, "upon information and belief, the
Plaintiff and the Class members may be aggrieved because the
Defendant may have improperly disclosed employees' biometrics to
third-party vendors in violation of BIPA." It does not contain any
specifics concerning the basis for Horn's belief that Method
disclosed his biometric information.

Mr. Horn maintains that only Method possesses the information
required to support his disclosure allegations, but Judge Ellis
finds that he "has not satisfied the court that Method alone has
possession of the facts necessary to his Section 15(d) claim." His
complaint does not include any allegations suggesting that Method
used any third-party vendors to support such an inference. Thus,
Horn's conclusory allegations of disclosure, which merely parrot
BIPA's statutory language, require the Court to dismiss his Section
15(d) claim.

C. Section 15(a) Claim (Count I)

Method also argues that Horn's Section 15(a) claim is not ripe
because the complaint does not allege when Horn worked for Method
and, absent a disclosure policy, Method can retain his biometric
information for up to three years after his employment with Method
ended. Although Method frames this as a challenge under Rule
12(b)(6), ripeness goes to the Court's subject matter
jurisdiction.

Mr. Horn argues that the length of time since his employment with
Method ended does not affect the ripeness of his Section 15(a)
claim because Section 15(a) requires entities collecting biometric
information not only to destroy biometric information but also to
develop a written policy establishing a schedule and guidelines for
the permanent destruction of biometric information.

Judge Ellis agrees that because Horn alleges that Method does not
have a policy setting forth a purpose for collecting his biometric
information, under the statute, Method could retain that
information for up to three years after Horn's employment with
Method ended. This means that until those three years pass, any
argument that Method did not comply with Section 15(a)'s
destruction requirement is not ripe. And while Horn's claim for the
failure to develop and disclose a retention policy is ripe, Horn
does not have standing to pursue such a claim in federal court
without also contending that Method unlawfully retained his
biometric information. Thus, Judge Ellis dismisses Horn's Section
15(a) claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

D. The Illinois Workers Compensation Act (the "IWCA") Preemption

Alternatively, Method argues that the IWCA preempts Horn's BIPA
claims. The IWCA provides the exclusive remedy for accidental
injuries that employees sustain in the course of their employment.
A plaintiff can avoid IWCA preemption if she establishes "(1) that
the injury was not accidental; (2) that the injury did not arise
from her employment; (3) that the injury was not received during
the course of employment; or (4) that the injury was not
compensable under the IWCA."

Method argues that Horn has not asserted a compensable injury.
After the parties completed briefing on this motion, however, the
Illinois Supreme Court definitively ruled that the IWCA's
exclusivity provision does not bar BIPA claims, citing McDonald v.
Symphony Bronzeville Park, LLC, 2022 IL 126511. Thus, McDonald
controls and disposes of Method's IWCA preemption argument.

2. Method's Motion to Stay

In addition to moving to dismiss Horn's BIPA claims, Method filed a
motion to stay all proceedings in the case pending decisions of the
Illinois Supreme Court, Illinois Appellate Court, and the Seventh
Circuit addressing allegedly open issues concerning BIPA's scope.
Method argues that these decisions could result in the dismissal of
Horn's claims or at least "could significantly affect the course of
the litigation by determining, and possibly limiting, the size of
the putative class and the extent of their recovery under BIPA's
damages provisions."

Initially, as she already, Judge Ellis holds that the Illinois
Supreme Court has decided McDonald, and so whether the IWCA
preempts BIPA claims no longer remains an open question that could
support a stay.

Method also argues that the Court should stay the case pending
decisions on the appropriate statute of limitations for BIPA claims
in Tims v. Black Horse Carriers, Inc. and Marion v. Ring Container
Technologies, LLC, and when BIPA claims accrue in Cothron v. White
Castle System, Inc.

Judge Ellis holds that while the scope of the case may change
depending on the Illinois Supreme Court's decisions in Tims and
Cothron, she does not find that this remote possibility justifies a
stay. Instead, she finds it appropriate for the parties to proceed
to discovery on the merits of Horn's individual claim and the
propriety of class certification. This will allow the parties to
"be in an advanced position to consider the impact of Cothron and
Tims when they are decided."

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Ellis grants in part and denies in
part Method's motion to dismiss, and denies Method's motion to
stay. She dismisses Horn's Section 15(a) and 15(d) claims (Counts I
and III) without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3pb7hxbb from Leagle.com.


METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: Reese Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Koriszan Reese, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled JASON FARINA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; TRIBOROUGH BRIDGE AND TUNNEL
AUTHORITY, d/b/a MTA BRIDGES AND TUNNELS; TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS, INC;
and CONDUENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01433-NRB, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is an action
by the Plaintiff and similar class who have been charged $100 fees
as a result of New York's cashless toll systems called EZ Pass and
Tolls-By-Mail.

The Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that Defendants who operate
the EZ Pass and Tolls-By-Mail, have used the cashless toll system
to line their own pockets at the expense of the drivers, primarily
by collecting improper fees and penalties in addition to collecting
tolls. The fees and penalties are multiples of the actual toll for
the bridge, which means that drivers are being repeatedly charged
more than $100 to cross a bridge or tunnel.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Opinion and Order
dated March 10, 2022 and Judgment dated March 11, 2022, granting
Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The appellate case is captioned as Farina, et al. v. Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, et al., Case No. 22-751, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 11,
2022.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Koriszan Reese, Mirian Rojas, and Brian Owens
are represented by:

          Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          305 Broadway, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com

Defendants-Appellees Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, DBA
MTA Bridges and Tunnels, and The Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey are represented by:

          Todd Rosenbaum, Esq.
          MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY
           AND POPEO, P.C.
          Chrysler Center, 666 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 935-3000
          E-mail: tfrosenbaum@mintz.com

               - and -

          Cheryl Nancy Alterman, Esq.
          THE PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY
          4 World Trade Center
          150 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 435-3431  

MICHPAT & FAM: Appeals Class Cert Bid Ruling in Valdez FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michpat & Fam, LLC, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled Jessica Valdez, on behalf of
herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MICHPAT & FAM, LLC, d/b/a DAIRY QUEEN GRILL & CHILL
RESTAURANT, and PATRICIA NAPPO, a/k/a PATRICIA DEMINT,
individually, Case No. 2:20-cv-02570, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 17, 2020, the
lawsuit is brought for damages and equitable relief based upon the
Defendants' violations of the Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to her
by the minimum and overtime wage provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiff the overtime wages lawfully due to her under the FLSA and
the NYLL. Specifically, the Defendants required the Plaintiff to
work, and she did work, in excess of 40 hours in a week, yet the
Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff at the
statutorily-required overtime rate of one and one-half times her
regular rate of pay, or one and one-half times the minimum wage,
whichever is greater, for all hours in excess of 40 in a week.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an hourly manual worker
and then as a "manager" from late-December 2017 until October 25,
2019.

On January 6, 2022, Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke entered a
Report and Recommendation regarding a Motion to Certify FLSA
Collective Action Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and Motion
to Certify Class Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) filed by the
Plaintiff. He recommended that the motion for conditional
certification be granted in part and denied in part, as follows:
(1) this matter should be conditionally certified as a FLSA
collective action for a class defined as all current and former
employees, who from April 23, 2018 to April 23, 2021, performed any
work for Defendants and who were paid on an hourly basis as 'crew'
members, assistant managers, or managers, and who consent to file a
claim to recover damages for unpaid overtime compensation and
liquidated damages; (2) a three-year statute of limitations should
be applied to the FLSA claims, and should be tolled from the filing
of Plaintiff's Motion until the date of the adoption or
modification of this Report and Recommendation; (3) this matter
should be certified as a NYLL Rule 23 class action for a class
defined as all current and former employees, who from the opening
of Defendants' Dairy Queen restaurant on December 1, 2017 until
March 1, 2020, performed any work for Defendants in New York as
'crew' members, assistant managers, or managers, and who were paid
on an hourly, bi-weekly basis; (4) a six-year statute of
limitations should be applied to the NYLL claims, and should be
tolled from the date the Named Plaintiff filed the Complaint until
the adoption or modification of this Report and Recommendation; (5)
the Named Plaintiff should revise her proposed notice consistent
with Judge Donnelly's adoption or modification of this Report and
Recommendation; (6) the Named Plaintiff should be permitted to send
the notice to potential FLSA collective and NYLL Rule 23 class
members via first-class mail, email, and text message, as well as
to post it at Defendants' Dairy Queen location and send a reminder
notice; and (7) Defendants should be directed to provide the Named
Plaintiff with a computer-readable data file containing the names,
addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, work locations, and
dates of employment of all crew members, assistant managers, and
managers employed by Defendants as hourly, non-exempt,
overtime-eligible employees at any point between December 1, 2017
and March 1, 2020.

On March 30, 2022, Judge Ann M. Donnelly entered a memorandum
decision and order, adopting Judge Locke's R&R in its entirety.

The Defendant are now challenging this ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as Michpat & Fam, LLC v. Valdez,
Case No. 22-783, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on April 13, 2022.[BN]

The appellate case is captioned as Michpat & Fam, LLC v. Valdez,
Case No. 22-783, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on April 13, 2022.

Defendants-Petitioners Michpat & Fam, LLC, DBA Dairy Queen Grill &
Chill Restaurant, and Patricia Nappo, AKA Patricia Demint, are
represented by:

          Alan Krystal, Esq.
          ALAN H. KRYSTAL P.C.
          195 Smithtown Boulevard, Suite 101
          Nesconset, NY 11787
          Telephone: (631) 416-7001

Plaintiff-Respondent Jessica Valdez, on behalf of herself,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Caitlin Duffy, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          655 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 679-5000

MIDLAND CREDIT: Geddings FDCPA Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PAUL GEDDINGS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No.
GD-22-002566, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on April 14, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00565-CCW to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act in connection to its efforts to
collect a certain debt from the Plaintiff.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a debt collection agency,
headquartered in San Diego, California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Michael P. Trainor, Esq.
         Jonathan F. Ball, Esq.
         BLANK ROME, LLP
         One Logan Square – 130 N. 18th Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 569-5500
         Facsimile: (215) 569-5555
         E-mail: jonathan.ball@blankrome.com
                 michael.trainor@blankrome.com

MILLIMAN INC: Wins in Part Bid for Summary Judgment in Healy Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES HEALY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MILLIMAN, INC., d/b/a
INTELLISCRIPT, Defendant, Case No. C20-1473-JCC (W.D. Wash.), Judge
John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle:

    (i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's second
        motion for summary judgment; and

   (ii) granted the parties' motions to seal.

I. Background

The Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et
seq., mandates that a consumer reporting agency ("CRA") use
"reasonable procedures" to ensure the accuracy of the information
it reports to third parties. If a CRA fails to do so, or to satisfy
the FCRA's other requirements, the statute provides aggrieved
consumers with a private right of action.

Plaintiff Healy filed the putative class action lawsuit alleging
that the Defendant is a CRA who violated the FCRA, in particular,
15 U.S.C. Sections 1681e(b), 1681i(a), 1681i(f), and 1681g(a)(2).
His theory of liability is that the Defendant, which sells reports
containing consumers' medical histories to insurers, fails to
utilize reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of those
reports.

In Mr. Healy's particular case, the Defendant allegedly erroneously
reported Mr. Healy's medical history to a prospective insurer,
failed to timely reinvestigate its errors and to respond to Mr.
Healy's requests for information regarding their source, and the
errors resulted in Mr. Healy's application for insurance being
denied. Mr. Healy also alleges that his experience with the
Defendant is not unique.

The Defendant previously moved for summary judgment on all of Mr.
Healy's claims, which the Court denied under Rule 56(d). Following
class discovery and the exchange of expert reports, the Defendant
again moves for summary judgment. This time, it argues, among other
things, that neither Mr. Healy nor the unnamed class members have
the requisite standing to bring FCRA claims, as recently
articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court.

II. Discussion

A. Motion to Strike Arguments Regarding Unnamed Class Members

Mr. Healy moves to strike those portions of Defendant's motion
containing arguments directed at class certification and the
unnamed class members' claims (as opposed to Mr. Healy's). The
Defendant now contends that these arguments are intended solely to
support summary judgment on Mr. Healy's individual claims.

Assuming this is so, Judge Coughenour rules that the Defendant's
arguments are permissible in a Rule 56 motion, even in light of a
briefing schedule supporting a later-filed Rule 23 motion. Neither
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 nor due process necessarily requires that the
district court rule on class certification before granting or
denying a motion for summary judgment. Therefore, Mr. Healy's
motion to strike is denied. The Court will consider all of the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment, but do so solely for
purposes of determining whether summary judgment is warranted on
Mr. Healy's individual claims.

B. Motion to Strike New Argument Raised in Reply

Mr. Healy also asks the Court to strike a portion of the
Defendant's reply brief. In that portion, the Defendant argues for
the first time that color or diagnostic coding contained in the
reports it generates constitute statutorily exempt risk scores or
predictors that it need not disclose to consumers. Mr. Healy
contends it would be procedurally improper for the Court to
consider this argument as a basis for dismissal of his claims.

Judge Coughenour agrees. The Defendant moved for summary judgment
on Mr. Healy's Section 1681(g)(a)(2) claim solely on the notion
that he fails to demonstrate standing. It is not appropriate for
the Court to now consider other arguments as a basis for dismissal
of the claim. SBut rather than strike the offending text, Judge
Coughenour disregards it.

C. Defendant's Second Motion for Summary Judgment

In moving for summary judgment for the second time, the Defendant
argues that Mr. Healy presents no evidence to support the type of
particularized and concrete injury required for standing under
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021), and also that Mr.
Healy's inaccuracy and reinvestigation claims fail on the merits
because its procedures are reasonable.

Judge Coughenour holds that Mr. Healy has not properly supported
his standing for a Section 1681g(a)(2) claim. To withstand summary
judgment, Mr. Healy must present some evidence demonstrating a
concrete and particularized harm flowing from this failure. He
presents none. Instead, he contends, without evidentiary support,
that because he did not have the sources of Defendant's medical
reporting, he was "unable to quickly identify the records that led
to his denial" or to "quickly and efficiently verify that the
information had been corrected at the source." This may be true,
but without evidentiary support, it is no more than theoretical
harm, which is insufficient to establish standing.

Judge Coughenour further holds that while it is true that the FCRA
requires nothing more, a reasonableness determination for these
purposes is generally, by definition, a genuine issue of material
fact. And Judge Coughenour sees no reason to depart from that rule
in this instance. Therefore, summary judgment on Mr. Healy's
Section 1681e(b) inaccuracy and 1681i reinvestigation claims is not
warranted.

D. The Parties' Motions to Seal

The parties move to maintain under seal unredacted versions of some
of their briefing on the Defendant's summary judgment motion, along
with excerpts of, and exhibits to, expert reports and declarations
supporting their briefing. They assert those documents contain
Defendant's confidential business information, which the Defendant
produced pursuant to the stipulated protective order previously
entered in the case.

Judge Coughenour explains that there is a strong presumption of
public access to the Court's files." To overcome that presumption,
he says, a party must show "compelling reasons" to seal a document
attached to a dispositive motion. He has reviewed the documents at
issue and concludes that a compelling reason exists to seal the
underlying materials in this instance, and this reason overcomes
the presumption of public access.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Coughenour granted in part and
denied in part the Defendant's second motion for summary judgment.
Summary judgment is granted on the Plaintiff's 15 U.S.C. Section
1681g(a)(2) claim, based on Mr. Healy's failure to demonstrate
standing. Summary judgment is denied on the Plaintiff's remaining
claims.

The parties' motions to seal are granted. The Clerk is directed to
maintain Docket Numbers 93, 107, and 115 under seal.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3swpavv5 from Leagle.com.


MONDELEZ INT'L: $8M Class Settlement in McMorrow Suit Has Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATRICK McMORROW, et al., Plaintiffs v. MONDELEZ
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-02327-BAS-JLB (S.D.
Cal.), Judge Cynthia Bashant of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Final Approval of Class Settlement and their Motion for Attorneys'
Fees, Costs, and Service Awards.

I. Introduction

Patrick McMorrow, Marco Ohlin, and Melody DiGregorio commenced the
class action against Defendant Mondelez, alleging that Mondelez
labeled its belVita breakfast biscuits as "nutritious," despite the
biscuits' high added sugar content. The parties negotiated a
settlement and on Nov. 19, 2021, the Court granted preliminary
approval.

Now pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval of Class Settlement. They also filed a Motion for
Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service Awards, and Class Member
Shiyang Huang filed an Objection to the Fee Motion. The Plaintiffs
responded to Mr. Huang's objection, and Mr. Huang submitted a
supplemental statement. The final approval hearing was held on
April 4, 2022.

II. Background

After four years of litigation culminating in a successful
mediation, the Plaintiffs achieved a settlement with the Defendant
on behalf of the Proposed Settlement Class. Although the Defendant
denies the Plaintiffs' allegations, the parties "wish to resolve
any and all past, present, and future claims the Class has or may
have against the Defendant on a nationwide basis as they relate to
the allegations in the Action."

In consideration for the settlement, the Defendant agreed to
establish a non-reversionary common fund of $8 million, "which will
be used to pay all Settlement expenses, including Notice and Other
Administrative Costs; Fee Award; Service Awards; and the Class
Members' Claims." The Settlement Agreement allows the Class Members
to file claims identifying which of the Class Products they
purchased since November 2013, and the approximate number of
purchases they made over a typical three-month period. Based on the
information disclosed by each claimant, an equation is used to
calculate a corresponding cash award.

In support of the request for final approval, Claims Administrator
Postlethwaite & Netterville notifies the potential Class Members of
the action. The notice advertising campaigns resulted in
364,287,821 impressions. By Feb. 9, 2022 -- the claims submission
deadline -- the Claims Administrator had received 249,769 claims.
After filtering out duplicate and otherwise invalid claims and
providing an opportunity for claimants with invalid claims to
"submit appropriate identification in order to validate their
claims," the Claims Administrator confirms that 222,227 claims
remain. Of all the potential Class Members who interacted with the
notice, the Claims Administrator received only 46 requests to be
excluded from the class settlement.

The Claims Administrator incurred total administration costs of
$219,827.13 and calculated the net settlement fund after
anticipated attorneys' fees, service awards, and approved
documented claims to be $4,656,746.25. As a result, the available
standardized cash awards for the claimants are $3.81, $9.43,
$15.57, $24.76, or $52.98 -- depending on assigned quintile.

Upon final approval of the Settlement, all the Class Members are
deemed to have released and discharged the Defendant from any and
all claims that are known or unknown to the Class Members "based on
the identical factual predicate, or depending on the same set of
facts alleged in the action regarding the Class Products." The
parties also agreed that the Plaintiffs would seek fee and service
awards from the Court. The Plaintiffs have since filed a motion
requesting a fee award of $2,666,667 (one third of the settlement
fund), costs of $288,177,73, and service awards totaling $22,500.

Shiyang Huang objected to the Plaintiffs' Fee Motion arguing that
the Plaintiffs should receive 25% of the common fund in attorneys'
fees instead of the requested 33% because no unusual circumstances
justify departure from the 25% benchmark established in the Ninth
Circuit. Additionally, Mr. Huang argues that stare decisis requires
that the named Plaintiffs' service awards be denied.

