/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220513.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, May 13, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 90

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Faces Suit Over Drinking Water Contamination
3M COMPANY: Hazardous Chemical Waste Exposure Suit Ongoing
3M COMPANY: Settlement in TRI Suit Gets Final OK
3M COMPANY: Settlement in West Morgan Suit Wins Final Nod
3M COMPANY: Settlement Reached in Guin City Suit

3M COMPANY: Settlement Reached in Water Contamination Suit
7-ELEVEN INC: Faces Suit Over Collection of Biometric Customer Data
ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR: Fails to Pay Swabbers' OT, White Says
AHRC HEALTH: Onate Seeks Conditional Certification
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Alaimo Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages

AMALANI LLC: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Nacarino Suit Over Automatic Renewal Scheme
AMAZON.COM INC: Suit Says Investors Misled Over Privacy Compliance
ARBOR REHABILITATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Behymer Alleges
ATLANTIC BUILDING: Sued Over Metal Building System False Marketing

BANK OF NEW YORK: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Hobbs Alleges
BBKM ASSOCIATES: Razzaq Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Staff
BETTER BASEBALL: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Davis Alleges
BIG BALLER BRAND: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BRISTOL BAY: Awmagan, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action

BYTEDANCE TECHNOLOGY: Mark S. Appeals Denial of Bid for Atty.'s Fee
C&L CONTRACTING: Infinity Contracting Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
CAPELLA UNIVERSITY: Settles Lawsuit Over Time, Costs to Earn Degree
CAREPINE HOME: Jartu Ngafua Seeks Overtime Wages Under PMWA, PWTO
CONSERVICE LLC: Barnett Sues Over Illegal Collection Practices

CREDIT COLLECTION: Faces Lebowitz FDCPA Suit Over Collection Letter
ELITE DEALER: Santos Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
ENGRAINED CABINETRY: Tony Manzo Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
FAMILY FOOD: Monther Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
FONTERRA COOPERATIVE: Farmers Urged to Join Clawback Class Action

GERBER LIFE: Prewitt Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Suit Over Alleged Systemic Race Discrimination
HUICATAO CORP: Underpays Construction Flaggers, Van Osten Claims
IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS: "Copper Fit" Falsely Marketed, Suit Alleges
IEC US HOLDINGS: Osorio Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of June 6 Deadline
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Rosen Law Reminds of June 6 Deadline
IRONNET INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of June 21 Deadline
KISS NUTRACEUTICALS: Gamboa Sues Over Unpaid Factory Workers’ OT
LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS: Hagens Berman Reminds of June 20 Deadline

METHOD PRODUCTS: Horn Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Schaub Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop
NATERA INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of June 27 Deadline
NATERA INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of June 27 Deadline
NATERA INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of June 27 Deadline

NEW YORK: Z.Q. Appeals Dismissal Case Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
ON-LINE ADMINISTRATORS: Trenz Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Housey Appeals False Ad Case Dismissal
PROTRANS INTERNATIONAL: Underpays Dock Coordinators, Briz Claims
RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Waterproof Coats Contain PFAS, Suit Says

RIOT GAMES: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Abreu Alleges
ROBLOX CORP: Faces V.R. Suit Over Deceptive In-Game Purchases
TOYOTA MOTOR: Bixby Sues Over Family Medical Leave Act Violations
WESTERN AUSTRALIA: Faces Suit Over Detention Centre's Conditions
WESTJET AIRLINES: Suit Over Expiring Credits Tossed by Court

WHO'Z THE BOSS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Behounek Alleges

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Faces 4,012 Individual Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Defends 3,616 Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has 30,312 Pending Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Inc. Has US$915MM Liabilities at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l. Defends Product Liability Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Has $52MM Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has U$1.0BB Liability at March 3


                            *********

3M COMPANY: Faces Suit Over Drinking Water Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 26, 2022, that the company is defending a
putative class action filed in New Jersey federal court in November
2021 by individuals who received drinking water from Middlesex
Water Company that was allegedly contaminated with PFAS in excess
of state regulatory levels.

Middlesex Water Company is also named as a defendant in this
action. With respect to 3M, the suit asserts claims for negligence,
nuisance, and trespass. Plaintiffs seek an injunction to include
bottled water and home treatment systems and alleged damages for
diminution-in-property value, among other relief. 3M filed a motion
to dismiss in March 2022. This case remains in early stages of
litigation.

The 3M Company is a manufacturer of surgical, medical instruments
and apparatus based in St. Paul MN.


3M COMPANY: Hazardous Chemical Waste Exposure Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 26, 2022, that a November 2017 putative class
action filed against 3M, Dyneon, Daikin America and the West
Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

The plaintiffs are residents of Lawrence and Morgan County, Alabama
who receive their water from the Water Authority and seek
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, compensatory and punitive
damages for their alleged personal injuries. The plaintiffs contend
that the defendants own and operate manufacturing and disposal
facilities in Decatur, Alabama that have released and continue to
release perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic
acid (PFOS) and related chemicals into the groundwater and surface
water of their sites, resulting in discharges into the Tennessee
River. The plaintiffs contend that, as a result of the alleged
discharges, the water supplied by the Water Authority to the
plaintiffs was, and is, contaminated with PFOA, PFOS and related
chemicals at a level dangerous to humans.

In November 2019, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to
withdraw all class allegations. Since then, the complaint has been
amended several times to add or dismiss plaintiffs, and the case
currently involves 42 plaintiffs. The case is scheduled for trial
in July 2023. Discovery in this case is proceeding.

The 3M Company is a manufacturer of surgical, medical instruments
and apparatus based in St. Paul MN.


3M COMPANY: Settlement in TRI Suit Gets Final OK
------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 26, 2022, that in April 2022, the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama granted the final
approval of a class settlement filed by Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc.
against 3M, BFI Waste Systems of Alabama, the City of Decatur,
Alabama and the Municipal Utilities Board of Decatur, Morgan
County, Alabama.

In October 2021, 3M reached agreements in principle to resolve
litigation with the Tennessee Riverkeeper organization. The
agreements, if finalized and approved by the court, will complement
the Interim Consent Order that 3M entered with the Alabama
Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) in 2020. Key
provisions of these agreements include 3M's continued environmental
characterization, including sampling of environmental media, such
as soil, ground water, and sediment, regarding the potential
presence of polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) at the 3M Decatur
facility and legacy disposal sites, as well as supporting the
execution of appropriate remedial actions.

In December 2021, the court in the St. John action granted
preliminary approval of the class settlement while the court
handling the Tennessee Riverkeeper action administratively closed
that case in light of the settlement between the parties. In April
2022, the court granted the final approval of the class
settlement.

The 3M Company is a manufacturer of surgical, medical instruments
and apparatus based in St. Paul MN.


3M COMPANY: Settlement in West Morgan Suit Wins Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 26, 2022, that in March 2022, the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama issued a final order
approving the class settlement filed by West Morgan-East Lawrence
Water & Sewer Authority against 3M Company, Dyneon LLC and Daikin
America, Inc. in October 2015.

Said complaint also includes representative plaintiffs who brought
the complaint on behalf of themselves, and a class of all owners
and possessors of property who use water provided by West
Morgan-East Lawrence and five local water works to which they
supply water.

In April 2019, 3M and West Morgan-East Lawrence settled the lawsuit
for $35 million, which will fund a new water filtration system,
with 3M indemnifying the Water Authority from liability resulting
from the resolution of the currently pending and future lawsuits
against the Water Authority alleging liability or damages related
to 3M PFAS. In October 2021, with respect to the putative class
claims brought by the representative plaintiffs who were supplied
drinking water by West Morgan-East Lawrence, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to resolve the claims for an immaterial
amount.

In March 2022, the court issued a final order approving the class
settlement.

The 3M Company is a manufacturer of surgical, medical instruments
and apparatus based in St. Paul MN.


3M COMPANY: Settlement Reached in Guin City Suit
------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 26, 2022, that in December 2021, the parties in
a lawsuit against 3M in Alabama state court reached a settlement
under which 3M agreed to contribute $30 million that will be used
on a new treatment system for the City of Guin's drinking water and
a new wastewater treatment facility.

In September 2020, the City of Guin Water Works and Sewer Board
(Guin WWSB) brought a lawsuit against 3M in Alabama state court
alleging that PFAS contamination in the Guin water system stems
from manufacturing operations at 3M's Guin facility and disposal
activity at a nearby landfill. In this same month, Guin WWSB
dismissed its lawsuit without prejudice and has been working with
3M to further investigate the presence of chemicals in the area.

The 3M Company is a manufacturer of surgical, medical instruments
and apparatus based in St. Paul MN.


3M COMPANY: Settlement Reached in Water Contamination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 26, 2022, that the parties in a putative class
action filed in August 2016 against West Morgan-East Lawrence Water
and Sewer Authority, 3M, Dyneon, Daikin, BFI and the City of
Decatur in state court in Lawrence County AL, have entered into a
settlement agreement and resolved the litigation in March 2022.