III. Discussion

Ultimately, Judge Bashant finds (1) that class certification is
appropriate for settlement purposes; (2) that the settlement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate; and (3) that the Claims
Administrator executed the notice program previously approved by
the Court. Thus, final approval of the settlement is warranted.

Having determined that final approval of the settlement is
warranted, Judge Bashant now considers the appropriate attorneys'
fees, costs, and service awards for the Plaintiffs. The Class
Counsel seeks "an award of one-third of the common fund, or
$2,666,667 in attorneys' fees, and $288,177.73 in costs" as well as
$7,500 service awards to each of the three class representatives.
Class Member Shiyang Huang objects to the Plaintiffs' requests on
two grounds: (1) that Ninth Circuit law provides a 25% benchmark
for fee awards absent unusual circumstances, and (2) that stare
decisis requires the named plaintiffs' service awards be denied.

Judge Bashant finds that an award of attorneys' fees equal to 33.3%
of the common fund is reasonable under the percentage of recovery
method. Given that the percentage of recovery method as well as the
lodestar cross check support the Plaintiffs' fee request, Judge
Bashant orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h)
that the Class Counsel is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees in
connection with the action in the amount of $2,666,667, to be paid
at the time and in the manner provided in the Settlement
Agreement.

The Class Counsel are also entitled to reimbursement of the
out-of-pocket costs they reasonably incurred investigating and
prosecuting this case. Based on the declaration submitted by Class
Counsel in support of the Fee Motion, Judge Bashant finds that the
Class Counsel have incurred out-of-pocket litigation expenses
(paid- and un-reimbursed) in the amount of $288,177.73.
Accordingly, she awards Class Counsel $288,177.73 in litigation
costs, to be paid at the time and manner provided in the Settlement
Agreement.

Lastly, each of the Class Representatives reviewed material
filings, sat for depositions, communicated often with the Class
Counsel, reviewed and approved the Settlement Agreement, and
committed to securing substantive relief on behalf of the Class.
Accordingly, Judge Bashant awards the requested $7,500 award to
each Class Representative for a total of $22,500.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons stated both in the Order as well as the Court's
Preliminary Approval Order, Judge Bashant (1) granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement, (2)
granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and
Service Awards, and (3) overruled Shiyang Huang's Objection to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees.

The Settlement Agreement dated Nov. 15, 2021, including its
exhibits, and the definitions of words and terms contained therein
are incorporated by reference in the Order. The terms of the
Court's Preliminary Approval Order are also incorporated by
reference in the Order.

The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action
and over the Parties, including all members of the following
Settlement Class certified for settlement purposes in the Court's
Preliminary Approval Order: All persons in the United States who,
between Nov. 16, 2013, and Nov. 19, 2021 (the "Class Period"),
purchased in the United States, for household use and not for
resale or distribution, any of the Class Products identified in the
Settlement Agreement.

Judge Bashant finally approved the Settlement Agreement, the
exhibits, and the Settlement contemplated thereby ("Settlement"),
and finds that the terms constitute, in all respects, a fair,
reasonable, and adequate settlement as to all Settlement Class
Members in accordance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and directed its consummation pursuant to its terms and
conditions.

She approved the Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees
and costs in the amount of $2,666,667 in fees and $288,177.73 in
costs; and approved service awards of $7,500 for Plaintiffs Patrick
McMorrow, Marco Ohlin, and Melody DiGregorio.

The Settlement Agreement provides for the Class Counsel's Fee Award
to be paid before the time to appeal the Order has expired. If the
Fee Award is voided or reduced on appeal, either directly or as a
result of the final approval of the Settlement as a whole being
vacated, overturned, reversed, or rendered void as a result of an
appeal, the Class Counsel will within 30 days repay to the
Settlement Fund the affected amount of the attorneys' fees and
costs paid to the Class Counsel, in an amount proportionate to the
distribution among Class Counsel's firms, in accordance with the
directions in the Settlement Agreement.

By receiving any payments pursuant to the Settlement Agreement,
Fitzgerald Joseph LLP and their shareholders, members, and/or
partners submit to the jurisdiction of the Court for the
enforcement of the reimbursement obligation set forth and in the
Settlement Agreement. If the Class Counsel fails to timely repay
the attorneys' fees and costs that are owed under this provision,
the Court will be entitled, upon application of Mondelez and notice
to the Class Counsel, to summarily issue orders, including but not
limited to judgments and attachment orders against each of the
Class Counsel.

Judge Bashant dismissed with prejudice, without costs to any party,
except as expressly provided for in the Settlement Agreement, the
Action, as defined in the Settlement Agreement.

Upon the Effective Date as defined in the Settlement Agreement, the
Plaintiffs and each one of the Settlement Class Members
unconditionally, fully, and finally releases and forever discharges
the Released Parties from the Released Claims.

Without affecting the finality of the Judgment, the Court reserves
jurisdiction over the implementation, administration, and
enforcement of the Judgment and the Agreement and all matters
ancillary to the same.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mwtancm5 from Leagle.com.


MURAD LLC: DeCoursey Files Suit in N.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Murad, LLC. The case
is styled as Jessica DeCoursey, on behalf of themselves and a class
of all others similarly situated v. Murad, LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-00353-GTS-ML (N.D.N.Y., April 14, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Product Liability.

Murad Inc. -- https://www.murad.com/ -- manufactures skincare
products. The Company offers cleansers, treatments, moisturizers,
supplements, eye care, and regimens.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          55 Broadway-10th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: (212) 363-7500
          Email: mreich@zlk.com


NATIONAL SECURITY: Proxy Statement "Misleading," Cohen Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD COHEN, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
stockholders of THE NATIONAL SECURITY GROUP, INC., Plaintiff v.
WALTER P. WILKERSON, FRED D. CLARK JR., WILLIAM L. BRUNSON, JR.,
JACK E. BRUNSON, DONALD S. PITTMAN, MICKEY L. MURDOCK, FLEMING G.
BROOKS, FRANK B. O'NEIL, BRIAN R. MCLEOD, L. BRUNSON WHITE, CHARLES
B. ARNOLD, ELIZABETH B. CRAWFORD, ANDREW J. ABERNATHEY and THE
NATIONAL SECURITY GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2022-0333 (Del.
Ch., April 14, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
breach of fiduciary duties.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties owed to the Plaintiff and other stockholders of
National Security Group in connection with the proposed acquisition
of the company by VR Insurance SPV, LLC and VR Insurance Merger
Sub, Inc. National Security Group's board of directors authorized
the filing of a materially misleading proxy statement with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to convince its
stockholders to vote in favor of the proposed transaction. The
preliminary proxy statement fails to provide the company's
stockholders with material information thereby rendering the
stockholders unable to make an informed decision on whether to vote
in favor of the proposed transaction.

The National Security Group, Inc. an insurance holding company
headquartered in Elba, Alabama. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
         DELEEUW LAW LLC
         1301 Walnut Green Road
         Wilmington, DE 19807
         Telephone: (302) 274-2180
         Facsimile: (302) 351-6905
         E-mail: brad@deleeuwlaw.com

                 - and –

         Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
         Michael J. Klein, Esq.
         ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
         450 Seventh Avenue, 38th Floor
         New York, NY 10123
         Telephone: (212) 279-5050
         E-mail: jabraham@aftlaw.com
                 mklein@aftlaw.com

NESTLE USA: California Court Dismisses Prescott Suit With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVEN PRESCOTT and LINDA CHESLOW, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NESTLE USA,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-07471-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth
Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Jose Division, granted Nestle's motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint without leave to amend and
dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

I. Background

In the putative class action, Plaintiffs Prescott and Cheslow
allege that Nestle's labeling and advertising of its "Nestle Toll
House Premier White Morsels" misleads consumers to believe that the
Product contains white chocolate when it does not.

The action was removed from the Santa Cruz County Superior Court
under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C.A. Section 1332(d).
The Plaintiffs thereafter filed a first amended complaint ("FAC")
as of right. The Court granted Nestle's motion to dismiss the FAC
with leave to amend ("Prior Dismissal Order"), based on the
Plaintiffs' failure to state a claim under California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et
seq., False Advertising Law ("FAL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section
17500 et seq., or Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ.
Code Section 1750 et seq. The Plaintiffs also failed to allege
facts establishing standing to seek injunctive relief. They timely
filed the operative second amended complaint ("SAC"), reasserting
their claims under California's UCL, FAL, and CLRA.

The Plaintiffs allege that they purchased the Product in the belief
that it contained white chocolate. Elsewhere in the SAC, the
Plaintiffs allege that Nestle labels its Product "'Premier White,'
misleading consumers into thinking that the Product contains
premier ingredients, not fake white chocolate."

The Plaintiffs allege that a "widespread consumer study" shows
among other things that approximately 95% of respondents believed
the Product contains white chocolate. They also reproduce numerous
consumer complaints that were sent to their counsel and/or posted
on Nestle's website. Two common themes in the alleged consumer
complaints are that the consumers thought the Product contains
white chocolate and the Product does not melt like chocolate during
baking.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class or,
alternatively, a California class of persons who purchased the
Product for personal consumption. As in the prior FAC, they assert
violations of California's UCL, FAL, and CLRA based on Nestle's
allegedly deceptive labeling and advertising. The Plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief and restitution.

Nestle moves to dismiss the second amended complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

II. Discussion

Nestle argues that the SAC should be dismissed without leave to
amend because the Plaintiffs again fail to state a claim under the
UCL, FAL, or CLRA, and again fail to allege facts establishing
their standing to seek injunctive relief. In opposition, the
Plaintiffs contend that under the applicable reasonable consumer
test, the SAC raises factual issues not appropriate for resolution
on a motion to dismiss. They also contend that they allege facts
establishing standing to seek injunctive relief.

Judge Freeman first addresses whether the Plaintiffs state a claim
under the applicable reasonable consumer test, and then she
addresses their standing to seek injunctive relief.

A. Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim under the Reasonable Consumer
Test

The Plaintiffs allege that Nestle violated the UCL, FAL, and CLRA
through false and misleading labeling and advertising of the
Product. Specifically, Nestle allegedly "sells fake white chocolate
baking chips and tries to pass them off as white chocolate."

The Court previously found that the Plaintiffs' FAC did not satisfy
the reasonable consumer test with respect to this theory. The
Plaintiffs asserted in the FAC that they were misled by the words
"white" and "premier" on the Product package, in conjunction with
the Product's placement next to chocolate baking chips in grocery
stores. The Court found those claims to be implausible, relying on
the Ninth Circuit's decision in Becerra and Judge Phyllis J.
Hamilton's application of Becerra in Cheslow v. Ghirardelli
Chocolate Co., No. 19-CV-07467-PJH, 2020 WL 1701840 (N.D. Cal. Apr.
8, 2020), another white chip labeling case brought by the same
individuals who are Plaintiffs in the present case.

Judge Freeman holds that the allegations are insufficient to state
a claim under the reasonable consumer standard. She says, nothing
about the ordinary and common meanings of the adjectives "white"
and "premier" would suggest to a reasonable consumer that the
Product is white chocolate. Similarly, images of a cookie and white
morsels do not provide any information as to the substance of the
morsels. She also finds unpersuasive the Plaintiffs' argument that
their claims should go forward in light of their survey showing
that 95% of respondents believed that the Product contains white
chocolate.

Judge Freeman concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to state a
claim under the reasonable consumer test and will dismiss all
claims of the SAC on that basis. Having reached this conclusion,
she need not and does not address Nestle's additional arguments
based on the back label of the Product package and the asserted
infirmities of the Plaintiffs' consumer survey. The motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs' claims under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA is
granted.

B. Plaintiffs Fail to Allege Standing to Seek Injunctive Relief

Nestle also argues that the Plaintiffs fail to allege facts
establishing their standing to seek injunctive relief. Judge
Freeman nonetheless touches on this issue only briefly in light of
its dismissal of all claims for the reasons discussed.

The Plaintiffs again allege that they "would purchase the Product
as labeled in the future if it actually contained white chocolate."
That allegation is insufficient to confer standing, Judge Freeman
finds. The Plaintiffs add an alternative allegation that "they
might purchase the Product in the future if the labeling made clear
that the Product did not contain white chocolate, but they would
only do so if the Product was sold for less money than presently
priced at." The Plaintiffs have not cited any authority suggesting
that the Court could order Nestle to decrease the price of its
Product to an amount the Plaintiffs deem fair for non-chocolate
baking morsels. The motion to dismiss is granted as to the
Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief.

C. Leave to Amend is Not Warranted

Having determined that the Plaintiffs' claims are subject to
dismissal, Judge Freeman must decide whether leave to amend is
warranted. Leave ordinarily must be granted unless one or more of
the following factors is present: (1) undue delay, (2) bad faith or
dilatory motive, (3) repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
amendment, (4) undue prejudice to the opposing party, and (5)
futility of amendment. She finds no undue delay (factor 1) or bad
faith (factor 2). However, despite the Court's prior order
dismissing the FAC with guidance regarding amendment, the
Plaintiffs still have not alleged a viable claim (factor 3).
Granting further opportunity to amend would impose undue prejudice
on Nestle (factor 4) where it appears that amendment would be
futile (factor 5). The motion will be granted without leave to
amend.

III. Order

Judge Freeman granted Nestle's motion to dismiss without leave to
amend and dismissed the action with prejudice. Her Order terminated
ECF 55.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4bb3mvww from Leagle.com.


NEW JERSEY: Class Clarification Order Entered in Guille Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIAN GUILLE v. STEVEN
JOHNSON, et al.,Case No. 3:18-cv-01472-PGS-TJB (D.N.J.), the Hon.
Judge Peter G. Sheridan entered a class clarification order as
follows:

   1. denying the motion for preliminary injunction and
      temporary restraining order;

   2. denying the motion for order to show cause for preliminary
      injunction and temporary restraining order;

   3. denying the motion for default judgment;

   4. denying the combined motion to add parties, and to enter
      default judgment; and

   5. denying the combined motion for clarification, class
      certification, leave to amend, service of USM-285 forms,
      and renewed request for appointment of counsel.

On November 10, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify
class. In its original screening order, the Court found that
Plaintiff lacked standing to assert claims on behalf of other
prisoners and that the Plaintiff had not demonstrated that he would
be an adequate class representative under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. For a
pro se litigant to represent a class is not viable. The Court
thereafter dismissed all claims brought on behalf of the proposed
class without prejudice. The Plaintiff may proceed on his
individual claims, but his motion seeking certification of a class
is denied.

The Plaintiff is an inmate currently incarcerated at the New Jersey
State Prison (NJSP) who filed a civil rights complaint with this
Court on February 1, 2018.

On April 18, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against
numerous New Jersey State Department of Corrections employees, and
alleging assorted constitutional violations. On May 13, 2019, the
Court screened Plaintiff's claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section
1915(e)(2)(B), and issued a memorandum and order dismissing select
defendants from the case while allowing a portion of Plaintiff's
claims to proceed.

The New Jersey State Prison, formerly known as Trenton State
Prison, is a state men's prison in Trenton, New Jersey operated by
the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uSbNWK at no extra charge.[CC]

NEW YORK: Scheduling Order Entered in Sughrim Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sughrim, et al., v. State
of New York, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-07977-RA-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Stewart D. Aaron entered a scheduling order as follows:

  -- The parties must complete necessary         May 13, 2022
     discovery related to Plaintiffs'
     injunction claims and anticipated
     motion for class certification:

  -- The Plaintiffs will either supplement       June 3, 2022
     their motion for preliminary injunction
     or file a new motion addressing their
     claims for injunctive relief, and
     Plaintiffs will file a motion for
     class certification:

  -- The Defendants will file any opposition     July 15, 2022
     to Plaintiffs' injunction and class
     certification motions:

  -- The Plaintiffs will file any reply          July 29, 2022
     papers in support of their injunction
     and class certification motions:

By letter dated March 29, 2022, the Parties submitted a joint
proposed scheduling order to modify the deadlines. The Court finds
the proposed schedule appropriate and enters the schedule for the
next stage of this litigation.

The Plaintiffs include RIAN SUGHRIM, DAVID FELICIANO, DEREK
GLEIXNER, KHALDOUN ALSHAMIRI, and ROLAND SOFO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated.

The Defendants include STATE OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION; ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI,
Acting Commissioner (in his official capacity); JOHN A.
SHIPLEY, Director of Labor Relations (in his personal and official
capacities); NA-KIA WALTON, Assistant Director of Labor
Relations/ADA Coordinator (in her personal and official
capacities); LEROY FIELDS, Superintendent of Fishkill Correctional
Facility (in his personal and official capacities); STEPHEN
URBANSKI, Deputy Superintendent for Security Services of Fishkill
Correctional Facility (in his personal and official capacities);
JAMES JOHNSON, Deputy Superintendent for Administrative Services of
Fishkill Correctional Facility (in his personal and official
capacities); ALAN WASHER, Corrections Captain (in his personal and
official capacities); WILLIAM LEE,
Superintendent of Eastern Correctional Facility (in his personal
and official capacities); MICHAEL BERTONE, Deputy Superintendent of
Security at Eastern Correctional Facility (in his personal and
official capacities); THOMAS NAPOLI, Deputy Superintendent and
Designee for Reasonable Accommodation of Cayuga Correctional
Facility (in his personal and official capacities).

A copy of the Court's order dated March 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jQTcEc at no extra charge.[CC]

NISSAN NORTH: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss All of Martinez's Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LEROY MARTINEZ, Plaintiff v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-157-DBB (D. Utah), Judge David
Barlow of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah granted
Nissan's motion to dismiss all of Plaintiff Martinez's claims.

I. Background

Plaintiff Martinez brought a putative class-action lawsuit against
Nissan for violation of the Utah Consumer Protection Act, violation
of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and breach of implied and
express warranties. Nissan removed the case to federal court and
filed a motion to dismiss all of Martinez's claims.

Plaintiff Martinez alleges that he "was driving his 2016 Nissan
Frontier near Mantua, Utah on Oct. 17, 2019 when the side curtain
airbag spontaneously deployed." He alleges that "the airbag
software had a defective algorithm which caused airbag deployment
when there was no justifiable risk to driver safety" and that he
"spent thousands of dollars to replace the airbags," which Nissan
did not reimburse. Subsequently, Martinez filed a class-action
lawsuit against Nissan for damages and injunctive relief.

II. Discussion

Mr. Martinez brings four claims against Nissan: a class claim under
the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act ("UCSPA"), a claim under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a claim for breach of implied warranty,
and a claim for breach of express warranty. The court first
considers the UCSPA claim, followed by the claims for breach of
warranties and the claim under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

A. Martinez's UCSPA claim is dismissed without prejudice because he
does not allege that Nissan violated an administrative rule or
judgment.

Count I of Martinez's complaint is a class-action claim under the
Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act. Under the UCSPA, "a deceptive
act or practice by a supplier in connection with a consumer
transaction" is unlawful.

In his complaint, Martinez alleges that the rule that Nissan
violated "was Utah Code Ann. Section 13-20-3, which states: "If a
new motor vehicle does not conform to all applicable express
warranties, and the consumer reports the nonconformity to the
manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized dealer during the term
of the express warranties or during the one-year period following
the date of original delivery of the motor vehicle to a customer,
whichever is earlier, the manufacturer, its agent, or its
authorized dealer will make repairs necessary to conform the
vehicle to the express warranties, whether or not these repairs are
made after the expiration of the warranty term or the one-year
period."

Nissan argues that Martinez's citation to state statute does not
satisfy the class-action requirement that a defendant's action
"violate an existing administrative rule, court order, or consent
decree." In response, Martinez argues that "The Utah Division of
Consumer Protection does enforce the New Motor Vehicle Warranties
Act" (the state statute he cites in his complaint) and that "the
concomitant rule is Rule 152-20, which mirrors the essential
components of the statute."

But, Judge Barlow finds that Martinez does not dispute that the
complaint cites no administrative rule adopted by the Utah Division
of Consumer Protection, which is a prerequisite to a class action
claim under the UCSPA. And a state statute passed by the state
legislature is not a rule adopted by the Utah Division of Consumer
Protection, judgment by a court, or a consent decree. As such, the
class action claim under the UCSPA is dismissed without prejudice.
Given that the complaint does not state that Martinez brings any
non-class claims under the UCSPA, the entire UCSPA claim is
dismissed without prejudice.

B. Martinez's implied and express warranty claims are dismissed
without prejudice because he does not allege that he gave Nissan
pre-suit notice of the claim.

Counts III and IV of Martinez's complaint are for breach of implied
warranty and breach of express warranty. A threshold issue in both
claims is whether Martinez gave pre-suit notice of his breach of
warranty claims to Nissan. Under Utah law, a buyer asserting a
claim for breach of warranty "must within a reasonable time after
he discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller
of the breach or be barred from any remedy."

In the case, Martinez provided a copy of a letter from Nissan that
is evidence of pre-suit notice. But this letter is attached as an
exhibit to Martinez's opposition memorandum -- nowhere in the
complaint does Martinez allege that he provided pre-suit notice to
Nissan. Because the complaint is deficient in alleging this
essential element of the warranty claims, Counts III and IV of the
complaint are dismissed without prejudice.

C. Martinez's Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim is dismissed without
prejudice because it is predicated on his state-law claims.

Finally, Count II of Martinez's complaint is a claim under the
federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Under 23 U.S.C. Section
2310(d)(1), a customer "who is damaged by the failure of a
supplier, warrantor, or service contractor to comply with a written
warranty, implied warranty, or service contract" may bring suit.

As Judge Barlow explained, Martinez fails to properly allege a
claim for breach of implied or express warranty. Martinez does not
dispute that, to allege a Magnuson-Moss claim, he must allege a
claim under state warranty law. Since he has not done so, the
Magnuson-Moss claim is dismissed without prejudice.

III. Order

Because Martinez's complaint fails to state a claim, Nissan's
Motion to Dismiss is granted. The case is dismissed without
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2022 Memorandum Decision &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8e37bn from
Leagle.com.


O'REILLY AUTO: Class Certification Filing Continued to Dec. 5
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMANTHA VVANTI on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. O'REILLY AUTO
ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:19-cv-02407-JAK-JPR (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order approving in part
stipulation to continue motion for class certification deadline, as
sufficient good cause has been shown for certain of the requested
relief.

The deadline for the Plaintiff to file a class certification motion
is continued to December 5, 2022; provided, however, the parties
shall continue to confer with mediator Jeffrey Ross as to whether a
date prior to November 16, 2022, has become available on his
calendar for their mediation. If so, the parties shall file a joint
report as to the new date, and whether a corresponding change is
warranted as to the deadline for the filing of the motion for class
certification if the parties do not reach a settlement, the Court
says.

O'Reilly owns and operates retail auto parts stores.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 29, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JNvrYg at no extra charge.[CC]


OPHTHOTECH CORPORATION: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 6 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED OPHTHOTECH CORPORATION
("OPHTHOTECH" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD
BETWEEN MARCH 2, 2015 THROUGH DECEMBER 12, 2016, INCLUSIVE ("CLASS"
OR "CLASS MEMBERS")

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on September 8,
2022, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Vernon S. Broderick at the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New
York, NY 10007, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement
(the "Settlement") of the above-captioned action as set forth in
the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation") 1 for $29,000,000 in
cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and
adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should
be entered dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3) to award
Lead Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement
Fund (as defined in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement
of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below) and to award
Lead Plaintiff reimbursement of its time and expenses pursuant to
15 U.S.C. Sec78u-4(a)(4) in connection with its representation of
the Class, and, if so, in what amounts; and (4) the Plan of
Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and
adequate.

The COVID-19 pandemic creates the possibility that the Court may
decide to conduct the Settlement Hearing by video or telephonic
conference, or otherwise allow Class Members to appear remotely at
the hearing, without further written notice to the Class. In order
to determine whether the date and time of the Settlement Hearing
have changed, or whether Class Members must or may participate by
phone or video, it is important that you monitor the Court's docket
and the Settlement website, www.OPHSecuritiesSettlement.com, before
making any plans to attend the Settlement Hearing. Updates
regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date
or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote
appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement
website, www.OPHSecuritiesSettlement.com. Also, if the Court
requires or allows Class Members to participate in the Settlement
Hearing by remote means, the information for accessing the
conference will be posted to the Settlement website,
www.OPHSecuritiesSettlement.com.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED OPHTHOTECH COMMON STOCK BETWEEN MARCH
2, 2015 THROUGH DECEMBER 12, 2016, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION.

To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than July 6,
2022) or electronically (no later than July 6, 2022). Your failure
to submit your Proof of Claim by July 6, 2022, will subject your
claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery
in connection with the Settlement of this Litigation. If you
purchased or acquired Ophthotech common stock between March 2, 2015
through December 12, 2016, inclusive, and do not request exclusion
from the Class, you will be bound by the Settlement and any
judgment and release entered in the Litigation, including, but not
limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of
Claim.

If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of
Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the
Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for
the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other Settlement
documents, online at www.OPHSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by writing
to:

Ophthotech Securities Settlement

c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC

P.O. Box 43307

Providence, RI 02940-3307

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court. [GN]



P.F. CHANG'S: Sandoval Seeks to Recover Civil Penalties Under PAGA
------------------------------------------------------------------
JULIO SANDOVAL on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
and aggrieved v. P.F. CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; P.F. CHANG'S III, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability
Company; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV13060 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 19, 2022), is a representative
action pursuant to California's Private Attorney General Act, Labor
Code section, to recover civil penalties (75% payable to the Labor
and Workforce Development Agency and 25% payable to Aggrieved
Employees) for Defendants' alleged violations of the California
Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a full-time
non-exempt employee in a meat prepping position (or similar title)
at one of Defendants' restaurants in Santa Monica, California.

The Defendants own and operate an Asian restaurant concept, which
according to its website, operate over 210 U.S. restaurants,
including airport locations, plus over 95 restaurants in more than
25 countries across the globe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Crosner, Esq.
          Zachary Crosner, Esq.
          Blake Jones, Esq.
          Nikki Trenner, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, PC
          9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 496-5818
          Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
          E-mail: mike@crosnerl egal. com
                  zach@crosnerlegal. com
                  blake@crosnerlegal.com
                  nikki@crosnerlegal.com

PARK HOTELS: Morana Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------
Michael Morana filed an appeal from a court ruling dismissing his
lawsuit entitled Michael Morana, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. PARK HOTELS & RESORTS, INC. d/b/a
HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS, INC., HLT NY WALDORF LLC, HILTON
DOMESTIC OPERATING CO. INC., and WALDORF ASTORIA MANAGEMENT LLC,
Case No. 7:20-cv-02797, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 15, 2020, the
lawsuit challenges the Defendants' alleged policies and practices
of failing to remit all service fee surcharges to the Plaintiff and
proposed class members.

The lawsuit is also brought to challenge the Defendants' policies
and practices of: (1) unjust enrichment for failure to remit the
entirety of the service fee surcharges to non-managerial service
workers; (2) failing to provide Plaintiff and Class members
accurate, itemized wage statements as required by New York Labor
Law; and (3) failing to provide accurate and proper written notice
as required by New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff is subject to the Defendants' "gratuity and
administrative charge" and "service fee" policies and practices.
This case implicates the Defendants' longstanding policies and
practices, which fail to properly compensate non-exempt service
workers mandatory surcharges remitted to them as wages. As a
result, throughout the relevant time period, the Plaintiff is
denied all gratuity payments owed to them.

The Defendants impose a mandatory "gratuity and administrative
charge" on the total cost of banquet services, including the sale
of food and beverages during those banquets, to their customers,
but fail to distribute the total proceeds of those surcharges to
non-managerial service employees as required by New York law. This
conduct violates New York Labor Law, says the complaint.

On May 28, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's second amended complaint or, in the alternative, to
compel arbitration.

On March 14, 2022, Judge Ronnie Abrams granted Defendants' motion
to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) but
their motion for sanctions was denied.

The appellate case is captioned as Morana v. Park Hotels & Resorts
Inc., Case No. 22-768, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on April 12, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Morana, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com  

Defendants-Appellees Park Hotels & Resorts Inc., DBA Hilton
Worldwide Holdings, Inc.; HLT NY Waldorf LLC; Hilton Domestic
Operating Co. Inc.; and Waldorf = Astoria Management LLC, are
represented by:

          Joseph Alan Piesco, Jr., Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 335-4500
          E-mail: joe.piesco@dlapiper.com

PENNSYLVANIA: DOC's Objection to Rokita's Bid for MAT Overruled
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Mark Rokita, Jr., and All Others Similarly Situated,
Petitioner v. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections,
Respondent, Case No. 340 M.D. 2020 (Pa. Cmmw.), Judge Patricia A.
McCullough of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania overruled the
preliminary objection of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
to Rokita's petition for review seeking an order compelling the
Department to allow him to receive Medication-Assisted Treatment
for his substance use disorder while incarcerated.

I. Background

Before the Court is the preliminary objection of the Department to
the Petition filed by Rokita, pro se, in its original jurisdiction.
Rokita has sought an order compelling the Department to allow him
to receive Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) for his substance
use disorder while incarcerated. The Department has filed a
preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer, contending that
Rokita is unable to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
because, in the Department's view, under no constitutional or
statutory law may Rokita be found to be entitled to such medical
treatment.

Mr. Rokita is an inmate incarcerated at the State Correctional
Institution at Houtzdale (SCI-Houtzdale). He has been diagnosed
with substance use disorder in connection with his use of opioids.
Rokita asserts that he developed a dependence upon opioids after
they were prescribed to him following an injury, but when he could
no longer obtain them through proper channels, he eventually turned
to the illegal opioid pill trade. He was ultimately arrested and
incarcerated for possession of narcotics.

During his incarceration, and due to his continuing addiction which
began with medication prescribed for an injury, Rokita asserts that
he has unlawfully obtained and used the medication "Suboxone" in
order to treat his condition, which he has purchased through the
prison black market. He has sought to obtain such medications
properly -- under the supervision of medical professionals --
through his request for MAT or the opportunity to see a doctor who
could prescribe him MAT. Rokita wrote to a social worker requesting
that he be permitted to receive MAT for his disorder, specifically
with the medication known as "Vivitrol." His request was refused
because the Department's policies prohibit MAT except for prisoners
whose release on parole is imminent.

Mr. Rokita filed a grievance in which he requested the opportunity
to be treated with MAT, but his grievance was denied. For an
individual in Rokita's position, the Department offers only group
counseling sessions.

Mr. Rokita appealed the grievance determination to the Facility
Manager, who denied Rokita's appeal. The Facility Manager stated
that Rokita had been properly informed of the option available to
him, i.e., group counseling. The Facility Manager further told
Rokita that "your own actions have led to the issue you grieved and
your own failure to follow the proper process has led to your
non-treatment."

Mr. Rokita then sought relief in the Court. He asserts that the
Department's refusal to allow him to receive MAT for his substance
use disorder is a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United
States Constitution Rokita additionally contends that the
Department's policy regarding MAT violates his rights under the
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). As relief, Rokita
requests an order compelling the Department to allow him access to
a doctor who specializes in substance abuse disorders and who is
authorized to prescribe MAT.

The Department filed a preliminary objection in the nature of a
demurrer. Although the Department facially asserts a single
demurrer, it advances several reasons as to why Rokita is unable to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Department has
developed three such reasons in its brief in support of its
preliminary objection: (1) that Rokita's averments do not satisfy
the governing standard under the Eighth Amendment with respect to
the denial of medical treatment; (2) that Rokita failed to state a
medical malpractice claim against the Department and failed to file
a certificate of merit in connection therewith; and (3) that Rokita
is unable to state a claim under the ADA.

Discussion

As a preliminary objection, the Department's demurrer "admits as
true all well and clearly pleaded material, relevant factual
averments, and all inferences fairly deducible therefrom."
"However, conclusions of law and unjustified inferences are not so
admitted." The "question presented by the demurrer is whether, on
the facts averred, the law says with certainty that no recovery is
possible." Accordingly, Rokita receives the benefit of the doubt as
to whether his averments are sufficient to state a claim. "Any
doubt should be resolved in favor of overruling the demurrer."

A. Eighth Amendment

In his Eighth Amendment claim, Rokita asserts that, by refusing to
provide him with the opportunity to receive MAT for his substance
use disorder, the Department is denying him medical care. Rokita's
claim is not wholly novel. Indeed, in recent years, the refusal of
correctional institutions to provide MAT to prisoners with
substance use disorders has been the subject of both litigation and
legal scholarship.

Judge McCullough opines that given recent developments in the law
related to the issue before her, it is possible that Rokita can
establish that he has been denied necessary medical treatment in
violation of the Eighth Amendment. For purposes of surviving
preliminary objections, that is enough, she says.

Judge McCullough explains that to allow a claim such as Rokita's to
proceed beyond the initial pleading stage is not "advocating for
social reform." It is providing an individual with access to the
courts, so that he may seek protection of a right guaranteed by the
Constitution. Indeed, in dismissively characterizing Rokita's
condition as "self-inflicted" and proven treatment for that
condition as "dangerous," it reminds of the difficulty of
overcoming entrenched attitudes toward addiction which lead to the
failure of the institutions to recognize it as a legitimate medical
concern -- and thus one upon which the Eighth Amendment may bear.
To be sure, Rokita has brought a challenging issue. But it is one
of constitutional significance, and therefore, Judge McCullough
declines to summarily brush it aside.

In light of the foregoing, under governing precedent, Judge
McCullough concludes that it is conceivable that Rokita could make
out a claim that he has been denied medical treatment in a manner
that constitutes deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs. Accordingly, to the extent that Rokita claims that the
Department's refusal to provide him with access to a physician
empowered to prescribe him MAT constitutes a violation of the
Eighth Amendment, Judge McCullough is unable to conclude that "on
the facts averred, the law says with certainty that no recovery is
possible. In this regard, the Department's demurrer is overruled.

B. Medical Malpractice

To the extent that the Department's demurrer is premised upon
medical malpractice law, Judge McCullough finds no merit in the
suggestion. The Department contends that Rokita has not pleaded the
necessary elements of a medical malpractice claim, and that he has
not complied with the procedural prerequisites to establishing such
a claim. It is correct, but its point is immaterial. Rokita has not
advanced a medical malpractice claim. It is not surprising, then,
that he has not pleaded the requirements for such a claim, or
followed the procedures applicable to medical malpractice suits.
Because the Department's position on this point is irrelevant, to
the extent that its demurrer is premised upon medical malpractice
law, it is overruled.

C. ADA

Judge McCullough opines that although Rokita does refer to past
illegal drug use in his Petition, there is no indication in the
Petition that Rokita "is currently engaging in the illegal use of
drugs," such that his substance use disorder may not be considered
a disability under the ADA. Indeed, in his brief opposing the
Department's demurrer, Rokita states that he is not "currently"
using drugs; he "was self-medicating years ago because there was no
adequate treatment" available to him. Accordingly, at this
juncture, Judge McCullough cannot conclude that Rokita is
categorically unable to establish that he is a "qualified
individual with a disability" for purposes of the ADA.

Likewise, the Department's policy deprives Rokita of the benefit of
a health service that could potentially be beneficial in treating
his disability. Absent that disability, moreover, Rokita would have
no reason to request the service in question. Under these
circumstances, it is conceivable that Rokita could establish that
he has been denied the benefit of a health service by a public
entity, by reason of his disability, and that a claim is viable
under Title II of the ADA. As such, Judge McCullough cannot
conclude that, "on the facts averred, the law says with certainty
that no recovery is possible." Therefore, to the extent that the
Department's demurrer is premised upon Rokita's inability to state
a claim under the ADA, it is in that respect overruled.

III. Conclusion

Having rejected the asserted grounds for the Department's demurrer,
Judge McCollough overruled its preliminary objection. The
Department is directed to file an answer to the Petition for Review
within 30 days of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/yc8yepv9 from Leagle.com.


PLAN BENEFIT: Amended Bid for Class Status Granted in Chavez
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HERIBERTO CHAVEZ;
EVANGELINA ESCARCEGA, AS THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF JOSE
ESCARCEGA; AND JORGE MORENO, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. PLAN BENEFIT SERVICES, INC; FRINGE INSURANCE
BENEFITS, INC.; AND FRINGE BENEFIT GROUP, Case No. 1:17-cv-00659-LY
(W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Lee Yeakel entered an order granting
Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification.

This action shall proceed as a class action under Rule 23(b)(1)(B)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure consisting of two
subclasses:

   (1) All participants and beneficiaries of plans that provide
       employee benefits through CPTother than Defendants'
       officers, directors, or relativesfrom July 6, 2011, until
       trial; and

   (2) All participants and beneficiaries of plans that provide
       employee benefits through CERTother than (a) participants
       and beneficiaries of custom plans, and (b) Defendants'
       officers, directors, or relativesfrom August 31, 2014,
       until trial.

The Court further entered that:

   -- Nina Wasow of Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman, & Wasow is
      appointed as class counsel for the class pursuant to Rule
      23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

   -- Plaintiffs Heriberto Chavez, Evangelina Escarcega, as the
      representative of her disabled son, Jose Escarcega, and
      Jorge Moreno are appointed to represent the subclasses of
      persons defined.

This is a putative class action under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERJSA").

The court previously certified a Rule 23(b)(1)(B) class of some
90,000 employees that involved many employers and many
employer-level employee-benefit plans. The Fifth Circuit vacated
and remanded for a more "rigorous analysis" of how Plaintiffs met
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 ("Rule 23").

Plan Benefit Services provides consulting, management and brokerage
services.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 29, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ExVmlS at no extra charge.[CC]

PREMIUM RETAIL: Fails to Pay Timely Wages, Montenegro Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MATIAS MONTENEGRO, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. PREMIUM RETAIL SERVICES, INC., Case No.
2:22-cv-02211 (E.D.N.Y., April 18, 2022) is a class action on
behalf of Plaintiff and similarly situated current and former
employees of Defendant who worked for the Defendant in the State of
New York pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure to recover statutory damages for violations of New York
Labor Law.

The Defendant allegedly failed to properly pay Plaintiff and
similarly situated current and former their wages within seven
calendar days after the end of the week in which these wages were
earned. Thus, Defendant failed to provide timely wages to Plaintiff
and similarly situated current and former employees who work or
have worked for Defendant in the State of New York in violation of
NYLL.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs and other appropriate relief
pursuant to New York Labor Law.