Plaintiffs are residents of Lawrence, Morgan and other counties who
are or have been customers of the West Morgan-East Lawrence Water
and Sewer Authority (Water Authority). They contend defendants have
released polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that contaminated the
Tennessee River and, in turn, their drinking water, causing damage
to their health and properties.

In January 2017, the court in the St. John case, discussed above,
stayed this litigation pending resolution of the St. John case.
Plaintiffs in the Billings case have amended their complaint
numerous times to add additional plaintiffs. There were
approximately 4,500 named plaintiffs. The parties have entered into
a settlement agreement and resolved the litigation in March 2022.

The 3M Company is a manufacturer of surgical, medical instruments
and apparatus based in St. Paul MN.


7-ELEVEN INC: Faces Suit Over Collection of Biometric Customer Data
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Four consumers allege 7-Eleven Inc. violated the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by unlawfully collecting, storing
and using shoppers' facial scans, and possibly other biometric
identifiers, without first obtaining written consent to do so or
providing statutory disclosures.

According to a 23-page proposed class action filing, numerous
7-Eleven locations in Chicago use surveillance systems provided by
Clickit, an intelligent video solutions provider. The filing claims
that although Clickit's technology is purportedly configured to
operate without using facial recognition software or algorithms, it
nevertheless violates the Illinois BIPA because it scans faces and
recognizes facial features, reported ClassAction.org.

The lawsuit, filed April 25 by plaintiffs Ryan Hess, Carolyn
Johnson, Thomas McKee and Barbara Moss, states that Clickit, in an
attempt to alleviate privacy concerns, notes that the face scans
and biometric data it collects can be deleted on a daily basis.
This "suggested strategy," the lawsuit argues, ignores the fact
that the collection of biometric data, regardless of the amount of
time it is kept or anonymized, still violates the BIPA.

"This is underscored by the fact that 7-Eleven storefronts,
interiors, and exteriors are not equipped with visible signs to
notify customers that their biometric data will be captured or
collected when they enter 7-Eleven stores," plaintiffs wrote in the
lawsuit.

Further, 7-Eleven also has its own proprietary surveillance
technology with facial recognition capabilities, the lawsuit
claims.

Under the BIPA, a private entity in Illinois that deals with
consumer biometric data, which can include a retina or iris scan,
fingerprint, voiceprint or a scan of a person's hand or facial
geometry, must inform a person in writing that their biometric
information is being collected.

A private entity is also required to inform the person of the
specific purpose and length of time for which a biometric
identifier will be collected, stored and used, and receive a
written release from the individual authorizing the collection of
their data. Lastly, a private entity must publish a publicly
available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently
destroying consumers' biometric identifiers, according to the
filing.

"7-Eleven does not notify customers of this fact prior to store
entry, nor does it obtain consent prior to capturing and collecting
its customers' biometric data," the complaint alleged. "Further,
7-Eleven does not provide a publicly available policy establishing
a retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying this
biometric data."

According to the complaint, 7-Eleven was investigated in 2021 for
similar alleged conduct by the Australian Information Commissioner
and Privacy Commissioner, who found that the retailer had
"interfered with customers' privacy by collecting their face prints
without their information or consent." Also, the company has
acknowledged that it has been using facial recognition technology
at its stores in Thailand since 2018, the case states.

Hess, Johnson, McKee and Moss are demanding a jury trial and
requesting injunctive relief along with statutory damages for
themselves and all class members, according to Top Class Actions.
They want to represent an Illinois class of consumers who have had
their biometric data collected, captured, received or otherwise
obtained and/or stored by 7-Eleven.

Irving, Texas-based 7‑Eleven operates, franchises and/or licenses
more than 13,000 stores in the United States and Canada. In
addition to 7‑Eleven stores, 7‑Eleven Inc. operates and
franchises Speedway, Stripes, Laredo Taco Co., and Raise the Roost
Chicken & Biscuits locations. [GN]

ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR: Fails to Pay Swabbers' OT, White Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE WHITE and LAMONT SMALL, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR DIAGNOSTICS,
PLLC, and PERRY FRANKEL, Case No. 2:22-cv-02587 (E.D.N.Y., May 5,
2022) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated, and other
damages against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law, on behalf of all Covid-19
Swabbers and Supply Handlers employed by the Defendants between
March 2020 to present.

The Plaintiffs and their co-workers are current and former manual
workers employed by the Defendants across Long Island and New York
City.

The Defendants paid the Plaintiffs and their co-workers on a
biweekly basis, approximately 20 days after the end of the first
workweek and 13 days after the second workweek, the lawsuit says.

As a result, the Defendants allegedly violated the requirement that
manual workers be paid within seven days after the end of the
workweek in accordance with NYLL, and the requirement that
employees "be paid on the regular pay day" under the FLSA.

Because Plaintiffs and their co-workers are similarly situated and
the statute of limitations is continuing to run against them until
they file a consent to join in this action, the Plaintiffs, seek
certification of this matter as a collective action and leave to
notify the "FLSA Collective," defined as follows:

    "All employees working in the State of New York for the
    Defendants as Covid-19 Swabbers or Supply Handlers, at any time

    in the three years prior to the filing of this Complaint:"

Because the harm suffered by Plaintiffs and their co-workers was
widespread, Plaintiffs bring this case as a class action and will
seek certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 ("Rule
23") for the following "Class":

    "All employees working in the State of New York for the
    Defendants as Covid-19 Swabbers or Supply Handlers, at any time

    in the six years prior to the filing of this Complaint."

Advanced Cardiovascular Diagnostics provides state-of-the-art,
on-site cardiac testing.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
          KESSLER MATURA P.C.
          534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 499-9100
          Facsimile: (631) 499-9120
          E-mail: tkessler@kesslermatura.com

AHRC HEALTH: Onate Seeks Conditional Certification
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Onate v. AHRC Health Care,
Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-08292-LGS-KNF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs
asks the Court permission to make a motion for conditional
certification and for Court facilitation of notice pursuant to 29
U.S.C. section 216(b).

AHRC operates as a nonprofit organizations. The Organizations
offers intellectual and developmental disabilities and health
care.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 22, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vRC0oP at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason S. Giaimo, Esq.
          MCLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP
          www.mclaughlinstern.com
          Telephone: (212) 448-1100
          260 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 448–1100
          Facsimile: (212) 448–0066
          E-mail:L jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com

ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Alaimo Sues Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Alaimo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Albertsons Companies, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-10706-JGD (D. Mass., May 9, 2022) is a collective
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
failure to properly pay overtime compensation in violation of the
Failure Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant at its subsidiary at the
Methuen Distribution Center as a grocery warehouse worker for
approximately 25 years.

According to the complaint, the Defendant allowed him and other
similarly situated grocery warehouse workers to work during the
Covid-19 outbreak in early January 2020. The Defendant has also
instituted an “Appreciation Pay”, an additional two dollars per
hour on March 20, 2020, which he and other similarly situated
grocery warehouse workers have received. However, although they
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week, the Defendant did
not include the two dollars per hour hazard pay in their regular
rates of pay when calculating their overtime compensation at the
rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated grocery
warehouse workers, the Plaintiff also seeks liquidated damages,
reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses, interest, court costs,
and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court.

Albertsons Companies, Inc. is one of the largest and drug retailers
in the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tod A. Cochran, Esq.
          PYLE ROME EHREBERG PC
          2 Liberty Square, 10th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Tel: (617) 367-7200
          E-mail: tcochran@pylerome.com

AMALANI LLC: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amalani LLC. The case
is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Amalani LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03654
(S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2022).

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

Amalani LLC is located in Seattle, Washington and is part of the
Specialized Design Services Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Nacarino Suit Over Automatic Renewal Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELENA NACARINO, SUSAN SYLVESTER, and MICHAEL SONNENSCHEIN,
individually and on of all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM,
INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-02713 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2022) is a putative
class action lawsuit against the Defendant for engaging in an
illegal "automatic renewal" scheme with respect to its subscription
plans for Amazon-branded products 10 and services that are
available exclusively to consumers who enroll in Defendant's
auto-renewal membership programs through its website at
https://www.amazon.com/ (the "Amazon Website") and/or its mobile
application(s) and/or set-top device(s) (the "Amazon Apps").

The Plaintiffs seek damages, restitution, declaratory relief,
injunctive relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, for:
(1) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); (2)
conversion; (3) violation of California's False Advertising Law
("FAL"); (4) violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA"); (5) unjust enrichment / restitution; (6) negligent
misrepresentation; and (7) fraud.

The Defendant is the world's largest online retailer and a
prominent provider of cloud and web-based products and services,
including the Amazon Subscriptions. Relevant to the Plaintiffs'
allegations, when consumers sign up for the Amazon Subscriptions,
the Defendant actually enrolls consumers in a program that
automatically renews the Amazon Subscriptions from month-to-month
or year-to-year and results in monthly or annual charges to the
consumer's credit card, debit card, or third-party payment account
("Payment Method"). In doing so, the Defendant fails to provide the
requisite disclosures and authorizations required to be made to
California consumers under California's Automatic Renewal Law
("ARL").

Through the Amazon Platform, Defendant allegedly markets,
advertises, and sells paid  memberships to the Amazon
Subscriptions, which include, without limitation, the following
automatic renewal programs: Amazon Prime 1, Amazon Prime Video 2,
Amazon Prime Video Channels 3, Amazon Music Unlimited 4, Amazon
Prime Book Box 5, Amazon Kids +6, Kindle Unlimited 7, Audible 8,
and Amazon Photos 9.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          Julia K. Venditti, Esq.
          Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com
                  jvenditti@bursor.com
                  fklorczyk@bursor.com

AMAZON.COM INC: Suit Says Investors Misled Over Privacy Compliance
------------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett at topclassactions.com reports that Amazon's top
executives have misled investors about the company's compliance
with the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) and
subsequent litigation risks, a new derivative lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Stephen G. Nelson, derivatively on behalf of Amazon,
claims the company is facing 14 proposed class action lawsuits due
to allegations of BIPA violations.

"These violations have exposed Amazon to substantial harm," the
Amazon class action states.

Nelson names Amazon Founder and Executive Chair Jeff Bezos, CEO
Andrew R. Jassy and Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer Brian Olsavsky as defendants in the class action lawsuit,
among other board members and executives.

"Due to the Amazon Board of Directors' knowledge of illegal conduct
and involvement in the wrongdoing, its blatant failure to act
(including to stop or correct violations of the law), its members'
lack of independence and the substantial likelihood of liability
its members face, any demand upon the board to rectify this
wrongdoing would be a wasteful, useless and futile act," the Amazon
derivative complaint states.

To be in compliance with BIPA, a company must be given written
consent before it is able to collect and store biometric
identifiers such as fingerprints or facial scans, according to the
class action lawsuit.

Nelson says Amazon must also make other disclosures, such as how it
plans to eventually get rid of any biometric identifiers it
collects.

Amazon Disregarded 'Red Flags' That Indicated Privacy Violation,
Class Action Says
Amazon disregarded "red flags" that indicated privacy violations,
directly participated in "improper schemes" and failed to maintain
an "adequate system of oversight," among other things, the Amazon
class action alleges.

Nelson argues Amazon also failed to correct "improper statements"
made in filings to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in
regard to the company's "operations, internal controls, legal
proceedings and risks (including financial, operational, legal,
regulatory and enforcement risks), and privacy compliance."

Amazon's senior executives, meanwhile, were awarded "lavish
compensation packages, despite their knowledge of and
responsibility for the Company's willful misconduct," the class
action alleges.

Nelson claims Amazon's officers and directors have breached their
fiduciary duties and that the company and its executives are guilty
of unjust enrichment and committing a waste of corporate assets.

Plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting injunctive
relief along with unspecified damages.

A class action lawsuit lobbied against Amazon was thrown out by a
federal judge in New York earlier this month after he determined
the company did not violate the law by rescinding employment offers
to applicants who tested positive for cannabis.

Do you believe Amazon executives misled investors about its BIPA
compliance ? Let us know in the comments!

The plaintiff is represented by Gregory F. Wesner and John C.
Herman of Herman Jones LLP. [GN]


ARBOR REHABILITATION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Behymer Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
MISSY BEHYMER; and PAUL KORNMILLER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ARBOR REHABILITATION
AND HEALTHCARE, INC.; ASPEN THERAPY, LLC; ARBOR HOME HEALTH
THERAPY, LLC; ARBOR HOME HEALTH, LLC; ROB VADAS; CATHY STITTS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00243-MWM (S.D., Ohio, May 4, 2022)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as facility rehab
coordinator.

ARBOR REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE, INC. provides contract therapy
services and consultation to skilled nursing facilities, ALFs,CCRFs
and support for Home Care as well as outpatient agencies. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen E. Imm, Esq.
          Matthew S. Okiishi, Esq.
          Rebecca L. Simpson, Esq.
          FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
          4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225
          Cincinnati, OH 45245
          Telephone: (513) 943-5678
          Facsimile: (513) 943-6669
          Email: stephen@finneylawfirm.com
                 matt@finneylawfirm.com
                 rebecca@finneylawfirm.com

ATLANTIC BUILDING: Sued Over Metal Building System False Marketing
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER WHITEHILL, KIM HERB, ERIC HERB, LAURIE JACOBS, DAVID
JACOBS, JARED MARTINEZ, SHELLY RICHARDSON, LOUIS RICHARDSON,
MICHAEL GILLIS, LILY FAIRCHILD, JOEL HARRY, DEBORAH HARRY, ROBERT
BALDAUFF, SHELLEY BALDAUFF, MICHAEL J. KEY, LIZ TORRES, ADAM
MACKE,
SCHUYLER JOSEPH VREEMAN, BRANDON ANDERSON, JENICA ANDERSON, CHARLES
GIBSON, GARY VINOVICH, DAN MERCER, ROGER S. APPLEWHITE, HEDIEH
POURNIK, KURT WITHERS, LINETE APARICIO-CHAGOLLA, and ADAM CHENEY,
Individually and on behalf of themselves and all those similarly
situated v. ATLANTIC BUILDING SYSTEMS, LLC d/b/a ARMSTRONG STEEL
CORPORATION,  Case No. 1:22-cv-01118-WJM (D. Colo., May 5, 2022)
involves Atlantic Building's systemic and consistent false
marketing and selling of "Metal Building System(s)" to consumers
throughout America without the ability to properly meet the demand
and orders for same beginning in 2020 and continuing today.

The Defendant systemically, consistently and falsely represented
and marketed that Armstrong Steel was "currently delivering
buildings in about 120 days from purchase" when said
representations were patently false. The Defendant systemically,
consistently and falsely represented and marketed that Defendant
would "take a 25% deposit to secure your pricing and tag the amount
of steel used for your building in your name," says the suit.

As further part of this marketing and/or advertising scheme,
Defendant continued to take sizeable deposits on these "Metal
Building System(s)" without the ability to meet the significant
demand for same. The Defendant further systemically and
consistently later demanded its customers pay significant,
additional price increases before Defendant was willing to perform
Defendant's portion of the contract and manufacture, supply and
deliver the "Metal Building System(s)".

When Defendant's customers' refused to pay the additional monies to
the Defendant and demanded their significant deposits back,
Defendant systemically and consistently refused to return them.

Within that case, the Colorado Attorney General's Office alleged
that General Steel carried out a deceptive sales and marketing
plan, including that it falsely implied that it manufactured an
inventory of buildings available at factory-direct or clearance
prices, when no such buildings existed.

Further, General Steel agreed to continue to follow a previous
injunction requiring more responsible sales practices.

The Plaintiffs bring this Class Action Complaint on behalf of
themselves and all those persons and/or entities similarly situated
who paid deposits to Defendant for "Metal Building System(s)" but
have still yet to receive same, and/or have been asked by Defendant
to pay additional, significant sums to Defendant in order to have
their original purchase order honored, and/or have had their
requests for refunds refused by the Defendant.

The Defendant allegedly induced the Plaintiffs to sign contracts as
soon as possible, with the purported threat of looming price hikes
for steel, by stating that their prices would be locked in. The
Defendant knew that it did not have the materials to meet the
demand for its "Metal Building System(s)," yet it agreed to
delivery times it knew it could not meet.

In addition to late delivery, the Defendant charged Plaintiffs
additional amounts of money for their "Metal Building System(s)"
before Defendant was willing to perform the contract, and refused
to give refunds if Plaintiffs were unwilling to accept the price
hike.

The Plaintiffs suffered delays and incurred costs as a result of
these delays, such as money spent on projects that were never
realized due to non-delivery of the "Metal Building
System(s)."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
          MCINNES LAW LLC
          1900 West 75th Street, Suite 220
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 220-2488
          Facsimile: (913) 347-7333
          E-mailjack@mcinnes-law.com

               - and -

          A. Scott Waddell, Esq.
          WADDELL LAW FIRM LLC
          1900 West 75th Street, Suite 220
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (816) 399-5510
          Facsimile: (913) 347-7333
          E-mail: scott@aswlawfirm.com

BANK OF NEW YORK: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Hobbs Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRA HOBBS, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-03633 (S.D.N.Y., May 4,
2022)alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.bnymellon.com/, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION (BNY Mellon) is a global
financial services company. The Company provides asset and wealth
management, asset servicing, issuer, clearing, and treasury
services for institutions, corporations, and high net worth
individuals. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
                 Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
                 Dana@Gottlieb.legal

BBKM ASSOCIATES: Razzaq Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Staff
---------------------------------------------------------------
MOUHAMMAD RAZZAQ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. BBKM ASSOCIATES, LLC d/b/a MIRAGE DINER and BILL
KONTOLIOS, Case No. 1:22-cv-02567 (E.D.N.Y., May 5, 2022) seeks
damages in the amount of their respective unpaid compensation,
liquidated (double) damages as provided by the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), attorneys' fees and costs, and such other legal and
equitable relief as this Court deems just and proper.