The Defendant provides retail and merchandising services to retail
stores throughout the State of New York.

The Defendant employs field technicians, retail merchandisers, and
retail merchandise specialists who provide retail and merchandising
services at retail stores throughout the State of New York and who
are "manual workers" within the meaning of NNYLL.

Premium Retail provides merchandising, assisted sales, training,
field marketing, and other services for retailers and
manufacturers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

PULSES LLC: Family Health Appeals TCPA Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Family Health Physical Medicine, LLC filed an appeal from
a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled FAMILY HEALTH
PHYSICAL MEDICINE, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company,
individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff v. PULSES, LLC, a Maryland
limited liability company, and PULSES, INC., a Maryland
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02095-SAG, in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 25, 2021, the
lawsuit is a class action complaint brought against the Defendants
for their alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants sent a fax to the
Plaintiff's telephone facsimile machine on or August 13, 2020 in an
attempt to advertise their business. The Plaintiff asserts that it
did not provide the Defendants with its "prior express invitation
or permission" to send the FAX ads. Moreover, the Defendant
purportedly faxed the same and other unsolicited facsimiles
advertisements without first receiving the recipients' prior
express invitation or permission, and without the required opt-out
language, says the suit.

The Defendants' unsolicited fax ads have allegedly caused harm to
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals in the form
of invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, nuisance, and
others. Thus, on behalf of itself and other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff brought the complaint to recover actual
monetary loss from the Defendants, attorneys' fees, enjoin the
Defendants from additional violations, pre-judgment interest,
costs, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

On October 29, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim which the Court granted on February 28,
2022, through a Memorandum Opinion and Order entered by Judge
Stephanie A. Gallagher.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Family Health Physical Medicine,
LLC v. Pulse8, LLC, Case No. 22-1393, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on April 12, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant FAMILY HEALTH PHYSICAL MEDICINE, LLC, an Ohio
limited liability company, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly-situated persons, is represented by:

          Ryan Michael Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com

               - and -

          Stephen Howard Ring, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN H. RING, PC
          401 North Washington Street
          Rockville, MD 20850
          Telephone: (301) 563-9249
          E-mail: shr@ringlaw.us

Defendant-Appellee PULSE8, LLC, a Maryland limited liability
company; and PULSE8, INC., a Maryland corporation are represented
by:

          Tatum Ellis, Esq.
          Livia Anne McCammon Kiser, Esq.
          Rachael M. Trummel, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, LLP
          110 North Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 764-6946
          E-mail: tellis@kslaw.com
                  lkiser@kslaw.com
                  rtrummel@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Taylor Thomas Lankford, Esq.
          Marisa Christina Maleck, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING, LLP
          1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 626-5514
          E-mail: tlankford@kslaw.com
                  mmaleck@kslaw.com

QUATTRO GATTI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mendoza Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MOISES LUIS CARINO MENDOZA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUATTRO GATTI RESTAURANT
INC. (D/B/A QUATTRO GATTI); and REMO MASTRANGELO, Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-03136 (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2022) is an action against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, and
provide accurate wage statements.

Plaintiff Mendoza was employed by the Defendants as kitchen staff.

QUATTRO GATTI RESTAURANT INC. owns and operates an Italian
restaurant, located at New York, New York under the name "Quattro
Gatti". [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

RCI DINING: Bula Files Suit Over Alleged Tip Skimming
-----------------------------------------------------
YULEYKA BULA; ALYSSA CRUZ; SUENBEL REHMAN; and MYALI SANCHEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. RCI DINING SERVICES (37TH STREET), INC. dba VIVID
CABARET; 61 WEST 37TH STREET, LLC; RCI HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS, INC.
fka RICK'S CABARET INTERNATIONAL, INC.; RCI MANAGEMENT SERVICES;
ERIC LANGAN; DOE MANAGERS 1-3; and DOES 4-10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03147 (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2022) seek
to recover all tips kept by the Defendants, liquidated damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover the return of all kickbacks that
caused their payments to go below the minimum wage.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as dancers.

RCI Dining Services (37th Street), Inc. dba Vivid Cabaret owns and
operates gentlemen's clubs and restaurants. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter Cho, Esq.
          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          Jesenia A. Martinez, Esq.
          CARPENTER & ZUCKERMAN
          8827 W. Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 273-1230
          Email: pcho@cz.law
                 kristensen@cz.law
                 jmartinez@cz.law

RIOT BLOCKCHAIN: Tataka's 2nd Amended Suit Dismissed W/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CREIGHTON TAKATA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RIOT BLOCKCHAIN, INC. F/K/A
BIOPTIX, INC., JOHN O'ROURKE, JEFFREY G. McGONEGAL, BARRY HONIG,
CATHERINE DEFRANCESCO, MICHAEL BEEGHLEY, JOHN STETSON, MARK
GROUSSMAN, ANDREW KAPLAN, MIKE DAI, JASON LES, and ERIC SO,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-02293 (ZNQ) (TJB) (D.N.J.), Judge
Zahid N. Quraishi of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed
without prejudice the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint.

I. Background

The matter is a putative class action brought by shareholders
against Defendants Riot and certain of Riot's current and former
officers, current and former directors, and large shareholders. The
lead plaintiff, Dr. Stanley Golovac, alleges that he, and other
shareholders, purchased Riot's stock between April 20, 2017, and
Sept. 6, 2018 (the "Class Period"), and asserts that the Defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5
promulgated under that statute, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5. the
Plaintiff also assert that several individual Defendants are
vicariously liable under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 78t(a).

In summary, the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint alleges that
the Defendants, conspiring with one another and acting in concert
with an undisclosed control group of other Riot shareholders to:
(1) amass a controlling interest in Riot; (2) conceal their control
through false and misleading statements and omissions regarding
Riot's beneficial ownership in violation of Section 13(d) of the
Exchange Act, Regulation 13d, and Items 403 and 404 of Regulation
S-K; (3) drive up the price and trading volume of Riot stock
through manipulative trading, promotional activity, and false and
misleading disclosures; (4) engage in undisclosed related-party
transactions at the expense of the Company and its shareholders;
and (5) dump their shares into the artificially inflated market on
unsuspecting retail investors.

The Plaintiff asserts the following three counts in the Second
Amended Complaint. Count I alleges violations of Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, subsections (a) and (c), against
all the Defendants. He claims that Defendants Honig, Groussman,
Stetson, and DeFrancesco knowingly or recklessly issued materially
false and misleading statements in their individual Schedule 13(d)
statements by failing to disclose the existence of the Stockholder
Defendants' "group", as defined in Section 13(d) of the Exchange
Act. Furthermore, the Plaintiff alleges that O'Rourke and Beeghley,
the individual Riot Defendants, failed to ascertain and disclose
the true facts (i.e., that the Stockholder Defendants' "group"
controlled Riot) made by them or other personnel of Riot and thus
materially misrepresented Riot's beneficial ownership in its public
filings (Forms S-3, S-3/A, and 10-K) in violation of Section 13(d)
and Items 403 and 404 of Regulation S-K. According to the
Plaintiffs, Beeghley and O'Rourke also violated the same sections
because they misrepresented and concealed various material
related-party transactions between and among the Company and
controlling (i.e. greater than -5%) shareholders of Riot.

Count II alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5, subsection (b), against all the Defendants. The
Plaintiff claims that the Defendants disseminated or approved false
statements and failed to disclose facts necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances made, not materially
misleading. He claims that the Stockholder Defendants obtained and
exercised undisclosed control of the management and policies of
Riot and failed to disclose such control in violation of Section
13(d). Similarly, O'Rourke and Beeghley failed to disclose the
existence of a group and the related-party transactions in
violation of Section 13(d) and Item 403 of Regulation S-K. The
Plaintiffs allege that Riot is similarly liable because O'Rourke
and Beeghley had actual knowledge of the misrepresentations and
omissions.

Count III asserts liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the Individual Riot Defendants and the Stockholder
Defendants. Plaintiff claims that the Riot Defendants and the
Stockholder Defendants are vicariously liable as "controlling
persons" for any materially false and misleading statements made by
Riot.

Presently before the Court are six separate motions brought by the
Defendants to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to
Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
one motion for joinder.

II. Discussion

The Plaintiff's claims primarily focus on one specific allegation:
The Defendants were an undisclosed control group engaging in
undisclosed insider sales. To this end, he alleges that the
Defendants either made materially false and misleading filings on
their Schedules 13D and 13G by not disclosing they were part of a
group or failing to make or amend Schedules 13D or 13G to disclose
the existence of their group. As such, it is necessary to discuss
Section 13(d) and its relation to the other sections of the
Exchange Act, particularly with respect to Section 10(b) and Rule
10b-5.

An important threshold question remains before the Court which has
not been directly answered by binding precedent: Are damages
available as a remedy when liability for Section 10(b) arises from
a Section 13(d) violation?

A. Implied Right of Action under Section 13(d)

Given that section 13(d) does not provide an express right of
action for private plaintiffs, courts have read such a right into
the section or through other sections. Although there is no private
right of action for damages under section 13(d) of the Exchange
Act, circuits have recognized an implied right of action for
injunctions.

The Plaintiff argues that it is well established that shareholders
have an implied private right of action for damages under Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act.

Judge Quraishi holds that a private's plaintiff's right to damages
for a failure to disclose is not apparent in the legislative
purpose. According to the Second Circuit, the entire purpose of
13(d) is to require disclosure so that investors can assess the
potential for changes in corporate control and adequately evaluate
the company's worth. Also, Section 13(d) violation may not give
rise to a private right of action for damages under Section 10(b).
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Section 20(a) claim necessarily fails
as well.

When such a duty arises, the proper relief should relate to the
information that was misstated or omitted. Courts have consistently
held that implied private rights under Section 13(d) may provide
plaintiffs injunctive relief but not monetary damages; to allow a
plaintiff to sidestep the boundaries of even the implied right of
action by pleading Section 10(b) seems improper.

B. Item 403(a) and Item 404

The Plaintiff also alleges violations of Item 403(a) and Item 404.
Item 403(a) requires that certain information "with respect to any
person (including any `group' as that term is used in section
13(d)(3) of the Exchange act) who is known to the registrant to be
the beneficial owner of more than five percent of any class of the
registrant's voting securities." The Third Circuit has held that,
in order to show liability under Section 10(b) for other Regulation
S-K items, a plaintiff must first establish that the regulation
creates an independent private right of action or that the
regulation imposes an affirmative duty of disclosure that, if
violated, would constitute a material omission under Rule 10b-5.

Judge Quraishi did not find any cases that can elucidate whether
there is an independent private right of action. The Plaintiff's
only support for a right of action arises from SEC v. Honig, Civ.
No. 18-8175, 2021 WL 276155, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2021), which
does not provide any inference of a private right under 403(a).

Item 404 requires the registrant to describe any transaction "in
which the registrant was is to be a participant and the amount
involved exceeds $120,000, and in which any related person had or
will have a direct or indirect material interest." It only requires
that the issuer update the disclosures when it normally does.

On the facts alleged for the Coinsquare and Kairos related party
transactions and given the exceptions included in the instructions,
Judge Quraishi finds that the inference that Riot failed to update
its Item 403 and 404 disclosures due to an undisclosed control
group is not as cogent and compelling as the inference that such
disclosure was delayed due to a potential exception or even the
timings that the company usually discloses such information.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons he stated, Judge Quraishi granted the Defendants'
motions to dismiss all claims without prejudice. The Plaintiff may
file a separate motion seeking leave to amend his complaint in a
manner consistent with the Opinion. An appropriate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/7f2np2mt from Leagle.com.


RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Smith Sues Over Drop of Stock Price Below IPO
----------------------------------------------------------------
GRAYSON SMITH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE, INC., ROBERT J. SCARINGE,
CLAIRE MCDONOUGH, JEFFREY R. BAKER, JITEN BEHL, KAREN BOONE,
SANFORD SCHWARTZ, ROSE MARCARIO, PETER KRAWIEC, JAY FLATLEY, and
PAMELA THOMASGRAHAM, Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-00829 (C.D. Cal.,
April 19, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) regarding Rivian's business and operations in
order to trade Rivian common stock at artificially inflated prices
between November 10, 2021 and March 10, 2022. Specifically, the
Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Rivian would not meet its
2021 production and delivery targets; (ii) Rivian's vehicles were
underpriced and the company would need to substantially increase
prices; and (iii) as a result, the Defendants' representations
about the company's business, operations, and prospects lacked a
reasonable basis.

When the truth emerged, the price of Rivian common stock fell and
continues to trade below the $78.00 per share initial public
offering (IPO) price as of April 2022, damaging investors, says the
suit.

Rivian Automotive, Inc. is a manufacturer of electric vehicles,
headquartered in Irvine, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
         POMERANTZ LLP
         1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Telephone: (310) 405-7190
         E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Seeks Denial of Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re Robinhood Order Flow
Litigation, Case No. 4:20-cv-09328-YGR, No. (N.D. Cal.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order denying class
certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

This lawsuit presents the unusual case where class certification
should be denied at the outset, prior to discovery, because the
case is fundamentally unsuited to class treatment, the Defendants
say.

The Plaintiff asserts securities fraud claims based on an alleged
breach of the duty of "best execution," which requires
broker-dealers such as Robinhood to seek the most favorable
execution terms reasonably 12 available under the circumstances
when routing customer trade orders to execution venues. In every
such case, courts have denied class certification, and with good
reason: Unlike a typical securities class action, the elements of
economic loss and reliance cannot be presumed or established based
on common evidence on a classwide basis. Here, economic loss does
not depend on a price decline in a single stock, but instead would
require a fact-intensive inquiry into each of the hundreds of
millions of trades during the putative class period to determine
whether a better price reasonably could have been obtained for that
exact trade at the precise moment when it was executed.
Establishing reliance on any alleged misrepresentation would
require a similar individualized inquiry, which the Supreme Court
has repeatedly held generally precludes class certification. The
factors that make this case unsuitable for class treatment are
inherent to how trades are executed in the securities markets.
Nothing in discovery can change the fundamental nature of this
lawsuit and render it suitable for class certification, the
Defendants contend.

Robinhood is a broker-dealer that offers customers the ability to
invest, commission-free, a self-directed trading platform.

The Defendants include Robinhood Markets, Inc.; Robinhood Financial
LLC; and Robinhood Securities, LLC

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 29, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3KOBtct at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Karen P. Kimmey, Esq.
          FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP
          235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 954-4400
          E-mail: kkimmey@fbm.com

               - and -

          Maeve L. O'Connor, Esq.
          Elliot Greenfield, Esq.
          Brandon Fetzer, Esq.
          DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
          919 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 909-6000
          E-mail: mloconnor@debevoise.com
                  egreenfield@debevoise.com
                  bfetzer@debevoise.com

ROSS TOOMBS: Court Narrows Claims in Timberg Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL TIMBERG, on his own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. ROSS TOOMBS
and MERIDIAN PRIME, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-06060-MKB-RER
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion dismiss
the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

    -- The Court grants Defendants' motion and dismisses the
       Plaintiff's wage notice and breach of contract claims.

    -- The Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss the
       Plaintiff's Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) unpaid
       overtime and collective action claims and NYLL unpaid
       overtime, unpaid spread of hours pay, and wage statements
       claims.

The Plaintiff Timberg commenced the action on December 12, 2020,
against the Defendants alleging that the Defendants knowingly and
willfully committed widespread violations of the FLSA, and the New
York Labor Law (NYLL).

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants failed to pay him overtime
and spread of hours pay, failed to provide wage
notices and wage statements, and breached his employment contract.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MwB3rR at no extra charge.[CC]


SEA WORLD: Bendorf Suit Remanded to San Diego County Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THERESA BENDORF, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEA WORLD
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company doing business as
SEAWORLD SAN DIEGO doing business as AQUATICA SAN DIEGO; SEAWORLD
PARKS & ENTERTAINMENT, an unknown entity; and DOES 1 THROUGH 25,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-02061-AJB-AGS (S.D. Cal.),
Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California granted the Plaintiff's motion to
remand and remanded case to the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Diego.

I. Background

On Aug. 25, 2021, the Plaintiff filed the putative class action in
San Diego County Superior Court against Sea World, her former
employer. She brought claims for: (1) failure to pay vested
vacation wages; (2) failure to timely pay wages upon termination;
(3) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (4)
failure to recall; and (5) unfair competition under California
law.

The Plaintiff's claims stem from her allegation that "around April
of 2020, the Defendants indefinitely laid off thousands of
employees with little or no notice in response to the Coronavirus
('COVID-19') pandemic."

On Oct. 15, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion to intervene in a
related state court class action, Jones v. SeaWorld Parks &
Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 37-2018-0057. In the motion, the
Plaintiff stated that the "waiting time penalties for her vacation
pay claim alone amount to more than $6 million dollars" and
estimated them to "be $6,942,000."

On Dec. 9, 2021, the Defendants removed the action to federal
court. The Plaintiff thereafter filed the instant motion to remand,
arguing that the Defendants' removal was untimely. The Order
follows.

II. Discussion

The issue in dispute is whether the Defendants timely removed the
case. And the dispositive question is at what point in time were
the Defendants able to ascertain that the amount in controversy in
the action satisfied CAFA's monetary threshold.

The Plaintiff contends that the allegations in her Complaint were
sufficient to enable the Defendants to ascertain that the amount in
controversy exceeded $5 million, and that their failure to file
within thirty days of receiving the Complaint (first 30-day removal
period) warrants a remand. In the alternative, the Plaintiff argues
that her motion to intervene in the Jones Action constitutes "other
paper" from which the Defendants were able to ascertain that the
case was removable, and their failure to file within 30 days of
receiving this "other paper" (second 30-day removal period)
warrants a remand.

A. Timeliness of Removal

1. Whether Plaintiff's Complaint Triggered the 30-Day Removal
Period Under Section 1446(b)(1)

The Plaintiff argues that removal was untimely because Defendants
could have determined that the amount in controversy requirement
was satisfied from the face of her Complaint. In support, she
points to the following allegations in her Complaint: (1) "the case
involves 'thousands of employees' who were indefinitely laid off by
the Defendants in or around April of 2020"; (2) the "Defendants
failed to pay these employees all wages owed to them upon
termination"; and (3) she "seeks recovery of waiting time
penalties." According to the Plaintiff, these allegations were more
than enough to allow the Defendants to perform straightforward
calculations demonstrating that the potential amount in controversy
exceeded CAFA's $5 million requirement.

The Defendants counter that they could not ascertain the amount in
controversy from the Complaint alone because it "does not state the
number of people in the putative class or subclasses, does not
specify anyone's rates of pay and hours worked, and lacks
substantive facts regarding the basis for the Plaintiff's claims."

Judge Battaglia agrees. He finds that the Complaint does not
specify the total amount in controversy for the proposed class; the
Plaintiff simply pleads her damages as an amount that "exceeds the
minimal jurisdiction limits of the Superior Court and will be
established according to proof at trial." As the four corners of
the Complaint does not contain sufficient information from which
Defendants could calculate and ascertain that the amount in
controversy exceeded $5 million, it falls short of triggering the
removal clock under Section 1446(b)(1).