The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

The Defendants allegedly have had and operated under a decision,
policy and plan, and under common policies, programs, practices,
procedures, protocols, routines and rules of knowingly and
willfully failing and refusing to pay Plaintiff and others
similarly situated at one and a half times their regular rate of
pay for all hours of work in excess of 40 hours per workweek, and
willfully failing to keep required records, in violation of the
FLSA.

The Defendants employ cooks, food preparers, delivery drivers, and
other employees performing similar duties. The Corporate Defendant
is the owner of Mirage Diner, which is engaged in the business of
serving food and drink to customers and is located at 717 Kings
Highway, Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BETTER BASEBALL: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Davis Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BETTER BASEBALL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-03630 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2022) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, betterbaseball.com, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

BETTER BASEBALL, INC. provides high-end baseball and softball
equipment. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          Jarrett S. Charo, Esq.
          William J. Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: (212) 595-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
                 jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
                 wdownes@mizrahikroub.com

BIG BALLER BRAND: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big Baller Brand Inc.
The case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Big Baller Brand Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03626 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2022).

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

Big Baller Brand -- https://bigballerbrandinc.com/ -- is an
American company that designs, manufactures, and sells clothing and
shoes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BRISTOL BAY: Awmagan, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Barkadle Sheikh Muhamed
AWMAGAN, Arab Mursal DEH, Majuma MADENDE, Osman Musa MOHAMED, Osman
Musa MUGANGA, Rukia MUSA, and Fatuma SOMOW, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. Bristol Bay Native
Corporation, Glacier Technical Solutions, LLC, Workforce Resources,
LLC and DOES 1-50, Case No. 3:18-cv-01700-JO-AGS (S.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class, comprised of:

      "East African, Iraqi, Afghani, Filipino, and Mexican
      former role-player employees of defendants Bristol Bay
      Native Corporation, Glacier Technical Solutions, LLC, and
      Workforce Resources, LLC who provided services on Marine
      Corps Base Camp Pendleton during the four-year period
      beginning four years before the filing of the case, and
      who were not compensated for all time worked while on the
      Base;"

   2. appointing the named Plaintiffs Barkadle Sheikh Muhamed
      AWMAGAN, Arab Mursal DEH, Majuma MADENDE, Osman Musa
      MOHAMED, Osman Musa MUGANGA, Rukia MUSA, and Fatuma SOMOW
      as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing Melissa Johnson and David Duchrow as Class
      Counsel.

BBNC, is one of thirteen Alaska Native Regional Corporations
created under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 in
settlement of aboriginal land claims.

GTS was founded in 2008. The company's line of business includes
providing computer related services and consulting.

Workforce Resources provides support to federal, state and local
government and corporations in the area of project management and
staff augmentation.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 22,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MaGSeN
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          A. Melissa Johnson, Esq.
          JOHNSON HEEDER LLP
          2727 Camino del Rio South, Suite 140
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-1313

               - and -

          David J. Duchrow, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID J. DUCHROW
          8929 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 204
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 452-4900
          Facsimile: (310) 452-4901
          E-mail: djduchrow@yahoo.com

BYTEDANCE TECHNOLOGY: Mark S. Appeals Denial of Bid for Atty.'s Fee
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Mark S. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit entitled T.K., THROUGH HER MOTHER SHERRI LESHORE, and A.S.,
THROUGH HER MOTHER, LAURA LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BYTEDANCE TECHNOLOGY CO.,
LTD., MUSICAL.LY INC. MUSICAL.LY THE CAYMAN ISLANDS CORPORATION,
Defendants, Case No. 19-CV-7915, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 11, 2022, Judge
John Robert Blakey of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion
& Order:

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

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

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

   d. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for sanctions.

The Objector seeks a review of this order denying his motion for
attorneys' fees and service award.

The appellate case is captioned as T.K., THROUGH HER MOTHER, SHERRI
LESHORE, and A.S.. THROUGH HER MOTHER, LAURA LOPEZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
BYTEDANCE TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., MUSICAL.LY INC., MUSICAL.LY THE
CAYMAN ISLANDS CORPORATION, and TIKTOK, INC., Defendants, MARK S.,
individually and as parent and legal guardian of his minor son,
A.S., Objector, Case No. 22-1686, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on April 25, 2022.[BN]

Objector-Appellant Mark S., individually and as parent and legal
guardian of his minor son, A.S., is represented by:

          Mike Kanovitz, Esq.
          Scott R. Drury, Esq.
          LOEVY & LOEVY
          311 N. Aberdeen, 3rd Floor
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Telephone: (312) 243-5900
          E-mail: mike@loevy.com
                  drury@loevy.com

C&L CONTRACTING: Infinity Contracting Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against C&L Contracting
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Infinity Contracting
Services, Corp., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. C&L Contracting Corporation, et al., Case No.
513152/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., May 5, 2022).

C&L Contracting Corporation -- http://www.clcont.com/-- is a
privately held company specializing in General Contracting work in
the greater New York City area.[BN]


CAPELLA UNIVERSITY: Settles Lawsuit Over Time, Costs to Earn Degree
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Minneapolis-based Capella University has resolved a lawsuit that
accused the online, for-profit school of misleading students about
the time it takes to earn a doctoral degree.

Students who dropped out of its nursing and education programs
filed a class-action suit against Capella in 2018. New plaintiffs
were named in 2020 after the judge dismissed 42 of the original 45
counts.

The most recent amended complaint, filed in October, alleged
Capella lied about its graduation rate and time and cost of earning
a doctoral degree, stringing along thousands of students with
unnecessary hurdles to graduation.

The programs, Missouri attorney Paul Lesko wrote, "were designed to
last considerably longer so Capella could maximize the extraction
of tuition payments."

Because the doctoral programs were mostly online, Lesko alleged,
"students were isolated from their peers, unable to see whether
others faced the same challenges. Instead, the students would
assume it was just them, and continue a fight they could not win."

The allegations focused on recruiting emails, web chats and phone
calls claiming that the "typical" or "average" student completes
their program in a certain amount of time, when in reality, Capella
knew most of its students never graduate.

Capella argued those marketing claims about time to a degree should
not be interpreted as statements about its graduation rates, but
two judges disagreed.

"Common sense leads the Court to conclude that a representation
that the 'average' or 'typical' doctoral student completes a
program in a certain amount of time is a representation that the
'average' or 'typical' doctoral student actually graduates from
that program. Otherwise, how would she ever complete the program?"
U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowen Wright wrote last year in an
order affirmed by a district judge.

The civil case was closed after the parties resolved it through
private mediation. Terms were not disclosed.

"The lawsuit was without merit, and the parties have resolved the
matter. Capella University does not publicly discuss litigation
matters. Our focus remains supporting our faculty, staff, learners
and alumni, as well as providing flexible, professionally aligned
online degree programs for working adults," Capella said in a
written statement.

Lesko did not respond to requests for comment.

Capella's parent company, Strategic Education, Inc., recently
disclosed to investors that the U.S. Department of Education began
a "fact-finding process" in April 2021 on behalf of more than 1,000
Capella students who wanted their student loans discharged under
the government's "borrower defense to repayment" rule; some of
those students had complaints similar to plaintiffs in the
lawsuit.

The company also told investors it believed the lawsuit would not
"have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial
position."

The education department declined to comment on the borrower
defense investigation. [GN]

CAREPINE HOME: Jartu Ngafua Seeks Overtime Wages Under PMWA, PWTO
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JARTU NGAFUA, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly
situated, v. CAREPINE HOME HEALTH, LLC, and OMOLLO ELUID, Case No.
220500297 (Pa. Com. Pleas, Philadelphia Cty., May 3, 2022) is a
class action complaint seeking all available relief under the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 and (PMWA) and the
Philadelphia Wage Theft Ordinance (PWTO).

The Plaintiff Ngafua is an individual currently residing in Upper
Darby, Pennsylvania. She has been employed by Defendant Company as
a Home Health Aide since approximately February 2015.

The Plaintiff Ngafua brings Count I of this lawsuit as a class
action pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1702, on behalf of the following
class:

"All current or former hourly workers, including but not limited to
Home Health Aides (HHA), Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN) and
Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA) who worked for Defendant Company
in any location in Pennsylvania during the last three years, and
who were not paid an overtime premium for each hour worked in
excess of 40 hours per week (the Pennsylvania Class).

The Defendant Company is a home health company that provides HHAs,
LPNs, CNAs, and other hourly employees to work at client homes
throughout eastern Pennsylvania to provide needed in-home care.