Judge Battaglia also finds without merit the Plaintiff's argument
that the Defendants' own public records and investigation in the
Jones Action establish that they were on notice that the case was
removable at the time it was filed. As previously discussed, the
Complaint is indeterminate with respect to removability, and as
such, the Defendants had no duty of further inquiry.

Accordingly, because the Complaint does not affirmatively reveal
the amount in controversy, Judge Battaglia does not find that the
first 30-day removal period under Section 1446(b)(1) was triggered.
However, he finds that the Defendants received an "other paper"
which triggered the second 30-day removal period under Section
1446(b)(3).

2. Whether Plaintiff's Motion to Intervene in the Jones Action
Triggered the 30-Day Removal Period under Section 1446(b)(3)

The Plaintiff next argues that because her motion to intervene in
the Jones Action revealed that the amount in controversy in the
action exceeded $5 million, the motion allowed the Defendants to
ascertain removability and triggered the second removal clock under
Section 1446(b)(3). As earlier mentioned, under Section 1446(b)(3),
if the initial pleading did not state a removable case, a second
30-day period is triggered upon "an amended pleading, motion,
order, or other paper from which a ground for removal may be
'ascertained.'" This removal period "does not start until a paper
makes a ground for removal 'unequivocally clear and certain.'"

Judge Battaglia holds that the Defendants had notice on Oct. 15,
2021 that the action was removable under Section 1446(b)(3). They
failed to remove the case within 30 days of that notice.
Consequently, the Defendants' removal of the case was untimely. The
case must therefore be remanded under Section 1447(c).

B. Request for Attorney's Fees

Lastly, the Plaintiff requests attorney's fees under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1447(c) for improper removal. Absent unusual circumstances,
courts may award attorney's fees under Section 1447(c) only where
the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for
seeking removal. Conversely, when an objectively reasonable basis
exists, fees should be denied."

Although he finds the Defendants' removal untimely, Judge Battaglia
holds that the Defendants' arguments to the contrary were not
objectively unreasonable. As the Ninth Circuit has observed,
"removal is not objectively unreasonable solely because the
removing party's arguments lack merit, or else attorney's fees
would always be awarded whenever remand is granted," citing Lussier
v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 518 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008).
Consequently, an award of attorney's fees is not warranted. Thus,
the Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees is denied.

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Judge Battaglia finds that the Defendants
failed to timely remove the action. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's
motion to remand is granted. The Clerk of Court is instructed to
remand the case to the San Diego County Superior Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4fvcnuc8 from Leagle.com.


SETERUS INC: Martin Lemp Loses Bid to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN LEMP, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SETERUS, INC.,
Case No. 2:18-cv-01313-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Troy L. Nunley
Judge entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion to certify
class.

The Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"), U.S.C. section 1692, and the Rosenthal
Fair Debt Collections Practices Act ("Rosenthal Act"), California
Civil Code section 1788, for charging "unlawful convenience fees"
for payments made online or by phone.

The Plaintiff alleges Defendant is a mortgage servicer and has
provided services for Plaintiff's loan. The Defendant charged
Plaintiff a convenience fee for paying his mortgage online or by
phone.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following nationwide class under
the FDCPA:

   "All individuals in the United States, who, during the
   applicable limitations period, paid a convenience fee to
   Seterus for paying over the phone or online in connection
   with any residential mortgage loan, where the term
   "convenience fee" was not specifically enumerated in the
   original agreement and where the Defendant's records indicate
   that the debt had not been current for 30 or more consecutive
   days at the time Defendant began servicing it."

   All employees of the Court and Plaintiff's counsel are
   excluded from this class.

The Plaintiff also seeks to certify the following statewide class
under the Rosenthal Act:

   "All individuals in the state of California, who, during the
   applicable limitations period, paid a convenience fee to
   Seterus for paying over the phone or online in connection
   with any residential mortgage loan owned or serviced by
   Seterus.

   All employees of the Court and Plaintiff's counsel are
   excluded from this subclass.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 29, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OmTm4c at no extra charge.[CC]

SIG SAUER: Faces Glasscock Suit Over Alleged Defective P320 Pistol
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA GLASSCOCK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SIG SAUER, INC., Case No. 6:22-cv-03095-DPR
(W.D. Mo., April 18, 2022) is a proposed class action on behalf of
all persons who purchased a Sig Sauer model P320 pistol in the
State of Missouri from September 1, 2017, through the present.

Sig Sauer designs, manufactures, and markets a striker-fired pistol
known as the P320. The P320 is one of the most popular handguns in
the United States, and is the selected service model for several
law enforcement agencies and the United States Army.

But the P320 lacks safety features of comparable pistols sold by
Sig Sauer's competitors, and it inadvertently discharges at a
higher rate than comparable pistols. Sig Sauer conceals and omits
this material information from consumers about the enhanced risks
associated with the P320, the suit says.

The Plaintiff brings this action under the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act (MMPA) on behalf of himself and other consumers who
have been harmed by Sig Sauer's conduct.

Joshua Glasscock is a resident of Polk County, Missouri. He is a
longtime law enforcement officer. He purchased his Sig Sauer P320
in April 2020 in Polk County, Missouri. He paid approximately $400
for the pistol. The pistol's serial number is 58A146892. Glasscock
purchased the P320 for personal use and still owns it.

Glasscock would not have purchased the P320, or would have paid
substantially less for it, had the defective nature of the P320
been disclosed to him and/or publicly confirmed by Sig Sauer rior
to the time of purchase, the Plaintiff contends.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Matthew L. Dameron, Esq.
         WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
         1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
         Kansas City, MO 64105
         Telephone: (816) 945-7110
         Facsimile: (816) 945-7118
         E-mail: matt@williamsdirks.com

              - and -

         Todd C. Werts, Esq.
         LEAR WERTS LLP
         103 Ripley Street
         Columbia, MO 65201
         Telephone: (573) 875-1991
         Facsimile: (573) 279-0024
         E-mail: werts@learwerts.com

SOCIAL SECURITY: Thai Appeals Ruling in Civil Rights Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs ANH TUYET THAI, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled ANH TUYET THAI, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-00583-WQH-NLS, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego.

Don Doan and Tommy Nguyen were previously named Plaintiffs in the
lawsuit as well, but were dismissed with prejudice on Aug. 18,
2016. The operative complaint at that time was the Second Amended
Complaint, and the Plaintiffs alleged in that complaint that they
had been the subject of a campaign of intimidation by agents and
employees of the SSA after they filed affidavits in another class
action against the SSA, Diep Nguyen, Anh Thai, et al. v. SSA,
13-2036 (S.D. Cal. 2003). Doan and Nguyen were dismissed with
prejudice because they did not file affidavits in the prior
action.

The Plaintiffs then filed a Third Amended Complaint. In that
complaint, Defendants Villasenor and Sanchez were named for the
first time as "armed agents" who were investigators with the Los
Angeles District Attorney Investigators Unit and members of the Los
Angeles Cooperative Disability Investigations Unit. Doan and Nguyen
were not named as Plaintiffs in the complaint. The complaint was
again dismissed. The Court also denied a motion for reconsideration
on the dismissal, and entered judgment in favor of the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs appealed the judgment to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. They appealed the dismissal of their claims against
Defendants Villasenor and Sanchez and the appellate court reversed,
finding that a plausible claim could exist against them for
entering Plaintiff Anh Thai's home without her consent.  In
addition, Doan and Nguyen appealed their dismissal from the Second
Amended Complaint and the appellate court also reversed in part,
finding that the complaint plausibly alleged that state and/or
local law enforcement agents of the SSA's CDI unit carrying guns
and police badges entered their homes without their consent but
their other claims were properly dismissed because they did not
submit affidavits in the prior lawsuit.

The Defendants then requested the entry of a protective order and
for an order authorizing the release of the SSA files pertaining to
Doan, and Nguyen. On Sept. 23, 2020, Magistrate Judge Stormes
granted the Defendants' motion and issued the Order, authorizing
the SSA to release any SSA investigative files pertaining to Doan
and Nguyen. The Magistrate Judge also entered the protective order
in the case.  She made modifications to the proposed protective
order. Magistrate Judge Stormes further denied requests for
sanctions and fees declined
to impose monetary sanction on either party.

On April 5, 2022, District Judge William Q. Hayes entered an Order
denying Plaintiffs' motion for relief from the Magistrate Judge's
Order; denying Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration; and denying
Plaintiffs' motion to strike Defendants' answer, motion for default
judgment, and motion for reconsideration.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Anh Thai, et al. v. County of
Los Angeles, et al., Case No. 22-55368, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 8, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Don Doan, Tommy Nguyen and Anh Tuyet Thai
Mediation Questionnaire was due on April 15, 2022;

   -- Appellants Don Doan, Tommy Nguyen and Anh Tuyet Thai opening
brief is due on June 8, 2022;

   -- Appellees County of Los Angeles, Dulce Sanchez, State And/Or
Local Agents LADA and William Villasenor answering brief is due on
July 8, 2022; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants ANH TUYET THAI, DON DOAN, and TOMMY NGUYEN,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Alexandra Tran Manbeck, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALEXANDRA T. MANBECK
          4531 University Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92105
          Telephone: (914) 763-2426
          E-mail: manbeckjd@optonline.net

Defendants-Appellees COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, WILLIAM VILLASENOR,
DULCE SANCHEZ, and STATE AND/OR LOCAL AGENTS LADA, are represented
by:

          Tomas A. Guterres, Esq.
          Christie Bodnar Swiss, Esq.
          COLLINS, COLLINS, MUIR & STEWART, LLP
          1100 El Centro Street
          South Pasadena, CA 91030
          Telephone: (626) 243-1100

               - and -

          Megan Lieber, Esq.
          COLLINS AND COLLINS LLP
          2175 N California Boulevard, Suite 835
          Walnut City, CA 94596
          Telephone: (510) 844-5100

SOLSTICE BENEFITS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Lyngaas Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN J. LYNGAAS; and D.D.S., P.L.L.C., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOLSTICE BENEFITS,
INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-10830-LVP-CI
(E.D. Mich., April 18, 2022) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice
of making unsolicited calls.

Solstice Benefits, Inc. operates as a dental insurance agency. The
Company provides dental, vision, pharmaceutical, life, and
disability benefits plans. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Robert M. Hatch, Esq.
          BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          203 N. La Salle Street, Ste. 2100
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          Email: service@classlawyers.com

               -and-

          Richard E. Shenkan, Esq.
          SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, PLLC
          6550 Lakeshore Street
          West Bloomfield, MI 48323
          Telephone: (800) 601-0808
          Facsimile: (888) 769-1774
          Email: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Berreyes Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LOUIS C. BERREYES, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CV-22-000343, was removed from
the Superior Court for the State of California, County of
Stanislaus, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on April 19, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-00464-JLT-SKO to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide lawful meal periods, failure to
authorize and permit rest periods, failure to timely pay wages
during employment, failure to timely pay wages owed upon separation
from employment, failure to reimburse necessary expenses, failure
to pay reporting time wages, knowing and intentional failure to
comply with itemized wage statement provisions, and unfair
competition.

Southern California Gas Company is a gas corporation with its
principal place of business located in Los Angeles County,
California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Daniel J. McQueen, Esq.
         Richard B. Azada, Esq.
         SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
         333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
         Telephone: (213) 620-1780
         Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
         E-mail: dmcqueen@sheppardmullin.com
                 razada@sheppardmullin.com

STERLING JEWELERS: McCormack Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to S.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled AMY MCCORMACK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. STERLING JEWELERS INC., SIGNET
JEWELERS LTD., and DOES 1 through 50, Case No.
37202200008433CUOECTL, 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 15, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00525-AJB-BGS to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal
periods and permit rest breaks, failure to timely pay wages during
employment, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to
timely pay wages due at termination, failure to reimburse business
expenses, and unfair business practices.

Sterling Jewelers Inc. is an American specialty jewelry company
headquartered in Akron, Ohio.

Signet Jewelers Ltd. is a retailer of diamond jewelry,
headquartered in Akron, Ohio. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Cory D. Catignani, Esq.
         VORYS SATER SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
         4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 700
         Newport Beach, CA 92660
         Telephone: (949) 526-7900
         Facsimile: (949) 526-7901
         E-mail: cdcatignani@vorys.com

STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Glancy Prongay Discloses Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York captioned Winter v. Stronghold
Digital Mining, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-cv-3088, on behalf of
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc. ("Stronghold" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: SDIG) Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's
October 2021 initial public offering ("IPO" or the "Offering").
Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from this
notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.

If you suffered a loss on your Stronghold 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/stronghold-digital-mining-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 or
visit our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your
rights.

In October 2021, the Company completed its IPO, selling 7,690,400
shares of Class A common stock at $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 Company's stock price fell as much as $3.28, or
32%, to close at $6.97 per share on March 30, 2022. As of April 14,
2022, Stronghold stock has traded as low as $4.78 per share, a more
than 75% decline from the $19 per share IPO price.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that the
Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and
omitted to state: (1) that contracted suppliers, including MinerVa,
were reasonably likely to miss anticipated delivery quantities and
deadlines; (2) that, due to strong demand and pre-sold supply of
mining equipment in the industry, Stronghold would experience
difficulties obtaining miners outside of confirmed purchase orders;
(3) that, as a result of the foregoing, there was a significant
risk that Stronghold could not expand its mining capacity as
expected; (4) that, as a result, Stronghold would likely experience
significant losses; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements
about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false
and misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant
times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Stronghold Class A common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO, you may move the Court
no later than 60 days from this notice 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.
[GN]


STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Robbins Geller Reminds of June 13 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of
Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc. (NASDAQ: SDIG) Class A common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with Stronghold Digital Mining's October 2021 initial
public offering ("IPO") have until June 13, 2022 to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff in Winter v. Stronghold Digital
Mining, Inc., No. 22-cv-03088 (S.D.N.Y.). Commenced on April 14,
2022, the Stronghold Digital Mining class action lawsuit charges
Stronghold Digital Mining, certain of its top executive officers
and directors, as well as the IPO's underwriters with violations of
the Securities Act of 1933.

If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Stronghold Digital Mining 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 Stronghold Digital Mining class action lawsuit must
be filed with the court no later than June 13, 2022.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Stronghold Digital Mining is a crypto asset
mining company focused on mining Bitcoin. In the IPO, Stronghold
Digital Mining sold 7,690,400 shares of Class A common stock at a
price of $19.00 per share. Stronghold Digital Mining received net
proceeds of approximately $132.5 million from the IPO. The proceeds
from the IPO were purportedly to be contributed to Stronghold LLC
in exchange for Stronghold LLC Units, and Stronghold LLC would
purportedly use the net proceeds for general corporate purposes,
including for acquisitions of miners and power generating assets.

The Stronghold Digital Mining class action lawsuit alleges that the
IPO's Registration Statement was materially false and misleading
and omitted to state that: (i) contracted suppliers, including
Minerva Semiconductor Corp., were reasonably likely to miss
anticipated delivery quantities and deadlines; (ii) due to strong
demand and pre-sold supply of mining equipment in the industry,
Stronghold Digital Mining would experience difficulties obtaining
miners outside of confirmed purchase orders; (iii) as a result,
there was a significant risk that Stronghold Digital Mining could
not expand its mining capacity as expected; (iv) thus, Stronghold
Digital Mining would likely experience significant losses; and (v)
consequently, defendants' positive statements about Stronghold
Digital Mining's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On March 29, 2022, Stronghold Digital Mining reported a net loss of
$0.52 for the fourth quarter of 2021, below analyst estimates of
$0.04 earnings per share, while Stronghold Digital Mining's Chief
Executive Officer cited "significant headwinds in our operations
which have materially impacted recent financial performance." On
this news, Stronghold Digital Mining's stock price fell
approximately 32%.

By the commencement of the Stronghold Digital Mining class action
lawsuit, Stronghold Digital Mining's stock has traded as low as
$4.78 per share.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any purchaser of Stronghold Digital
Mining Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
Registration Statement issued in connection with the IPO to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff in the Stronghold Digital Mining
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 Stronghold Digital Mining class action lawsuit.
The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate
the Stronghold Digital Mining class action lawsuit. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Stronghold
Digital Mining class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving
as lead plaintiff. [GN]


T. MARZETTI: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Olmos Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RACHEL OLMOS, MICHAEL
TRAMEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. T. MARZETTI COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-03159-JAK-MRW
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order
approving the joint stipulation to modify scheduling Order pursuant
to LR 40-1, as follows:

                    Deadline                     Event

-- Last day to amend or add parties:        August 9, 2022

-- Last day to participate in a             October 5, 2022
    settlement conference /
    mediation:

-- Last day to file notice of               October 11, 2022
    settlement / joint report re
    settlement:

-- Post Mediation Status                    November 7, 2022
    Conference:

-- Deadline to file motion for class        January 10, 2023
    certification:

-- Deadline to file opposition to           February 21, 2023
    motion for class certification:

-- Deadline to file reply in support of     March 7, 2023
    motion for class certification:

-- Hearing on motion for class              April 3, 2023
    certification:

-- Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off:            May 9, 2023

-- Initial Expert Disclosures:              May 23, 2023
-- Rebuttal Expert Disclosures:             June 6, 2023

-- Expert Discovery Cut-Off:                June 20, 2023

-- Last day to file All Motions             July 11, 2023
    (including discovery motions):

The T. Marzetti Company is the Specialty Food Group of the
Lancaster Colony Corporation. T. Marzetti produces numerous salad
dressings, fruit and vegetable dips, frozen baked goods and
specialty brand items.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38ODya7 at no extra charge.[CC]

TAPESTRY INC: Brooks' Bid to Appoint Interim Class Counsel Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALERIE BROOKS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TAPESTRY, INC. d/b/a KATE SPADE, a Maryland corporation; and DOES 1
to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-00156-TLN-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order denying the Plaintiff's
motion for appointment of Interim Class Counsel.

The Court says that it agrees with the Defendant that the Plaintiff
has not shown interim counsel is necessary to protect the interests
of the putative class. Further, the Plaintiff fails to provide any
evidence that counsel will suffer prejudice if this motion is
denied or that counsel meets the adequacy requirements of Rule
23(g)(1)(A). Lastly, it bears mentioning that Plaintiff did not
file a reply to address Defendant's arguments.

The Plaintiff, who is legally blind, can only experience the
internet through screen-reading software.

The Defendant operates a website that provides consumers with
access to 4 information regarding women's handbags, wallets,
clothing, shoes, accessories, and more.

The Plaintiff alleges she cannot use Defendant's website because it
is incompatible with screen-reading software.

The plaintiff filed this action on January 26, 2021, alleging
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 30, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38PZyBu at no extra charge.[CC]

TESLA: On Cusp of Losing Securities Class Action Over 2018 Tweets
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ali Breland, writing for Mother Jones, reports that while Elon Musk
might be on the cusp of buying Twitter, he could also be on the
cusp of losing a securities fraud case over how he has used it.

On April 15, court filings in a class-action lawsuit emerged
showing that a judge ruled earlier this month that Musk's 2018
tweets claiming he had secured funding to take Tesla private at
$420 a share knowingly and recklessly shared "false and misleading"
information, according to Reuters.

In an earlier case, the tweets prompted the Securities and Exchange
Commission to charge Musk with civil securities fraud. He settled
with the agency in 2019, paying $40 million and stepping down as
Tesla chairman, though he is currently trying to terminate that
agreement. This month's ruling was in a separate case brought by
Tesla investors. If their suit is successful, damages could amount
to billions of dollars to be paid out by Musk and Tesla.

While Musk initially bought a 9% ownership stake of Twitter in
early April, the courtroom developments came to light as Musk
offered a $43 billion bid to acquire total control of the platform.
The company has adopted a "poison pill" measure to thwart a
potential Musk purchase, one that would offer discounted stock
sales that would dilute control if any person or group acquires 15
or more percent of outstanding stock.

Musk has said that he would pursue a "Plan B" if his offer is
rejected, but has not explained how he would do so. [GN]


TEXAS: Ward's Bid for Class Certification Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH WARD, BY HIS NEXT
FRIEND FLOYD JENNINGS; MARC LAWSON, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND KRISTA
CHACONA; JENNIFER LAMPKIN, BY HER NEXT FRIEND ELSIE CRAVEN; CECIL
ADICKES, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND NEXT FRIEND ELSIE CRAVEN; KENNETH
JONES, BY HIS NEXT PATRICIA SEDITA; MARY SAPP, BY HER NEXT FRIEND,
LOURDES RODRIGUEZ; AND JULIAN TORRES, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND MELISSA
SHEARER, v. CECILE ERWIN YOUNG, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
EXECUTIVE COMMISSIONER OF TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
COMMISSION, Case No. 1:16-cv-00917-LY (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge
Lee Yeakel entered an order:

   1. granting the motion for class certification in part:

      This action shall proceed as a class action with one class
      certified under Rule 23(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
      Procedure consisting of:

     "All persons who are now, or will be in the future, (a)
      charged with a crime in the State of Texas, (b) ordered by
      a Texas court to a Texas Department of State Health
      Services facility where they are to receive competency-
      restoration services; but (c) because the Texas Department
      of State Health Services maintains insufficient forensic
      capacity, (d) remain detained in a Texas county jail more
      than 21 days from the day the Texas Department of State
      Health Services receives the court order to the day the
      Texas Department of Health Services makes a bed available
      in a Texas Department of Health Services mental health
      facility;

   2. appointing Disability Rights Texas and Winston & Strawn,
      L.L.C. as class counsel for the class pursuant to Rule
      23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

   3. conditionally appointing the Plaintiffs Joseph Ward, Marc
      Lawson, Kenneth Jones, Jennifer Lampkin, and Julian Torres
      to represent the class of persons found incompetent to
      stand trial.

   4. denying Plaintiffs' motion in all other respects.

This cause was originally brought pursuant to Section 1983 of Title
42 of the United States Code on behalf of seven incarcerated
individuals. Two putative classes are comprised of (1) individuals
found not guilty by reason of insanity and (2) individuals found
incompetent to stand trial, who assert that their Fourteenth
Amendment Due Process rights are violated when they are housed for
prolonged periods in Texas jails without adequate mental-health
treatment while waiting for a bed to become available in a Texas
Department of State Health Services facility. Defendant Cecile
Erwin Young is the Executive Commissioner of the Texas Department
of State Health Services (the "Department") and is sued in her
official capacity.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 29, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3K0WTSE at no extra charge.[CC]

TOUR RESOURCE: Court Certifies Narrower Class in Delcavo Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY DELCAVO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOUR RESOURCE CONSULTANTS,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21-2137-JWL (D. Kan.), Judge John W.
Lungstrum of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

I. Background

The Defendant provides travel services for groups, and in 2019 a
music group, the Bach Festival Society, arranged for the Defendant
to provide services for a June 2020 tour to Italy. The Plaintiff's
son was a member of the group, and in November 2019, the Plaintiff
paid the Defendant $400 as an initial deposit for the trip. In
March 2020, when travel to Italy became impossible in light of the
COVID-19 pandemic, Bach's trip and the Plaintiff's booking were
canceled. Payments by the Plaintiff and other participants in the
Bach trip were refunded by the Defendant with the exception that it
retained $400 as a cancellation fee for each participant.

In March 2021, the Plaintiff filed the putative class action, in
which the Plaintiff has asserted common-law claims for unjust
enrichment, conversion, and breach of contract, and a claim under
the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA), K.S.A. Sections 50-626,
-627. The Defendant has filed a counterclaim for defamation, based
on its allegation that the Plaintiff falsely accused it of having
canceled the Bach tour.

II. Discussion

A. Certification of a Class Including All Trips

The matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification. In his motion, the Plaintiff seeks
certification of the following class: "All persons who were charged
a cancellation fee by Defendant for tour reservations that were
booked before Jan. 1, 2020 but cancelled during the COVID-19
pandemic."

In opposing class certification, the Defendant first argues that
the Plaintiff's proposed class is impermissibly broader than the
putative class alleged in his amended class action complaint. In
the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges a class period from Jan. 1,
2020, to the present, and he further alleges that he brings this
action on behalf of a class defined as follows: "All persons who
were charged a cancellation fee by Defendant for tour reservations
that could not be completed because of travel restrictions related
to the COVID-19 pandemic."

In response to this argument, the Plaintiff insists that he has not
broadened his class definition, but that he has merely altered the
language of the definition to clarify that "travel restrictions"
may include practical considerations that would affect the ability
to travel. Thus, he argues that the definition alleged in the
complaint would also encompass all of the Defendant's tours,
including those to countries other than Italy.

Judge Lungstrum disagrees with the Plaintiff's interpretation, as
he concludes that the complaint, reasonably read, is limited to a
class encompassing only trips to Italy canceled because of travel
restrictions that made travel to that country impossible.

By his present motion, the Plaintiff seeks to certify a class
encompassing all of the Defendant's canceled tours, regardless of
the circumstances of or reasons for the cancellations. He has not
provided any evidence about the cancellation of other trips,
however, other than the Defendant's admission (in the deposition of
its corporate representative) that all of its trips canceled "due
to COVID." Thus, there is no evidence or even an allegation that
any other trip was canceled because travel to the destination
became restricted. Thus, Judge Lungstrum agrees with the Defendant
that the class proposed in the Plaintiff's motion is broader than
the class proposed in the complaint.

The Plaintiff has not sought to amend his complaint to broaden his
proposed class definition. Accordingly, Judge Lungstrum limits his
consideration of certification to a class no broader than that
alleged in the complaint, that is, a class encompassing the
Defendant's tours that were canceled because travel to the
particular destinations became prohibited. The Plaintiff has not
offered evidence or even alleged that any tour other than the Bach
group's tour falls within that definition; accordingly, the
Plaintiff's motion is limited to certification of a class
consisting of participants in the Bach tour.

Judge Lungstrum further concludes that, even if a broader class
consisting of all of the Defendant's tours could be considered, the
Plaintiff has not established satisfaction of the Rule 23
requirements for such a proposed class. Specifically, he concludes
that the questions of law or fact common to the class members would
not predominate over questions affecting only individual members.

Accordingly, Judge Lungstrum denies certification of the class
proposed by the Plaintiff encompassing all of the Defendant's tours
that were canceled during the COVID pandemic

B. Certification of a Class Limited to Plaintiff's Tour

Judge Lungstrum then turns to the issue of the certification of the
class alleged in the Plaintiff's complaint. The Plaintiff does not
dispute the Defendant's evidence that the Bach group's tour was the
only one of its tours that was canceled because of restrictions of
travel to Italy, and the Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence
(or even allegations) concerning the circumstances of the
cancellation of any other tour. Thus, Judge Lungstrum will not
certify any class including participants in tours other than the
Plaintiff's tour with the Bach group to Italy. He considers,
however, the certification of a class limited to participants in
that tour.


Judge Lungstrum begins by noting that the Defendant has merely
argued that certification of the broader class encompassing all
trips is not warranted because such a class goes beyond the class
alleged in the complaint and because of the failure to establish
the requisite commonality, typicality, adequacy, and predominance.
With respect to the issues of commonality, typicality, and
predominance, the Defendant has based its opposition on the
differences between the other tours and the Plaintiff's tour. Thus,
it has not offered any argument why plaintiff has not satisfied
those requirements for certification of a class encompassing only
the Plaintiff's tour, with the exception of the KCPA issue.

Judge Lungstrum first concludes that the Rule 23(a) requirements
are met. He is not persuaded that the Plaintiff would not be an
adequate class representative. He concludes that the Plaintiff has
shown that he and his counsel would vigorously litigate the class
claims and that the Plaintiff would be an adequate class
representative. He also concludes that the unjust enrichment claim
is capable of class-wide determination.

Judge Lungstrum cannot conclude, however, that class certification
is appropriate for the entire scope of the Plaintiff's KCPA claim.
In opposing certification of the broadened class, the Defendant has
argued that the Plaintiff must show individualized reliance for
each class member, and that common issues thus do not predominate
over those individualized inquiries. Judge Lungstrum agrees, at
least to the extent that the Plaintiff's KCPA claim is based on
alleged misrepresentations. However, hee says, common issues would
not predominate as required with respect to such a class claim, and
he thus declines to certify a class to assert a claim under the
KCPA based on alleged misrepresentations.

The Plaintiff's claim under the KCPA based on alleged omissions,
however, may be proved on a class-wide basis. Judge Lungstrum
concludes common issues predominate with respect to the Plaintiff's
KCPA claim based on omissions. The Defendant also has not argued
that a class action would not be superior to other methods of
adjudication of the class members' claims, and Judge Lungstrum
concludes that the superiority requirement is satisfied.
Accordingly, het will certify a class limited to the members of the
Plaintiff's tour group, for all of the Plaintiff's claims except
his claim under the KCPA based on affirmative misrepresentations,
and the Plaintiff's motion is granted in part, to that extent.

C. Definition of the Class

Judge Lungstrum, thus, certifies a class defined as follows: All
paying participants in the Bach Festival Society's tour of Italy
planned for June 2020 who were charged a cancellation fee by
Defendant Tour Resource Consultants, LLC, with the exception of any
participant who directly cancelled his or her travel plans with the
Defendant or had his or her deposits fully refunded.

The class is certified for the assertion of the Plaintiff's claim
for breach of contract, the Plaintiff's claim for conversion, the
Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment, and the Plaintiff's claim
under the KCPA to the extent based on alleged material omissions.

D. Appointment of Class Counsel

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g) provides that a court certifying a class must
appoint class counsel, and the Plaintiff has submitted evidence of
his attorneys' qualifications and experience, including their
experience litigating class actions. Judge Lungstrum finds such
evidence sufficient, and he appoints as class counsel Jack D.
McInnes and A. Scott Waddell.

E. Notice

The Plaintiff has submitted a proposed notice, and requests that
the Court orders class notice according the following schedule: (1)
the Defendant will send the Plaintiff a spreadsheet with the name,
date of birth, Social Security Number, email address, and last
known address for each class member within 14 days after entry of
the order certifying the class; (2) within 14 days after receiving
this information, the Plaintiff will send notice to all class
members by email and first-class mail; and (3) the opt-out period
for the class will close not earlier than 60 days after mailing of
the first class notice.

The Defendant has not objected to the Plaintiff's proposed notice
or to any aspect of the proposed schedule. Accordingly, Judge
Lungstrum orders the parties' compliance with that schedule, with
one exception. The Plaintiff's proposed notice was based on his
broader proposed class, and thus must be amended. The Plaintiff
will submit an amended proposed notice for the Court's approval.
The Plaintiff will then send out the notice within 14 days after
the Court's approval of the notice.

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Judge Lungstrum granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. He denied
the Plaintiff's motion for certification of a class including
participants in all of the Defendant's cancelled trips, but he
granted the motion for certification of a narrower class including
only participants of the Plaintiff's particular trip, for the
assertion of each of the Plaintiff's claims other than his claim
under the KCPA based on affirmative misrepresentations.
Accordingly, Judge Lungstrum certified the narrower class, and
appointed the class counsel and authorized the class notice as set
forth in his Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/44pu29ru from Leagle.com.


TUESDAY MORNING: Fails to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS MCDONALD and AMBER LIBREROS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. TUESDAY MORNING, INC., a Texas
corporation, Case No. 5:22-cv-00664 (C.D. Cal., April 19, 2022) is
a class action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated current and former non-exempt employees of the Defendant
Tuesday Morning who worked for Tuesday Morning in California at any
time from January 1, 2021 until the date that final judgment is
rendered.

Tuesday Morning is a discount closeout retailer specializing in
name-brand merchandise for the home that operates approximately 41
stores in California.

The Plaintiffs and similarly situated current and former non-exempt
employees are referred to herein as "Class members."

On behalf of themselves and other Class members, Plaintiffs seek
relief for the Defendant's systematic and uniform violations of the
California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code,
the applicable Wage Order issued by the California Industrial
Welfare Commission.

Throughout the time period involved in this case, Defendant
willfully maintained a policy and/or practice of failing to pay all
wages for all hours worked, including minimum and overtime wages;
failing to provide compliant duty-free meal periods; failing to
authorize and permit compliant duty-free rest breaks; failing to
maintain and provide accurate itemized wage statements; and failing
to pay all wages owed timely and upon separation of employment,
says the suit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith A. Custis, Esq.
          CUSTIS LAW, P.C.
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (213) 863-4276
          Facsimile: (213) 863-4277
          E-mail: kcustis@custislawpc.com

TUG HILL: RUSCO Can Intervene; Rogers' Class Complaint Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LASTEPHEN ROGERS, Individually and for Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. TUG HILL OPERATING, LLC,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 5:21-CV-199 (N.D.W. Va.), Judge John
Preston Bailey of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of West Virginia, Wheeling, issued a Memorandum Opinion granting:

   a. RUSCO Operating, LLC's Motion to Intervene filed on
      Jan. 27, 2022; and

   b. the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint
      Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), (6),
      and (7) filed on Feb. 24, 2022.

I. Background

Plaintiff Rogers filed his complaint on Dec. 3, 2021, seeking to
recover alleged unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") against Defendant Tug Hill. The
Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated workers paid by Defendant Tug Hill's day-rate
system.

According to the Plaintiff, Defendant Tug Hill operates an oil and
natural gas exploration and production company operating in West
Virginia and Texas. He contends that while working for Defendant
Tug Hill as a drilling and completions consultant, he, along with
similarly situated workers, was paid a flat amount for each day
worked with no overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek in violation of the FLSA.

Non-party RUSCO operates an online platform ("the application" or
"the app"), which is used by oil and gas operators and independent
contractors who provide freelance services for those operators.
According to RUSCO, its app is used to facilitate and connect
independent contractors to particular projects run by oil and gas
operators nationwide. Beyond the matchmaking function between
operators and independent contractors, RUSCO's app also provides
independent contractors with administrative functions like payment,
insurance, and record-keeping. After a contractor, like the
Plaintiff, performs work, RUSCO then pays the contractor in
accordance with an invoice submitted by the contractor, less a
percentage known as the "split" that compensates RUSCO for its
service. Operators like the Defendant then pay RUSCO the balance
invoiced.

Underlying the foregoing relationship between the Plaintiff and
RUSCO is an independent contractor agreement, which states that the
agreement between RUSCO and the Plaintiff "constitutes a binding
agreement between you, an independent professional and RUSCO
governing your use of the Service to provide freelance services to
third party companies." Throughout the independent contractor
agreement, the Plaintiff confers several benefits on the Defendant
and RUSCO, including: rights regarding the work to be performed,
waiver of workers compensation, and confidentiality.

The Plaintiff also agreed to abide by certain terms of service,
which contain a dispute resolution provision; importantly, RUSCO's
dispute resolution provision says that every dispute arising in
connection with these Terms will be resolved by binding
arbitration. Further, the terms state that claims will be
administered by and in accordance with the Rules of the American
Arbitration Association, and that "the arbitrator will have
exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the
interpretation, applicability, or enforceability of the binding
arbitration agreement."

Pending before the Court is a Motion to Intervene filed by RUSCO
and Defendant Tug Hill's Motion to Dismiss. Based on the extensive
briefing on both Motions, each is ripe for adjudication.

II. Discussion

A. RUSCO's Motion to Intervene

The Fourth Circuit recognizes that, to intervene as a matter of
right, the movant must satisfy four requirements: (1) the
application must be timely; (2) the applicant must have an interest
in the subject matter sufficient to merit intervention; (3) the
denial of intervention would impair or impede the applicant's
ability to protect its interest; and (4) the applicant's interest
is not adequately represented by the existing parties to the
litigation.

RUSCO argues that the Plaintiff has improperly excluded it from the
pending litigation through selective pleading despite the fact that
he had an actual agreement concerning his independent contractor
status with RUSCO. According to RUSCO, the Plaintiff signed this
contract including the aforementioned arbitration agreement in
which he promised to arbitrate claims like the ones asserted.
Absent intervention, RUSCO states that it could potentially be
liable to Defendant Tug Hill based on the outcome of the case.
Alternatively, it argues it should be granted permissive
intervention because the enforcement of its contractual rights
share common questions of law and fact raised, and an inability to
participate in this lawsuit could impair its business model and
subject it to liability.

Defendant Tug Hill filed a Response to the Motion to Intervene.
Therein, it joins in RUSCO's request, and further argues that RUSCO
must be joined in the ongoing litigation based on, inter alia, the
language of the aforementioned arbitration clause.

The Plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to
Intervene advancing several arguments against RUSCO's intervention.
First, he contends that RUSCO does not have a significantly
protectible interest in the lawsuit against the Defendant. Further,
the Plaintiff argues that resolving his claims against Defendant
Tug Hill will not impair or impede RUSCO's alleged interests.
Further, he avers that Defendant Tug Hill adequately represents
RUSCO's alleged interest in the matter. As a final, alternative
argument, the Plaintiff contends that permissive intervention is
also inappropriate.

RUSCO filed a Reply in which it reasserts its arguments for both
intervention by right and permissive intervention.

Based on consideration of the arguments asserted by the parties,
Judge Bailey concludes that RUSCO is entitled to intervene in the
matter by right pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 24(a). He finds that
(i) there can be no question that RUSCO's motion is timely
considering these facts; (ii) intervention is a proper avenue for
RUSCO to protect its interest in arbitration; (iii) the litigation
affects RUSCO's interests (namely, its business model, interest in
arbitration, and potential liability); and (iv) a finding of
liability against Defendant Tug Hill alone would implicate RUSCO in
several ways.

Even assuming arguendo that intervention by right is improper,
Judge Bailey opines that RUSCO would be entitled to permissive
intervention. RUSCO does not claim it has a conditional right to
intervene by federal statute. Instead, its timely motion asserts,
correctly, that intervention in the matter will not prejudice
either party, and that the matter involves common questions of fact
and law -- namely, whether the Plaintiff is an independent
contractor under the FLSA. The Plaintiff and Rusco have a written
contractual agreement on this very issue, and finds on that
question could potentially subject RUSCO to liability as either a
joint employer or indemnitor. Accordingly, and in addition to
intervention by right, RUSCO is entitled to permissive
intervention.

B. Defendant Tug Hill's Motion to Dismiss

Defendant Tug Hill asserts the matter should be dismissed based on
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 12(b)(7).