The Defendant Company compensates Plaintiff Ngafua and Class
Members at a flat hourly rate for each hour they work at a client
home, regardless of whether Plaintiff or a Class Member works more
than forty (40) hours per week. Thed Defendant Company has never
paid Plaintiff an overtime premium (1.5x her regular hourly rate)
for the hours she worked over 40 in a workweek, in violation of
PMWA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Goodley, Esq.
          Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq.
          GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC
          1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 394-0541

CONSERVICE LLC: Barnett Sues Over Illegal Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
KIP BARNETT, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONSERVICE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-22-006689 (Fla. Cir., 17th Jud., May 9, 2022) brings this
class action complaint against the Defendant as a result of its
alleged violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff has an alleged debt to the Defendant which he
incurred primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

The Plaintiff claims that he received an electronic mail
communication from the Defendant on May 3, 2020. In an attempt to
collect the alleged debt, the Defendant sent the e-mail at 10:54PM
which violated FCCPA Section 559.72(17).

The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees
and costs, including expert fees, and other relief that the Court
deems appropriate under the circumstances.

Conservice LLC is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.
          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Tel: (954) 907-1136
          Fax: (855) 529-9540
          E-mail: jen@jibraellaw.com
                  jibrael@jibraellaw.com


CREDIT COLLECTION: Faces Lebowitz FDCPA Suit Over Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NECHAMA LEBOWITZ v. CREDIT COLLECTION SERVICES, Case No.
513119/2022 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., May 5, 2022) is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated seeking
damages and declaratory relief pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a
collection letter regarding the debt owed to CBLPATH. On or about
June 17, 2021, the Plaintiff went to her doctor for medical care.

The Plaintiff has insurance with Medicaid/Healthfirst Insurance.
The Plaintiff provided her insurance information to her doctor,
which was supposed to cover her medical expenses. The Plaintiff's
document did not provide Plaintiff's insurance information to the
laboratory that was used to analyze her medical tests.

Subsequently, Plaintiff received a collection letter from Defendant
for the cost of the laboratory tests. The Plaintiff called
Defendant around October 2021 to find out the nature of the subject
debt. After realizing what happened, Plaintiff disputed the debt.

The Defendant's collection efforts with respect to the debt caused
Plaintiff to suffer concrete and particularized harm, inter alia,
because the FDCPA provides Plaintiff with the legally protected
right not to be misled or treated unfairly with respect to any
action for the collection of any consumer debt, says the suit.

The Defendant's deceptive, misleading and unfair representations
and/or omissions with respect to its collection efforts were
material misrepresentations that affected and frustrated
Plaintiff's ability to intelligently respond to Defendant's
collection efforts because Plaintiff could not adequately or
informatively respond to Defendant's demand for payment of this
debt, added the suit.

The Defendant is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tamir Saland, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          E-mail: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com

ELITE DEALER: Santos Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEYDA GONZALES SANTOS, VALENTINA PARRA GARCIA, JANNETH MARTIN
LOZANO, LILIANA PEREZ and ALEXANDRA GARCIA SARMIENTO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ELITE DEALER
SOLUTIONS LLC, and JORGE MEJIA, as an individual, Case No.
1:22-cv-02562 (E.D.N.Y., May 5, 2022) is class action lawsuit
against the Defendants to recover damages for violations of the New
York Labor Law and Fair Labor Standards Act arising out of
Plaintiffs' employment at Elite Dealer Solutions LLC, located at
652 Monmouth Avenue, Kenilworth, New Jersey.

The Defendants allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiffs' overtime
wages for all hours regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week
at a wage rate of one and a half (1.5) times the regular wage, to
which the Plaintiffs was entitled under 29 U.S.C. sections 206(a)
in violation of 29 U.S.C. section 207(a)(1).

The employees similarly situated are the collective class:

   "All persons who are or have been employed by the Defendants as
   cleaners or other similarly titled personnel with substantially

   similar job requirements and pay provisions, who were performing

   the same sort of functions for the Defendants, other than the
   executive and management positions, who have been subject to
   the Defendants’ common practices, policies, programs,
   procedures, protocols and plans including willfully failing and

   refusing to pay required overtime wage compensation."

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 $100,000.00. The Plaintiff also
seeks interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, and all other legal and
equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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

ENGRAINED CABINETRY: Tony Manzo Seeks Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Manzo, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Engrained Cabinetry and Countertops, LLC, and Thomas
Corkery, Case No. 3:22-cv-08081-JJT (D. Ariz., May 5, 2022) is a
collective action brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, against Defendants for violations
of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the minimum wage provisions of the Arizona
Revised Statutes.

The Plaintiff proposes the following collective under the FLSA:

   "All commission-paid employees whose pay was reduced during any
    week within the past 3 years."

The Defendant's primary business is selling and installing cabinets
and countertops. Corkery is a principal, director, officer, and/or
owner of ECC. Corkery took an active role in operating ECC and in
the management thereof. Corkery, in his role as an operating
employer of ECC, had the power to hire and fire Plaintiff, often
supervised Plaintiff’s work and determined his work schedule, and
made decisions regarding Plaintiff’s pay, or lack thereof.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Courtney Lowery, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          E-mail: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com

FAMILY FOOD: Monther Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABDULLA MONTHER, LARRY WELCH, CHRIS WILLIAMS, and other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. FAMILY FOOD OF LIBERTY MARKET
INC f/k/a Liberty Market of Miami Inc.; M. & T. FOOD STORES, INC.;
FAMILY FOOD OF HOMESTEAD, INC.; and YOUSSEF YAZJI, Defendants, Case
No. 1:22-cv-21301 (S.D. Fla., April 26, 2022) is an action seeking
to recover money damages for unpaid minimum and overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and for breach of contract under
Florida common law.

Plaintiffs Monther, Welch, and Williams worked for the Corporate
Defendants from 2018 through February of 2022, from April of 2019
through February of 2022, and from 2018 through February of 2022,
respectively.

Family Food of Liberty Market Inc f/k/a Liberty Market of Miami
Inc. is a fresh food market in Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aron Smukler, Esq.
          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503-5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
          E-mail: asmukler@saenzanderson.com
                  msaenz@saenzanderson.com


FONTERRA COOPERATIVE: Farmers Urged to Join Clawback Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyra Gillespie at standard.net.au reports that dairy farmers
affected by Fonterra's controversial clawback scheme are being
urged to join a class action seeking compensation.

In May 2016 the dairy giant retrospectively revised the milk prices
it had set for the season with no notice for farmers.

The farmgate milk price step down cost affected dairy farmers
across the south-west, who were forced to effectively return money
that Fonterra had already paid them.

Law firm Adley Burstyner is leading the class action, but declined
to reveal the number of farmers affected in the region, what it
cost them, and how much it would cost farmers to participate.

The case, which is currently underway in the Supreme Court of
Victoria, alleges that Fonterra engaged in misleading and deceptive
conduct, acted unconscionably and breached contracts it had with
dairy farmers.

However a Fonterra spokeswoman denied all allegations, and said
relationships with the farmers affected have since been repaired.

"The class action is funded by an organisation whose sole purpose
is to cover the cost of litigation to gain a commercial return,"
she said.

"Since then, we have completely overhauled our relationship with
farmers, and we are proud of the partnerships we now have with
them, our role in the industry and what we give back to our local
communities.

"The ACCC investigated the 2016 milk price reduction and decided
not to take any action against us.

"We deny the allegations raised in the class action and are
defending the case vigorously. We remain confident of our
position."

Farmers who have been affected, and are seeking compensation, can
attend an information session in mid-May and register to
participate in the class action.

Mark Billing, fourth generation owner of Craiglands Partnership
dairy farm in Larpent near Colac, spoke about the impact of
Fonterra's step down on his business and family.

"We had just begun calving when word came about the price change.
It had been a tough summer and we'd made quite a large financial
commitment to set ourselves up for the season, all based on
Fonterra's advertised price," Mr Billing said.

"We had the rug pulled out from under us and worked out pretty
quickly that we were in trouble. The next few years were a big
struggle for our family personally, and also our staff who had to
take on reduced work hours just so we could make it through to
where we are today."

Mr Billing was also chair of the Fonterra supply forum at the time
of the May 2016 step down, a position he no longer holds.

"Individually, each of us farmers who were affected would struggle
to go up against a giant like Fonterra, but there's strength in
numbers. That is why this class action is so important. I know that
for my family the main thing we're hoping to get out of this
process is closure."

Adley Burstyner will hold information sessions in Warrnambool on
May 16, 12pm, and Camperdown May 16, 7pm. [GN]

GERBER LIFE: Prewitt Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Beulah Prewitt filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled BEULAH PREWITT, Plaintiff v. GERBER
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 6:20-CV-27-REW-HAI, in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky at London.

Gerber Life sells a variety of financial products. One such product
is the Gerber Life Grow-Up Plan, which the company markets as an
opportunity for adults of young children to provide a "head start"
to their financial well-being with policies that grow cash value
over time. Prewitt alleges that the policy is "not a savings plan;
it is actually a life insurance policy."