First, Judge Bailey holds that dismissal pursuant to Fed. R.
12(b)(1) is warranted because the Plaintiff entered into a valid
and enforceable arbitration agreement covering the claims at issue
in the case. He finds that the Plaintiff's claim arises out of work
performed through RUSCO on Defendant Tug Hill's projects. Hi
agreement to the aforementioned terms, including the arbitration
provision, was a precondition to the performance of work on
Defendant Tug Hill's projects. Thus, the claims that relate or
refer to the work that plaintiff performed or the terms under which
he agreed to perform such work are subject to arbitration.

Moreover, the Plaintiff has indisputably alleged a link to
interstate commerce by averring that he worked for Defendant Tug
Hill in Marshall and Wetzel Counties in West Virginia, that
Defendant Tug Hill is a "Texas company," and that the Plaintiff was
engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce. It
would seem, that Defendant Tug Hill has clearly satisfied the
aforementioned factors to warrant compelled arbitration.

Second, Judge Bailey holds that the Plaintiff's valid and
enforceable arbitration agreement delegates threshold questions of
arbitrability to the arbitrator. The arbitration provision found in
the terms of service contains an express delegation clause, stating
"the arbitrator has exclusive authority to resolve any dispute
relating to the interpretation, applicability, or enforceability of
this binding agreement." Judge Bailey declines to usurp the
parties' delegation of authority in this respect. Hence, because
the parties have expressly delegated threshold questions to the
arbitrator, he is of the opinion to grant Defendant Tug Hill's
Motion to Dismiss and to compel arbitration.

Third, Defendant Tug Hill does not need to be a signatory for the
threshold question of arbitrability to be delegated. The Plaintiff
electronically signed the arbitration agreement and subsequently
performed work in West Virginia. When the subject dispute emerged,
he sought relief in federal court in West Virginia. Therefore, West
Virginia law should govern whether Defendant Tug Hill, a
non-signatory, can enforce the arbitration agreement.

Furthermore, the contract does not need to be made only for the
benefit of the third-party beneficiary; rather, a party may be a
third-party beneficiary to a contract if the contract was made and
intended to be for the benefit of a class of persons definitely and
clearly shown to come within the terms of the contract and the
third-party beneficiary party is a member of that class.

In the case, because the independent contractor agreement provides
specific -- and significant -- benefits to Defendant Tug Hill, it
is a third-party beneficiary under West Virginia law. Accordingly,
Defendant Tug Hill should be permitted to enforce the Plaintiff's
agreement to resolve "every dispute" arising out of his work on
defendant Tug Hill projects, through RUSCO, in binding
arbitration.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Intervene is granted. The
Clerk is instructed to note RUSCO as a Defendant party in the
matter. Additionally, Defendant Tug Hill's Motion to Dismiss is
granted. Accordingly, the matter is dismissed, and the parties are
compelled to arbitration for resolution of the subject claims.

The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of the Order to all
counsel of record in the matter.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 12, 2022 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://tinyurl.com/3pjzuurt from Leagle.com.


U.S. BANCORP: Young Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Bancorp. The
case is styled as Leshawn Young, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. U.S. Bancorp, Case No. 1:22-cv-03106
(S.D.N.Y., April 14, 2022).

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

U.S. Bancorp -- https://www.usbank.com/index.html -- is an American
bank holding company based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and
incorporated in Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Bogdanovs Files Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unilever United
States Inc. The case is styled as Bernadette Bogdanovs,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Unilever United States Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-00652-JGB-SP (C.D.
Cal., April 14, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Unilever -- https://www.unilever.com/ -- meet everyday needs for
nutrition, hygiene and personal care with brands that help people
feel good, look good and get more out of life.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
          BRADLEY GROMBACHER LLP
          31365 Oak Crest Drive Suite 240
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Phone: (805) 270-7100
          Fax: (805) 270-7589
          Email: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                 kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com

               - and -

          Sin-Ting Mary Liu, Esq.
          AYLSTOCK WITKIN KREIS AND OVERHOLTZ PLLC
          17 East Main Street, Suite 200
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Phone: (510) 698-9566
          Fax: (760) 304-8933
          Email: mliu@awkolaw.com



UNIQUE HEALTHCARE: Loses Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in Farhat Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LINDA FARHAT, Plaintiff v. UNIQUE HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-1319-SDM-JSS (M.D. Fla.),
Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, granted the Plaintiff's
Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and denied the Defendant's
Amended Motion to Bifurcate Discovery.

On April 7, 2022, Judge Sneed held a hearing on the Motions. Upon
consideration, and for the reasons stated at the hearing, she
granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery to the extent
that although the Defendant states the information the Plaintiff is
requesting is not within its possession, the Defendant has agreed
to aid in gathering the information pertaining to putative members
of the class action and supplement its responses to the Plaintiff's
Requests for Production Nos. 1-3,5-9,11,12,15-22, 24, 26, 29-35 and
Interrogatories Nos. 1-2,4-6, 9, 11-14, 16-18, 21. In supplementing
its responses, the Defendant will redact any personally
identifiable information that is included in the disclosed
materials, consistent with the Court's prior order.

Judge Sneed denied the Defendant's Amended Motion to Bifurcate
Discovery. The Defendant clarified at the hearing that it was not
seeking to have discovery bifurcated but requesting that discovery
regarding the putative class members proceed as set forth to
protect the privacy rights of the Defendant's patients while
allowing the Plaintiff to obtain the information she needs to seek
class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/599my73v from Leagle.com.


UNITED ROAD: Sales Wins Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENSON M. SALES, et al.,
v. UNITED ROAD SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-08404-JST
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered an order:

   1. Certifying the following class under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3)
      of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

      "All individuals who signed Independent Contractor Service
      Agreements with URS, who were assigned to a business unit
      in California, and who drove in California at any time
      from November 18, 2015, to the date of this order;"

   2. Appointing Plaintiffs Denson M. Sales and Andre Clemons as
      co-class representatives;

   3. Appointing Plaintiffs' counsel Mara Law Firm and Hunter
      Pyle Law as co-class counsel; and

   4. Setting a further case management conference on April 19,
      2022 at 2:00 p.m.

In November 2019, Denson M. Sales filed this lawsuit in Alameda
County Superior Court on behalf of himself and other truck drivers
who contract with Defendant United Road Services, Inc. (URS) as
independent contractors to haul vehicles for customers throughout
Canada and United States.

URS removed the action to this Court one month later. The contract
these drivers 2 must sign, the Independent Contractor Service
Agreement, classifies them as independent contractors. Plaintiffs
contend this classification is incorrect because the drivers
categorized as independent contractors in fact act as URS's
employees, entitled to the benefits and protections afforded to
employees under California law.

The Plaintiffs assert the following claims against URS: (1) failure
to reimburse business expenses, in violation of California Labor
Code section 2802; (2) failure to pay all straight time wages at
the statutory minimum wage; (3) failure to properly itemize wage
statements, in violation of California Labor Code section 226; (4)
failure to pay all wages due at termination, in violation of
California Labor Code section 203; and (5) violation of
California’s unfair competition law, Bus. & Prof. Code section
17200.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 29, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3JUDrqD at no extra charge.[CC]


UNITED STATES: Althouse Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Kevin R. Althouse filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled as Kevin R. Althouse, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated mentally disabled and or
special needs offenders v. United States of America, The State of
Texas, The County of Dallas Texas; Clay Jenkins, Dallas County
Judge; John Creuzot, Dallas County District Attorney; Grace E Shin,
Assistant; Cynthia R Garza, Chief, Dallas County District
Attorney's Conviction Integrity Unit; Lynn Pride Richardson, Chief,
Dallas County Public Defender's Office; Christopher Young, Chief
Attorney, Dallas County Public Defender's Actual Innocence
Exoneration Unit; Jennifer Bennett, Judge, the 265th Judicial
District Court of Dallas County; Sharon Keller, Chief Judge, Etc,
The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas; Annette Miller, Texas
Department of Criminal Justice-Parole Division; Holly Baird,
Hearing Examiners; Betty Wells, General Counsel, Etc, Texas Board
of Pardons and Paroles; Texas Department of Criminal Justice, State
Counsel for Offenders; April E Smith, Attorney (Dallas County);
Dallas County Office of Mental Health/Mental Retardation, and all
other State/County Mh/MR Offices in the United States that refuse
to acknowledge and treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
as a mental illness; Metrocare Services of Dallas; Special Needs
Offender Program Services; Case No. 3:22-cv-00388-G-BK, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

On March 25, 2022, Senior Judge A. Joe Fish entered a Judgment that
this action is summarily DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous
until such time as Plaintiff satisfies the conditions set forth in
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

The Plaintiff is now taking an appeal from this ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as Althouse v. United States, Case
No. 22-10351, in the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
filed on April 12, 2022.

Plaintiff-Appellant Kevin R. Althouse, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated mentally disabled and or special needs
offenders, appears pro se.[BN]

UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Ragland Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Chauncy Ragland, on behalf of the general public as private
attorney general v. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, LP, a California
Limited Partnership doing business as ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY
SERVICES; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 22STCV11376 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 4, 2022), is brought pursuant
to the Labor Code seeking unpaid lawful wages, unpaid rest and meal
period compensation, reimbursement of required expenses, penalties
and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs.

The Defendants implemented policies and practices which led to
Defendant's: failure to pay wages including overtime; failure to
provide meal periods for every work period exceeding more than 5
and 10 hours per day and failure to pay an additional hour's of pay
or accurately pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu of providing
a meal period; failure to provide rest breaks for every four hours
or major fraction thereof worked and failure to pay an additional
hour's of pay or accurately pay an additional hour's of pay in lieu
of providing a rest period; failing to pay all wages earned and
owed upon separation from Defendant's employ; failing to provide
accurate itemized wage statements; and failing to reimburse
expenses, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in September 2020 as a
Non-Exempt Employee working as a security guard.

Universal Protection Service, LP, a California Limited Partnership
doing business as Allied Universal Security Services operates as a
security company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Gregory Mauro, Esq.
          Michael Calvo, Esq.
          Lauren Falk, Esq.
          Ava Issary, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS, APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: (949) 387-7200
          Fax: (949) 387-6676
          Email: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com


VIAQUEST RESIDENTIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chase Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDY CHASE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VIAQUEST RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-01974-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio, April 18,
2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Chase was employed by the Defendant as direct support
professional.

VIAQUEST RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, LLC provides various health
services, including but not limited to in-home care services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               -and-

          Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
          1360 East 9th Street, Suite 808
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 230-2944
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com


VILORE FOODS: Bid to Certify Class & Subclass in Gross Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WARREN GROSS, DEBORAH LEVIN, SHELBY COOPER, and EDWARD
BUCHANNAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. VILORE FOODS COMPANY, INC., and ARIZONA
CANNING COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 20cv894-LL-JLB (S.D.
Cal.), Judge Linda Lopez of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California issued an order:

   a. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
      to appoint class counsel; and

   b. denying as moot Defendant Vilore's motion to exclude the
      expert reports of the Plaintiffs' experts, Dr. Michael
      Belch and Charlene Podlipna.

I. Background

The case arises from Defendants Vilore and Arizona Canning's
("ACC") purported violations of consumer protection laws through
their distribution of various Kern's juice-based beverage products.
Plaintiffs Warren Gross and Deborah Levin filed a putative class
action complaint against Vilore on May 13, 2020. Following various
dismissals and subsequent amendments to the complaint, Plaintiffs
Gross, Levin, Cooper, and Buchanan filed the operative Third
Amended Complaint ("TAC") against Vilore and ACC on April 23,
2021.

Defendant ACC was the former designated U.S. distributor for Kern's
juice-based beverage products labeled "Guava Nectar," "Apricot
Nectar," "Mango Nectar," and "Peach Nectar" from May 13, 2016
(start of the proposed class period) until Dec. 31, 2017. Defendant
Vilore is the current designated U.S. distributor for the Products
and has been since July 2018.

During the respective periods when each Defendant was the
identified distributor, each Defendant "advertised, marketed,
distributed, and sold the Products in California and throughout the
United States." The Products distributed by both Defendants
contained an artificial flavoring ingredient called "dl-malic
acid," which was disclosed in the ingredients list on the
rear-label of the Products. Some of the Products distributed by ACC
on or around 2017 "during an interval of the proposed class
period"4 had the statement "100% Natural" printed on the front
label. Some of the Products distributed by Vilore had the statement
"Made with Whole Fruit" printed on the front label.

The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants failed to disclose the
artificial flavoring ingredient on the front label and advertised
the Products as if they were flavored only with natural
ingredients, thereby violating various state and federal consumer
protection laws. They also allege that they would not have
purchased the Products, or would have paid less for them, if not
for the Defendants' alleged misrepresentations and omissions.
However, the Plaintiffs intend to and will purchase the Products
again in the future if the Products' labels "are lawful and
consistent with the Products' ingredients."

The TAC asserts six claims against both Defendants on behalf of the
"California Class": (1) violation of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California Civil Code Sections 1750 et seq.;
(2) violation of the "unlawful" prong of California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"), California Business & Professions Code
Sections 17200 et seq.; (3) violation of the "unfair" prong of the
UCL; (4) violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"),
California Business & Professions Code Sections 17500 et seq.; (5)
breach of express warranties, California Commercial Code Section
2313; and (6) breach of implied warranties, California Commercial
Code Section 2314. The Plaintiffs' seventh claim is brought against
only ACC on behalf of the "Nationwide Class" and the "California
Class," alleging negligent misrepresentation under California Civil
Code Sections 1709-1710 "and the common law of all states."

The Plaintiffs seek restitution, disgorgement of any unjust
enrichment, an injunction on the Defendants' "deceptive and unfair
practices," and an "order requiring Defendants to conduct
corrective advertising," among other remedies.

The Plaintiffs now move to certify two classes pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3):

     (1) A Nationwide Class consisting of all persons who purchased
one or more of the following products in the United States anytime
between May 13, 2016 and July 22, 2019 for personal and household
use and not for resale: Kern's Guava Nectar, Kern's Apricot Nectar,
Kern's Mango Nectar, Kern's Peach Nectar.

     (2) A California Subclass consisting of all persons who
purchased one or more of the following products in California
anytime between May 13, 2016 and July 22, 2019 for personal and
household use and not for resale: Kern's Guava Nectar, Kern's
Apricot Nectar, Kern's Mango Nectar, Kern's Peach Nectar.

II. Discussion

A. Motion for Class Certification

Parties seeking class certification must satisfy each of the four
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and at least
one of the requirements of Rule 23(b)." "Rule 23(a) states four
threshold requirements applicable to all class actions: (1)
numerosity (a class so large that joinder of all members is
impracticable); (2) commonality (questions of law or fact common to
the class); (3) typicality (named parties' claims or defenses are
typical of the class); and (4) adequacy of representation
(representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests
of the class)."

The Plaintiffs contend that in addition to satisfying Rule 23(a)'s
requirements, class certification is warranted under Rule 23(b)(2)
and Rule 23(b)(3). Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate
only when "the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act
on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final
injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is
appropriate respecting the class as a whole." Certification under
Rule 23(b)(3) is appropriate only if "common questions of law or
fact found under Rule 23(a)(2) 'predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior
to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating
the controversy.'"

The Plaintiffs move for certification of a proposed Nationwide
Class (based on their claims for breach of express and implied
warranties and negligent misrepresentation) and a California
Subclass (based on all claims) under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3).

1. Rule 23(a) Requirements

Judge Lopez finds that the Court may reasonably infer that over 40
individual consumers purchased at least one of the Products both in
California and in the entire United States during the class period,
so numerosity has been satisfied. Next, she finds that because the
Plaintiffs cannot point to a "positive" misrepresentation of a
material fact common to all the class members, commonality is not
satisfied as to an essential element of the Plaintiffs' negligent
misrepresentation claim.

Lastly, because the named representatives' claims may involve legal
theories that are materially different from the claims of
Nationwide Class members, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that
their claims are typical of those of the Nationwide Class under
Rule 23(a)(3). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' final three claims
brought on behalf of the Nationwide Class do not satisfy the
typicality requirement under Rule 23(a), and certification as to
the Nationwide Class must be denied.

2. Rule 23(b) Requirements

In addition to meeting the prerequisites of Rule 23(a), the parties
seeking class certification must also show that the action is
appropriate under Rule 23(b)(1), (2), or (3). However, class
certification is only proper if the Court is satisfied that Rule
23(a)'s prerequisites have been met. Because the Plaintiffs have
failed to demonstrate that Rule 23(a)'s prerequisites are met as to
either their California or Nationwide Class, class certification
must be denied, and Judge Lopez need not analyze the Plaintiffs'
arguments for certification under Rule 23(b)(2) or 23(b)(3).

B. Motions to Seal

The Court previously denied the Plaintiffs' and Vilore's motions to
file documents under seal, but invited the Defendants to file
supplemental briefing as to why particular documents offered in
support of the parties' class certification briefing should be
filed under seal. Both ACC and Vilore filed supplemental briefing
in response to the Court's order.

Judge Lopez does not find the documents the Defendants seek to file
under seal relevant to its consideration of the underlying motion
and does not cite to or rely on the documents in her Order.
Accordingly, the motions to seal are denied as moot.

IV. Conclusion

Because the Plaintiffs have not satisfied all requirements of Rule
23(a), Judge Lopez denied without prejudice the Motion for Class
Certification. For the reasons she discussed, she also denied as
moot Vilore's motion to exclude the expert reports of Dr. Belch and
Charlene Podlipna.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mph7hx7z from Leagle.com.


VITAMIN SHOPPE: Wins Summary Judgment v. Ferrari and Bohr
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD FERRARI and
WILLIAM BOHR v. VITAMIN SHOPPE, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-10475-GAO
(D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Paul Lyness entered an order granting
Defendant's motion for summary judgment in accordance with the
Court's Opinion and Order dated March 31, 2022

The Vitamin Shoppe is an American, New Jersey-based retailer of
nutritional supplements. It also operated three stores in Canada
under the name VitaPath from January 2013 until March 2016.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 31, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Onbg74 at no extra charge.[CC]




WHOLE FOODS: N.D. Illinois Grants Bid to Toss Cerretti Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Manish S. Shah of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted Whole Foods' motion
to dismiss the case, KAYLA CERRETTI, Plaintiff v. WHOLE FOODS
MARKET GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 21 CV 5516 (N.D. Ill.).

I. Background

Defendant Whole Foods manufactures and markets organic chocolate
ice cream bars. Plaintiff Cerretti bought some of those bars,
expecting the coating on the ice cream to be exclusively chocolate.
Cerretti alleges that Whole Foods deceived her because the
chocolate coating contained more non-chocolate ingredients than
actual chocolate. Cerretti wants to represent a class of consumers
and brings claims for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, breach of express and implied
warranties, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust
enrichment. Whole Foods moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

II. Discussion

A. Statutory and Common-Law Fraud

The Illinois Consumer Fraud Act prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts
or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." Cerretti
must plead both her deceptive-practices statutory and common-law
fraud claims with the detail required by Rule 9(b), including the
"who, what, when, where, and how" of the fraud.