Sometime before Feb. 2007, Prewitt saw advertising for a Gerber
Life product. In February 2007, she applied for whole life
insurance for one of her grandchildren. She bought additional
policies for her other grandchildren in 2013 and 2016. Each policy
was a Grow-Up Plan offering. Prewitt points to three
advertisements, all dated in 2019, that she claims are "like" the
advertisements that induced her to purchase the particular Gerber
Life products. She also generally references Facebook messages and
mailings from Gerber, which contributed in some way to her
decisions.

Prewitt filed suit against Gerber Life in Laurel County Circuit
Court on Jan. 6, 2020. Gerber Life removed the complaint on Feb. 3,
2020. She filed an Amended Complaint on March 11, 2020. Her Amended
Complaint alleges, for herself and the putative class, two claims:
a statutory claim under KRS 446.070 for violation of Kentucky's
unfair or deceptive insurance practices statutes and a common law
claim for fraud in the inducement. She centers these claims on
advertisements for two Gerber Life Insurance products: the "Gerber
Life Grow-Up Plan" and the "Gerber Life College Plan."

On April 15, 2020, Gerber Life moved, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), to
dismiss the complaint in its entirety. It argued three preliminary
matters that attempt to narrow the field: 1) many of Prewitt's
claims are barred by the requisite statute of limitations, 2)
Prewitt does not have standing to challenge or make a claim
regarding the College Plan, and 3) Prewitt's statutory claim fails
for lack of a recognized private right of action.

On February 17, 2021, the Court entered Memorandum Opinion & Order
and Judgment, dismissing the Plaintiffs' amended complaint with
prejudice.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Beulah Prewitt v. Gerber Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 22-5354, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on April 26, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant BEULAH PREWITT, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          David O'Brien Suetholz, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS
          515 Park Avenue
          Louisville, KY 40208
          Telephone: (502) 636-4333
          E-mail: dave@unionsidelawyers.com  

Defendant-Appellee GERBER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is represented
by:

          Eric Wade Richardson, Esq.
          VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR & PEASE
          301 E. Fourth Street, Suite 3500
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 723-4000
          E-mail: ewrichardson@vorys.com

GOOGLE LLC: Faces Suit Over Alleged Systemic Race Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
wusa9.com reports that the former diversity recruiter at Google is
suing the company for discrimination. Her class-action lawsuit
joins a long list of legal action from former employees ranging
from sexual harassment to gender discrimination, both of which
resulted in large settlements.  

"This work is personal," Curley said. "If you talk to me long
enough, you'll hear an urgency in my voice because I know the
impact this work will have. So, I think about my niece and nephews
and sisters -- it is personal work for sure."

Curley, who identifies as a queer black woman, said in the wake of
current events like the death of George Floyd, there has been a
reckoning in corporate America.  

"Companies feel like they have to do something and do more," she
said. "I think some get it right and others are still trying to
figure out what that looks like - in the case of Google."

In 2014, Curley was hired to be a diversity recruiter at Google.
She says in her six years she helped the tech company hire 500
students from historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs)
like Howard. Now, she's suing the company alleging systemic
discrimination.

"What I sold to students, in some ways, Google made me out to be a
liar because my students routinely experienced micro-aggressions
and macro aggressions," she explained, "It's time to hold Google
accountable for sure."

According to a class-action lawsuit filed in federal court in
California back in March, Curley alleges Black employees at Google
were told they didn't fit the company's culture or weren't "googly"
enough and when hired they were often "pigeon-holed into dead-end
jobs, with less visibility, lower pay and no advancement
opportunities."

The lawsuit also claims Black employees were always asked to show
their badge or proof of employment and often received harsher job
reviews and tougher interview questions.

"After being very clear with my leadership team about the things
that needed to be fixed and changed, instead of rewarding that they
terminated me and retaliated against me," Curley alleges.

Curley said before she was terminated in 2020, she was subjected to
policies and behaviors that she describes as blatantly racist and
biased. Though not named in the lawsuit, she said these experiences
were degrading and emotionally damaging.    

"It was white managers telling me the way that I speak is a
disability and I need to disclose to partners internally and
externally before meeting with them," she said. "It was her telling
me that she's intimidated by me and never looked at me for
leadership opportunities because she felt like I wasn't welcoming.
It was the same woman who told me that Google couldn't afford my
promotion."

Civil rights attorney Ben Crump is representing Curley along with
his co-counsel Suzanne Bish.   

"This is the ultimate case of David versus Goliath,"Crump said.
"It's not just enough to be a disruptor in the technology field,
but you have to be a disruptor against discrimination against
racism. I think Google is symbolic of America in many ways:  they
can recite the Declaration of Independence, but the question is, do
they really believe it when they say, 'We hold these truths to be
self-evident that all men are created equally?'"

Google did not respond to numerous attempts for comment, but a
spokesperson told our partners at the Washington Post that they did
not agree with Curley's representation of her termination, adding
"We have a large team of recruiters who work incredibly hard to
increase the hiring of Black+ and other underrepresented talent at
Google."

"Corporations made all these commitments, that they're going to do
better in the way of diversity, equity and inclusion," Crump said.
"And for a moment, you cannot believe them. But like many things,
your actions speak so loud, that I need not hear your words."

According to the company's own diversity report available online,
Black employees made up 3.7% of Google's workforce in 2020 with a
slight increase to 4.4% in 2021.  The data on diversity is far
below the 9% national standards compiled by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics for the Internet Publishing and Broadcasting industry.

"The optics sounds good when you can say we've given millions of
dollars to HBCU's or to other minority-serving institutions and yet
at the core of it, internally, they have policies and structures
that continue to keep black and brown people out of talent
pipelines," Curley said. "So, until [Google] can be honest about
that and actually fix some of those things it will continue to be
minimal gains - if any gains - in the DEI space."

The lawsuit seeks a court injunction to change Google's policy and
backpay for Curley and other black employees who were allegedly
denied advancement. The parties are back in court for a Case
Management Conference on July 11.

"I've been doing this a long time," co-counsel Attorney Bish said.
"And I had hoped that when a certain generation left and a new
generation of people came up and came to power, that things would
change. Some of what we hear at Google is not change, it's
regression."

Meanwhile, Curley continues to be an advocate for diversity in
technology nonprofits like GET Cities and Last Mile Education Fund
to coach women and people of color who are pursuing careers in
tech. [GN]

HUICATAO CORP: Underpays Construction Flaggers, Van Osten Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY VAN OSTEN and ANYA JACKSON, Individually and On Behalf of
All Putative Class Members v. HUICATAO CORP., NORTH AMERICAN
SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, WESTPORT INSURANCE CORPORATION and
JOHN DOE BONDING COMPANIES, Case No. 709785/2022 (N.Y. Sup., Queens
Cty.,May 5, 2022) seeks to recover prevailing wages, daily overtime
and supplemental benefits they were contractually and statutorily
entitled to receive for work, including weekend, evening and
holiday work, they performed on the sites of the Public Works
Projects, pursuant to the New York Common law, on behalf of
themselves and a New York Civil Practice Laws & Rules  section 901
class of all persons employed by Defendants as non-union flaggers
on public works projects in New York City.

The Plaintiffs also bring claims for HCC's failure to provide them
wage notices at hiring, in violation of New York Labor Law section
195(1).

Throughout the relevant time period, HCC has contracted with the
City of New York through the Department of Design and Construction
and/or the Department of Transportation (DOT) to provide
construction, repair and maintenance of sewers, water mains, and
other street construction work on public streets and roadways (the
"Public Works Projects"), says the suit.

The Named Plaintiffs and members of the putative class are
construction flaggers who furnished labor to HCC on Public Works
Projects in the greater New York City area, including in Queens and
Richmond Counties.

Throughout their respective employment periods with Defendants, the
Plaintiffs were not allegedly paid the applicable prevailing rate
of wages or supplemental benefits for labor they furnished on the
Public Works Projects.

Van Osten worked for HCC as a "flagger" from June 2021 to October
2021. Throughout the Van Osten Employment Period, Van Osten
typically worked 40-42.5 per week. Approximately two times during
her employment with HCC, Plaintiff Van Osten performed work on
Saturday as well, such that for those weeks she worked a total of
48 hours.

The Plaintiffs bring their First through Fifth Causes of Action
under NY CPLR section 901 on behalf of themselves and the
following
class:

   "All persons employed by HuiCatao Corp. at any time from
   September 20, 2015 and through the entry of judgment in this
   case (the "Class Period") who worked as non-union flaggers on
   public works projects in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700
          Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
          E-mail: pelton@peltongraham.com
                  graham@peltongraham.com


IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS: "Copper Fit" Falsely Marketed, Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT PUCCIARELLI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS CORP., d/b/a Copper Fit, Case No.
1:22-cv-02569 (E.D.N.Y., May 5, 2022) seeks to redress the false
marketing claims with which Defendant has saturated its advertising
for a popular line of compression garments, namely its Copper Fit
ICE Compression Knee Sleeve, Copper Fit ICE Plantar Fascia Ankle
Sleeve, Copper Fit ICE Compression Gloves, Copper Fit ICE
Compression Elbow Sleeve, Copper Fit ICE Compression Socks and the
Copper Fit ICE Compression Back Support (the "Copper Fit ICE
Products").