At issue is the element of a deceptive act or misrepresentation.
Whole Foods called its product "Organic Chocolate Ice Cream Bars,"
described the bars as "Organic Vanilla Ice Cream Dipped in Organic
Chocolate," decadent, and smooth, and the bars were pictured amidst
chunks of chocolate. Cerretti claims that these representations
were misleading because (1) the coating on the ice cream "has less
chocolate than consumers expect," (2) the chocolate "contains more
chocolate substitutes than cacao ingredients," and (3) the coating
wasn't only chocolate.

To show that Whole Foods misrepresented its product, Cerretti needs
to allege that the product packaging was "likely to deceive
reasonable consumers," and that "a significant portion of the
general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting
reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled."

Judge Shah finds that Whole Foods called its ice cream bars
chocolate, and the bars included chocolate. The Defendant didn't
say anything about the proportion of cacao ingredients to other
ingredients in the chocolate coating on the ice cream bars, and
Cerretti hasn't shown that a significant portion of reasonable
consumers would read the word "chocolate" (or the other
representations on the product's packaging) the way she did. Hence,
the claims for violation of the ICFA and fraudulent
misrepresentation are dismissed.

B. Breach of Warranties

Ms. Cerretti brings claims for breach of implied and express
warranties under Illinois law and under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act. Under Illinois law, a buyer who discovers a breach of warranty
must notify the seller "or be barred from any remedy." Buyers are
required to give pre-suit notice to encourage settlement and allow
sellers to cure defects and minimize damages.

Ms. Cerretti argues that she notified Whole Foods of the problems
with their product by filing the lawsuit. But when there's no
allegation that a consumer suffered a personal injury because of a
product's defect, Judge Shah says, filing a complaint against a
seller isn't adequate notice under Illinois law. Alternatively,
Cerretti contends that she didn't need to give notice to the
Defendant because Whole Foods had actual knowledge of the alleged
defect. If a manufacturer is aware of the "trouble with the
particular product purchased by a particular buyer," that actual
knowledge satisfies Illinois' notice requirement.

Whole Foods didn't admit that the company knew its products were
defective and disputes that it made any false statements about the
ice cream bars; it has not conceded that it had knowledge of
Cerretti's claim. Therefore, Judge Shah holds that the warranty
claims are dismissed for lack of notice.

C. Negligent Misrepresentation

To state a claim for negligent misrepresentation, a plaintiff must
allege that (1) the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff to
communicate accurate information; (2) the defendant made a false
statement of material fact to the plaintiff; (3) the defendant
negligently failed to ascertain the truth of that statement; (4)
the defendant made the statement intending to induce the plaintiff
to act; (5) the plaintiff acted in reliance on the truth of that
statement; and (6) the plaintiff suffered damage due to that
reliance.

As he discussed, Judge Shah holds that Cerretti hasn't shown that
Whole Foods made a false statement to her. Whole Foods sold
tangible products -- ice cream bars -- to Cerretti, the
characteristics of those products were readily ascertainable, and
the company owed no extracontractual duty. The Plaintiff hasn't
shown that Whole Foods made a false statement of material fact or
explained why she should be able to recover against the company in
tort rather than contract for her economic losses. Hence, the
negligent misrepresentation claim is dismissed.

D. Unjust Enrichment

Unjust enrichment isn't a separate cause of action under Illinois
law. Because Cerretti's other claims have all been dismissed, her
request for relief based on unjust enrichment fails as well.

III. Conclusion

Whole Foods's motion to dismiss is granted. The claim for negligent
misrepresentation is dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiff's
statutory and common-law fraud claims, the warranty claims, and her
requests for unjust enrichment and injunctive relief are dismissed
without prejudice.

The Plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint on April 22,
2022. If an amended complaint is not filed, the dismissal will
convert to a dismissal with prejudice and final judgment will be
entered.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 8, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mvxnmhbn from
Leagle.com.


WYNDHAM VACATION: Nolen Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Carolyn Nolen, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled CAROLYN NOLEN, WINDY KELLEY,
CARA KELLEY and PAULA LITTON, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS, INC.;
FAIRSHARE VACATION OWNERS ASSOCIATION; and RCI, LLC, Case No.
6:20-cv-00330-PGB-EJK, in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.

The case involves a timeshare exchange program. Consumers, such as
the Plaintiffs, purchase timeshare interests from WVR which are
then placed into the Trust. Once subject to the Trust -- also known
as Club Wyndham Plus or the Fairshare Program -- timeshare
purchasers can use their points to book stays at other resort
affiliated with the Fairshare Program, rather than just at their
home resort locations. Specifically, Fairshare is named as the
Trustee for the Fairshare Vacation Plan Use Management Trust
Agreement. As Trustee, Fairshare has extensive duties and
obligations, as set out, in section 6.01 of the Trust, and in the
Arkansas Trust Code. Yet, Fairshare has not taken any steps to
understand and comply with its obligations as a trustee under
Arkansas Trust law. Fairshare does not have any employees, offices,
or other property or assets. Rather, Fairshare is operated by a
Board of Directors, all of whom, throughout the class period, have
exclusively been employees of Wyndham Vacation Ownership (WVO)
and/or WVR.

On July 12, 2021, the Court certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class and
directed the parties to file a motion seeking approval of the
proposed notice to Class members by August 2, 2021. The Plaintiffs
sought approval of a notice plan by that date, which Defendant
thereafter partially opposed.

On March 10, 2022, Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order granting
Defendants' motion for summary judgment; denying as moot
Plaintiffs' motion to strike expert report; denying as moot
Defendants' motion for sanctions; denying as moot Defendants'
motion to modify the case management scheduling order. The Clerk of
Court was also directed to close the file on the case.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Carolyn Nolen, et al. v. Wyndham
Vacation Resorts, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-11128, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on April 8,
2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- The appellant's brief is due on or before May 18, 2022;

   -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
the appellant's brief;

   -- Awaiting Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons is due
on or before April 25, 2022 as to Appellant Cara Kelley; and

   -- Awaiting Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due
on or before May 9, 2022 as to Appellee Fairshare Vacation Owners
Association.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants CAROLYN NOLEN, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated; VINDY KELLEY, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated; CARA KELLEY, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated; and PAULA LITTON, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Bradford D. Barron, Esq.
          THE BARRON LAW FIRM, PLLC
          117 N Missouri, PO Box 369
          Claremore, OK 74017
          Telephone: (918) 341-8402

               - and -

          Patrick A. Barthle, Esq.
          John Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          201 N Franklin St Fl 7
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: pbarthle@forthepeople.com  

               - and -

          Rodney E. Miller, Esq.
          James M. Terrell, Esq.
          METHVIN TERRELL YANCEY STEPHENS & MILLER, PC
          2201 Arlington Ave S
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 939-0199
          E-mail: rem@mtattorneys.com
                  jterrell@mmlaw.net   

Defendants-Appellees WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS, INC., FAIRSHARE
VACATION OWNERS ASSOCIATION, and RCI LLC are represented by;

          David Matthew Allen, Esq.
          Chris S. Coutroulis, Esq.
          Nathaniel Garrett Foell, Esq.
          Kevin P. McCoy, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS, PA
          4221 W Boy Scout Blvd Ste 1000
          PO Box 3239
          Tampa, FL 33601-3239
          Telephone: (813) 223-7000
          E-mail: mallen@carltonfields.com
                  ccoutroulis@carltonfields.com
                  nfoell@carltonfields.com
                  kmccoy@cfjblaw.com

YOUTH VILLAGES: Faces Hollingsworth FLSA Suit in W.D. Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------------
HANNAH HOLLINGSWORTH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. YOUTH VILLAGES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-01065 (W.D. Tenn., April 18, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to pay the Plaintiff and
similarly situated workers appropriate minimum wages and overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant in 2017 to work in a
residential treatment facility and transferred to perform as a
family intervention specialist in Paris, Tennessee since 2018.

Youth Villages, Inc. is a provider of children's mental health and
behavioral services based in Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Michael L. Weinman, Esq.
         WEINMAN & ASSOCIATES
         101 N. Highland Ave.
         P.O. Box 266
         Jackson, TN 38302
         Telephone: (731) 423-5565
         Facsimile: (731) 423-5372
         E-mail: mike@weinmanthomas.com

Z&S DELI: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, Luque Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------
TOMAS LUQUE and GILBERTO SOLANO MENEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. Z&S DELI INC. d/b/a SUPER DELI
MARKET, RADHA RAMPERSAD and RIA RAMPERSAD, as individuals, Case No.
1:22-cv-03043 (S.D.N.Y., April 13, 2022) seeks to recover damages
for the Defendants' alleged egregious violations of state and
federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiff's employment
with the Defendants.

As a result of the violations of Federal and New York State labor
laws, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and liquidated
damages in an amount exceeding $100,000. The Plaintiff also seeks
interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable
remedies this Court deems appropriate.

The employees similarly situated are the Collective Class:

   "All persons who are or have been employed by the Defendants as
   kitchen helpers, delivery men and cooks or any other similarly
   titled personnel with substantially similar job requirements and

   pay provisions, who were performing the same sort of functions
   for Defendants, other than the executive and management
   positions, who have been subject to Defendants’ common
   practices, policies, programs, procedures, protocols and plans
   including willfully failing and refusing to pay required
   overtime wages."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Covell Sues Over Improper OD Fee Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY COVELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZIONS BANCORPORATION, N.A., and DOES 1-20,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00516-BAS-JLB (E.D.N.Y.,
April 14, 2022) is a class action against the Defendant for breach
of contract.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged improper practice of
assessing an overdraft (OD) fee on debit transactions that did not
actually overdraw checking accounts. Despite putting aside
sufficient available funds for debit card and other point of sale
transactions at the time those transactions are authorized, the
Defendant later assesses OD fees on those same transactions when
they purportedly settle days later into a negative balance. The
Plaintiff and Class members assert a claim for breach of contract
since the Defendant is only authorized to charge OD fees on
transactions that have insufficient funds to cover those
transactions.

Zions Bancorporation, N.A. is a bank holding company headquartered
in Salt Lake City, Utah. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
         (Eddie) Jae K. Kim, Esq.
         LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
         1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 762-1910
         Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
         E-mail: todd@lcllp.com
                 ekim@lcllp.com

                 - and –

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

[*] Securities Class Action Filings Down 34% in 2021
----------------------------------------------------
Susanne Sclafane, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that
directors and officers liability insurance premium rate hikes have
not had the anticipated impacts on loss ratios that carriers had
hoped for, AM Best reported in March, citing the impact of social
inflation on rising claims and defense costs.

Separately, Kevin LaCroix, author of the D&O Diary blog, in
mid-January noted that regular economic inflation -- in particular,
the trio of supply chain disruption, labor shortages and economic
inflation -- has started to contribute to a new wave of securities
lawsuits.

While both the AM Best analysts and LaCroix noted the federal
securities class actions dropped in 2021, offering slightly
different interpretations of the data, they agree that risk factors
like climate change, discrimination cases, and growing cyber
exposures are contributing to new types of D&O insurance losses.

The Best report, "D&O Insurance: Fundamental Problems Persists
Despite Pricing," shows that direct premiums written for the D&O
product line grew 15%, on average, over the last six quarters, and
that $14.6 billion of premium estimated for 2021 (annualized based
on a nine-month figure) was more than double the annual levels of
around $6.5 billion that persisted from 2014-2018.

Direct loss ratios, however, after falling 2.4 points from 62.4 in
2017 and 2018 to 60 in 2019, ticked up to 60.9 and 61 in 2020 and
2021, in spite of the premium jumps, according to data compiled by
AM Best.

In addition, defense and cost containment expenses (DCC) for D&O
liability rose to 14.7% and 13.0% of earned premiums in 2019 and
2020 (2021 figures not provided), compared to levels averaging of
9.1% from 2011-2016.

"Whether the aggressive rate increases and higher premiums are
sufficiently offsetting complex risk factors for carriers insuring
D&O risks remains unclear," the report says, noting that 2021 price
increases will show up in earned premiums in 2022, revealing more
of the story about price adequacy and D&O profitability.

Why Did Federal Securities Class Actions Drop?

LaCroix tallied 210 federal court securities class action lawsuits
filed in 2021, representing a 34% decline from the 320 in 2020, and
a 48% drop when measured against an average annual number of 405
for the 2017-2019 period.

The biggest factor contributing to the decline, he said, was a
decrease in the number of federal court merger objection class
action lawsuits. Dropping those out of the comparison, LaCroix
counted 192 "traditional" securities suit filings in 2021,
representing only about an 11.9% decline from the 218 traditional
filings in 2020.

"The filing levels in 2021 simply returned to long-term historical
levels, compared to the artificially elevated levels that prevailed
during the 2017-2020 period," he said, adding that plaintiffs'
lawyers are still filing merger objection lawsuits -- but now as
individual actions rather than as class actions.

AM Best points to the U.S. Supreme Court's March 2018 decision in
Cyan Inc. v. Beaver Country Employees Retirement Fund as a factor
in the decline of securities class action filings and a rise in the
number of state court class action suits.

In Cyan, the Supreme Court ruled that IPO-related lawsuits filed
under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 could be brought in
all state courts.

"Cases may be complicated in more difficult to defend in state
courts, which could further increase DCC costs," AM Best said.

Referring specifically to the increase in DCC, mainly for legal
expenses, in 2017-2019, the report notes the high levels of federal
securities class actions in those years (which have since fallen).
The AM Best analysts concede that the exact cause of the rise in
DCC isn't clear without more detailed claims data, suggesting
greater complexity of cases may have been a driver. "What is clear
is that the development on open claims is causing companies to add
to their initial estimates on individual claims, which will
manifest in worsening calendar year results," the report says.

The report discusses social inflation and the impacts of increased
levels of plaintiff attorney advertising and for-profit litigation
funders. But Best analysts refrain from making go-forward forecasts
about social inflation trends on D&O loss and loss adjustment
expense ratios. "Social inflation issues are being driven by a
generations-long deterioration in the public's trust of
corporations, and making predictions about social inflation is
difficult, because they are not driven by empirical evidence but by
changing demographics and public perception of corporate behavior,
especially with the expanding influence of social media."

Pandemic Effects

LaCroix, executive vice president of specialty insurance
intermediary RT ProExec, listed economic drivers of securities
litigation as the No. 4 trend on a list of Top 10 D&O Stories for
2022 in a early January post on his D&O Diary blog, under the
subheading, "Pandemic-Related Effects Roiling the Economy."

Supply chain disruptions, labor supply shortages and economic
inflation, he said, are second-level impacts from the coronavirus,
reporting that securities lawsuits tied to a worsening economy
already started emerging in 2021. "I think they will contribute to
securities litigation in 2022 and beyond," he added during a
webinar about his Top 10 predictions.

Detailing the types of lawsuits that will emerge, he presented an
example of a case filed last year against a maker of batteries for
electric vehicles, Travis Nichols, et al. v. Romeo Power Inc., et
al. "Their battery cells were stuck somewhere on a boat out in the
Pacific, and they weren't able to maintain their production levels.
And the investors allege that Romeo Power misrepresented the
durability of its supply chain," LaCroix said, demonstrating one
way in which supply chain disruption is linked to the possibility
of litigation.

A securities class action against a national chain of physical
therapy clinics, Kevin Burbige, et al. v. ATI Physical Therapy,
Inc., et al., also arose out of COVID-related economic impacts —
The Great Resignation and labor supply shortages, LaCroix said. The
complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose to investors
that ATI was experiencing attrition among its physical therapists
and faced competition to hire replacements, as well as increased
labor costs and the possibility that it could not open new clinics,
among other things.

SPACs

Both the Romeo Power and ATI cases also are examples of companies
that were sued shortly after their companies merged with a SPAC,
and both LaCroix and AM Best highlight the explosion of SPACs as a
trend to watch for 2022.

"The growth in SPAC-related litigation also has played a role in
the coverage and cost of D&O insurance," said David Blades,
associate director, industry research and analytics, AM Best. He
added, however, that "the number of insurers in the market who are
willing to write D&O coverage for SPACs has been somewhat scarce."

Climate Change and Cyber

Returning to the impacts of changes in the economy on D&O losses,
AM Best noted in its report that hiccups in the financial markets
can "lead to an increase in new and creative securities class
actions."

"Any market declines due to inflation fears, potential spikes in
infections owing to COVID-19 variants," and the conflict between
Russia and the Ukraine "could lead to a rise in class action
filings," the AM Best report says.

Both AM Best and LaCroix cited another supply chain disruption case
-- this one driving a class action against mattress maker Sleep
Number (Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Retirement Security Funds,
et al. v. Sleep Number Corporation, et al.), which alleges that the
company didn't have supply chain flexibility when it experienced
disruption in its supply of foam for bedding as a result of the
Winter Storm Uri.

That case suggests yet another potential avenue for D&O lawsuits,
according to LaCroix -- climate-related D&O litigation.

"If you pay attention to the warnings of climate change scientists,
there may be increasing numbers of climate events. Certainly, we
saw a number of them in 2021, the heat wave in the Pacific
Northwest in the United States, the wildfires, the storms in the
Midwest during the year, and the Texas winter storm. If we see more
of those types of weather events, will we see more lawsuits like
the Sleep Number case? Is this perhaps representative of the kind
of litigation climate-related D&O litigation we might see in the
future?" LaCroix asked.

Another set of risks that AM Best analysts and LaCroix have their
eyes on are growing cyber and privacy exposures. Here, LaCroix
notes that the track record for plaintiff lawyers in this area was
blemished by dismissals in 2021. That's small consolation for
insurers, however, since the plaintiffs' bar has racked up some
high-profile wins in the past, and will continue to file cases
("It's just, that's what plaintiffs' lawyers do. Fish got to swim,
birds got to fly, plaintiffs' lawyers got to file lawsuits,"
LaCroix said.)

Regulatory enforcement actions and shareholder derivative cases are
also on the horizon for cyber, he said, highlighting a trend in
Delaware courts sustaining claims alleging breach of the duty of
oversight.

LaCroix highlighted a shareholder derivative lawsuit against the
board of Solar Winds -- a software company, which suffered a hack
(allegedly carried out by Russia's foreign intelligence service)
that compromised nine federal agencies and hundreds of private
sector companies in late 2020.

In this case and others, there are "allegations relating to
‘mission critical operations,' and [situations] where the board
allegedly has disregarded ‘red flags,'" he said. These echo
language in a Boeing 737 Max Air Crash derivative suit, which
survived a motion to dismiss late last year, he said, citing that
Boeing case as one of several Delaware cases paving the way for
cybersecurity-related derivative actions with similar pleadings.
[GN]


[^] CLASS ACTION Money & Ethics Conference on May 2 - Be A Speaker
------------------------------------------------------------------
Beard Group, Inc. is hosting the 6th Annual Class Action Money &
Ethics Conference on Monday, May 2nd.

The conference will be held in person at The Harmonie Club in
Manhattan.  Major sponsors include Baird Mandalas Brockstedt LLC,
and Schochor, Federico and Staton, P.A.

Showcase your firm's expertise on a panel in front of class action
attorneys, general counsel, litigation financiers, consultants,
claims administrators, reporters and academics.

For the most complete agenda and to register, visit:
www.classactionconference.com

Interested in being a sponsor, contact:

     Bernard Toliver, CMP
     Tel: (240) 629-3300 ext. 149
     E-mail: bernard@beardgroup.com

For more conference information, or to register, 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 ***