Allegedly, the Defendant is making false claims that (a) CoQ10
infused into the fabric of the products is motion activated and
then released and absorbed into the human body when using the
product, and (b) the purportedly absorbed CoQ10 provides health
benefits, including increased energy.

Because the Defendants' products cannot deliver the alleged
benefits of CoQ10 (which are themselves dubious) Plaintiff seeks to
put an end to Defendant's unfair, false, and deceptive marketing
and sales of its Copper Fit ICE Products and to obtain the
financial redress to which Plaintiff and his fellow class members
are entitled.

The Defendant develops, manufactures, markets, and sells various
consumer products, including the Copper Fit (TM) branded products
described here, to consumers throughout the United States,
including in New York.

The Defendant promotes and sells its products, including the Copper
Fit branded products, through national direct response television
advertising commonly called "As Seen on TV" and an active social
media presence (i.e., Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc.).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven R. Schoenfeld, Esq.
          James R. Denlea, Esq.
          Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
          DENLEA & CARTON LLP
          2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410
          White Plains, NY 10604
          Telephone: (914) 331-0100
          Facsimile: (914) 331-0105
          E-mail: jdenlea@denleacarton.com
                  jcarton@denleacarton.com
                  sschoenfeld@denleacarton.com

IEC US HOLDINGS: Osorio Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LEONARDO OSORIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. IEC US HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a FLORIDA CAREER
COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-01076 (M.D. Fla., May 9, 2022)
brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendant for
its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and
the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant allegedly engaged in
unsolicited text messaging to promote its services. The Plaintiff
asserts that the Defendant sent telephonic sales calls and messages
to his cellular telephone number, which was registered on the
National Do-Not-Call Registry for over 30 days prior to the receipt
of the Defendant's first text message. Moreover, the Plaintiff
never provided the Defendant with his express written consent to
transmit telephonic sales calls to his cellular telephone number
utilizing an automated system.

As a result of the Defendant's alleged unsolicited telephonic sales
calls, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals were
harmed in the form of inconvenience, invasion of privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, and violation of their statutory privacy
rights.

The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for himself and other
similarly situated individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks an
injunction requiring the Defendant to cease all telephonic sales
calls made without express written consent, and other relief as the
Court deems necessary.

IEC US Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Florida Career College operates an
academy that provides education. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                -and-

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th St., Suite 1744
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 3301
          Tel: (954) 907-1136
          Fax: (855) 529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: 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=26419&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]

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Rosen Law Reminds of June 6 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of International Business Machines
Corporation between April 4, 2017 and October 20, 2021,inclusive
(the Class Period), of the important June 6, 2022 lead plaintiff
deadline.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the IBM class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5104 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 6, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Strategic Imperatives Revenue
and growth, CAMSS (the sectors of Cloud, Analytics, Mobile,
Security, and Social) and CAMSS Components revenue and growth, and
the Companys Segments revenue and growth were artificially inflated
as a result of the wrongful reclassification of revenues from
non-strategic to strategic to make those revenues eligible for
treatment as Strategic Imperatives Revenue; (2) IBMs present
success and positive future growth prospects concerning its
Strategic Imperative business strategy were being fueled by the
wrongful reclassification of revenues from non-strategic to
strategic to make those revenues eligible for treatment as
Strategic Imperative Revenue; (3) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants misled the market by portraying IBMs Strategic
Imperatives financial performance and future prospects more
favorable than they actually were as a result of the fraudulent
scheme and/or the wrongful reclassification of revenues from
non-strategic to strategic to make those revenues eligible for
treatment as Strategic Imperatives; and (4) Total Revenue and IBMs
Segments revenue and growth were artificially inflated as a result
of the fraudulent scheme and/or the wrongful reclassification of
revenues from non-strategic to strategic and/or the wrongful
recognition of revenue. When the true details entered the market,
the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the IBM class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5104 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

IRONNET INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of June 21 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against IronNet, Inc. ("IronNet" or
the "Company") (NYSE: IRNT) and certain of its officers, on behalf
of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired IronNet
securities between September 15, 2021 and December 15, 2021, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged
to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/irnt.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that IronNet, its Co-Chief Executive
Officers, and its Chief Financial Officer with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose known adverse facts about IronNet's business,
operations, and prospects, including that: (i) the Company had
materially overstated its business and financial prospects; (ii)
the Company was unable to predict the timing of significant
customer opportunities which constituted a substantial portion of
its publicly-issued FY 2022 financial guidance; (iii) the Company
had not established effective disclosure controls and procedures to
reasonably ensure its public disclosures were timely, accurate,
complete, and not otherwise misleading; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false, misleading,
and/or lacked any reasonable basis in fact at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/irnt or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Nathanson of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
IronNet you have until June 21, 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.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes. [GN]

KISS NUTRACEUTICALS: Gamboa Sues Over Unpaid Factory Workers’ OT
------------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA GAMBOA, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KISS NUTRACEUTICALS, KISS
INDUSTRIES, LLC, COLE EVANS, and GRANT DEAN, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-01141-SKC (D. Colo., May 9, 2022) is a class and collective
action complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
failure to pay wages in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Colorado Minimum Wage Act, the Denver Minimum Wage Ordinance,
and the Colorado Wage Claim Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly factory
worker at the Defendants’ product manufacturing plant from
approximately February 18, 2020 through approximately April 1,
2022.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated factory workers regularly worked more than 40 hours each
workweek. However, the Defendant did not pay them overtime wages
for all hours worked more than 40 hours per workweek, and for all
hours worked beyond 12 hours each workday. The Plaintiff also
claims that the Defendant failed to pay all their separated hourly
employees all earned, vested and determinable wages upon their
separation.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated factory workers seeking to recover unpaid
overtime premiums and other wages due to them, as well as
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, litigation
costs and attorney fees, and other relief as may be necessary and
appropriate.

Kiss Nutraceuticals and Kiss Industries, LLC own and operate
cannabidiol (CBD) product manufacturing plant. Individuals
Defendants Cole Evans and Grant Dean are owners and managers of the
Corporate Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandt Milstein, Esq.
          MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC
          2400 Broadway, Suite B
          Boulder, CO 80304
          Tel: (303) 440-8780
          E-mail: brandt@milsteinturner.com


LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS: Hagens Berman Reminds of June 20 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Li-Cycle Holdings Corp. investors who suffered
significant losses to submit your losses now. A securities fraud
class action has been filed and certain investors have the
opportunity to lead the case.

Class Period: Feb. 16, 2021-Mar. 23, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 20, 2022
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/LICY
Contact An Attorney Now: LICY@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

Li-Cycle Holdings Corp.

Did the current market drop catch you flat-footed? Don't let it
happen again! Chief Market Strategist, Matt Maley is helping
traders guide the markets for success. Click Here to Register for
His FREE Intensive Live Session!

Li-Cycle has assured investors that its SPAC merger with Peridot in
Aug. 2021 would enable it to "fully fund" its growth plans and has
touted its "robust customer network" as supportive of 2021 - 2025
cumulative $985 million EBITDA (inclusive of off-take agreements
with Traxys North America, which would generate $300 million/year
of revenue).

The complaint alleges Defendants made misleading statements or
failed to disclose: (1) Traxys, Li-Cycle's largest "customer" is
merely a broker that tries to sell Li-Cycle's product to end
customers; (2) Li-Cycle engaged in highly questionable related
party transactions; (3) Li-Cycle's mark-to-model accounting gave a
false impression of growth; (4) a significant portion of the
Company's revenues were derived from simply marking up receivables
on products that had not been sold; (5) Li-Cycle's gross margins
have likely been negative since inception; and, (6) the Company
will likely require an additional $1 billion of funding to support
its planned growth.

According to the complaint, Defendants' statements were brought
into question when Blue Orca Capital published a scathing report on
Mar. 24, 2022, likening Li-Cycle's accounting to Enron's and
concluding the Company improperly recognized up to 45% of the
Company's recent reported quarterly revenues because they were
derived from inflating receivables for unsold products. Blue Orca
also observed that Traxys is not really a customer, the Company's
cash burn is so severe that it requires about $1 billion additional
funding, and the Company diverted $529,902 to its founders' family
through questionable related party transactions.

"We're focused on investors' losses and proving Li-Cycle cooked its
books," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the
investigation.

If you invested in Li-Cycle and have significant losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to
discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Li-Cycle should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email LICY@hbsslaw.com.

                        About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law
firm focusing on corporate accountability through class-action law.
The firm is home to a robust securities litigation practice and
represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers
and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by
corporate negligence and fraud. More about the firm and its
successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates
and news at @ClassActionLaw. [GN]

METHOD PRODUCTS: Horn Sues Over Illegal Collection of Biometrics
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN HORN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. METHOD PRODUCTS, PBC, Case No. 2022LA000403 (Ill. Cir.,
Dupage Cty., May 3, 2022) seeks to stop the Defendant's unlawful
collection, use, storage, and disclosure of the Plaintiff's and the
proposed Class's sensitive, private, and personal biometric data.

While most establishments and employers use conventional methods
for tracking time worked (such as ID badge swipes or punch clocks),
Defendant, upon information and belief, mandated and required that
employees have finger(s) scanned by a biometric timekeeping
device.

Unlike ID badges or time cards -- which can be changed or replaced
if stolen or compromised -- biometrics are unique, permanent
biometric identifiers associated with each employee.

This exposes Defendant's employees, including Plaintiff, to serious
and irreversible privacy risks. For example, if a biometric
database is hacked, breached, or otherwise exposed -- such as in
the recent Equifax, Uber, Facebook/Cambridge Analytica, and
Marriott data breaches or misuses -- employees have no means by
which to prevent identity theft, unauthorized tracking, and other
improper or unlawful use of this highly personal and private
information.

In 2015, a data breach at the United States Office of Personnel
Management exposed the personal identification information,
including biometric data, of over 21.5 million federal employees,
contractors, and job applicants. U.S. Off. of Personnel Mgmt.,
Cybersecurity Incidents (2018), available at
www.opm.gov/cybersecurity/cybersecurity-incidents.

An illegal market already exists for biometric data. Hackers and
identity thieves have targeted Aadhaar, the largest biometric
database in the world, which contains the personal and biometric
data -- including fingerprints, iris scans, and a facial photograph
-- of over a billion Indian citizens.

Method Products manufactures cleaning products. The Company offers
a wide range of cleaning products for the home including floor,
general and purpose.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
          Adam Florek, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE
          CONWAY & WISE, LLP
          818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          Telephone: (314) 833-4825
          E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com
                  plesko@peifferwolf.com
                  aflorek@peifferwolf.com

MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Schaub Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARGARET SCHAUB, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE, INC. F/K/A NET ELEMENT, INC., DAVID
MICHERY, and OLEG FIRER, Case No. 2:22-cv-03026 (C.D. Cal., May 5,
2022) is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Mullen securities
between June 15, 2020 and April 6, 2022, inclusive seeking to
recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On June 15, 2020, the Company issued a press release entitled "Net
Element Enters into a Letter of Intent to Merge with Electric
Vehicle Company Mullen Technologies" (the "Announcement Press
Release") which announced the 4 merger between Net Element, Inc.
and Mullen Technologies, Inc. and stated the following, in
pertinent part, regarding Mullen's ability and timeline to produce
and sell automobiles:

Net Element, a global technology and value-added solutions group
that supports electronic payments acceptance in a multi-channel
environment including point-of-sale ("POS"), e-commerce and mobile
devices, announced today that it has entered into a binding Letter
of Intent to merge with privately-held Mullen Technologies, Inc.
("Mullen"), a Southern California-based electric vehicle company in
a stock-for-stock reverse merger in which Mullen's stockholders
will receive the majority of the outstanding stock in the
post-merger Company.

In its most recent annual report, Mullen claimed to be pursuing the
purchase of intellectual property rights relating to the K-50.
Should it succeed, it would presumably need to figure out a way to
actually manufacture the vehicle, a process we expect would not be
"coming soon."

On this news, Mullen's stock price fell $0.27 per share, or 10%, to
close at $2.38 per share on April 7, 2022, on unusually heavy
trading volume, damaging investors.

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

Mullen purports to be an electronic vehicle ("EV") manufacturer. On
November 5, 2021, Mullen underwent a merger with and into Net
Element, Inc., and the Company changed its name to Mullen
Automotive, Inc. The Individual Defendants are officers of the
company.[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

NATERA INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of June 27 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the common stock of
Natera, Inc. ("Natera" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NTRA) between
February 26, 2020 and April 19, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas and alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Natera offers genetic testing in the areas of women's health,
oncology, and organ health. Among other things, the Company
produces and markets a non-invasive prenatal test ("NIPT") called
"Panorama," and a screening test for kidney transplant failure
called "Prospera." Throughout the Class Period, Defendants
repeatedly assured investors that Panorama was reliable, that
Prospera was more accurate than competing tests, and that Natera's
growth was driven by its superior technology and customer
experience.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' statements were materially false
and misleading when made because: (1) Panorama was not reliable and
resulted in high rates of false positives; (2) Prospera did not
have superior precision compared to competing tests; (3) as a
result of Defendants' false and misleading claims about Natera's
technology, the Company was exposed to substantial legal and
regulatory risks; and (4) Natera relied upon deceptive sales and
billing practices to drive its revenue growth.

On January 1, 2022, The New York Times published a detailed report
calling into question the accuracy of certain prenatal tests
manufactured by Natera and other diagnostic testing companies. The
New York Times reported that Natera's positive results for several
genetic disorders were incorrect more than 80 percent of the time.
On this news, the price of Natera common stock fell $5.35 per
share, or approximately 6% over two trading days, from a close of
$93.39 per share on December 31, 2021, to close at $88.04 per share
on January 4, 2022.

Less than two weeks later, on January 14, 2022, the Campaign for
Accountability - a nonprofit watchdog group - filed a complaint
with the SEC requesting an investigation as to whether "Natera
repeatedly claimed - in marketing materials and earnings calls -
that [its] tests are much more reliable than it appears they really
are." On this news, the price of Natera common stock fell $6.29 per
share, or more than 9%, from a close of $67.37 per share on January
14, 2022, to close at $61.08 per share on January 18, 2022.

Then, on March 9, 2022, Hindenburg Research issued an investigative
report alleging that "Natera's revenue growth has been fueled by
deceptive sales and billing practices aimed at doctors, insurance
companies and expectant mothers." On this news, the price of Natera
common stock fell as much as $28.65 per share, or more than 52%,
from a close of $54.75 per share on March 8, 2022, to an intra-day
low of $26.10 per share on March 9, 2022.

Further, on March 14, 2022, a jury found that Natera had
intentionally and willfully misled the public by utilizing false
advertisements to market Prospera in violation of the federal
Lanham Act, the Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and
Delaware common law. The jury found that Natera's marketing falsely
claimed that Prospera was more accurate than the competing kidney
transplant testing offered by CareDx, Inc. ("CareDx"), and
ultimately awarded CareDx $44.9 million in monetary damages. On
this news, Natera common stock fell as much as $8.81 per share, or
approximately 22.5%, from an intra-day high of $39.13 per share on
March 14, 2022, to close at $30.32 per share on March 15, 2022.

Finally, on April 19, 2022, the United States Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") issued a safety communication "to educate
patients and health care providers and to help reduce the
inappropriate use of [NIPTs]." The FDA cautioned that statements
about NIPTs' reliability and accuracy "may not be supported with
sound scientific evidence" and revealed the existence of "cases
where a screening test reported a genetic abnormality and a
confirmatory diagnostic test later found that the fetus was
healthy." On this news, the price of Natera common stock fell as
much as $1.53 per share, or approximately 3.9%, from an intra-day
high of $39.63 per share on April 19, 2022, to close at $38.10 per
share on April 20, 2022.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than June 27, 2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased NTRA common stock, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Natera, Inc. Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Peter Allocco at (212) 951-2030 or
pallocco@bernlieb.com.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2022 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. [GN]

NATERA INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of June 27 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Natera, Inc. ("Natera" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
NTRA) in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Texas on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Natera securities between February 26, 2020 and
April 19, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors have until June 27, 2022 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Natera, a Delaware corporation with principal executive offices in
Austin, Texas, offers genetic testing in the areas of women's
health, oncology, and organ health. Among other things, the Company
produces and markets a non-invasive prenatal test ("NIPT") called
"Panorama," and a screening test for kidney transplant failure
called "Prospera." Natera's common stock trades on the NASDAQ under
the ticker symbol "NTRA."

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly assured
investors that Panorama was reliable, that Prospera was more
accurate than competing tests, and that Natera's growth was driven
by its superior technology and customer experience.

However, investors began to learn the truth on January 1, 2022,
when The New York Times published a detailed report calling into
question the accuracy of certain prenatal tests manufactured by
Natera and other diagnostic testing companies. Among other things,
The New York Times reported that Natera's positive results for
several genetic disorders were incorrect more than 80 percent of
the time.

On this news, the price of Natera common stock fell $5.35 per
share, or approximately 6% over two trading days, from a close of
$93.39 per share on December 31, 2021, to close at $88.04 per share
on January 4, 2022.

Less than two weeks later, on January 14, 2022, the Campaign for
Accountability— a nonprofit watchdog group—filed a complaint
with the SEC requesting an investigation as to whether "Natera
repeatedly claimed – in marketing materials and earnings calls
– that [its] tests are much more reliable than it appears they
really are."

On this news, the price of Natera common stock fell $6.29 per
share, or more than 9%, from a close of $67.37 per share on January
14, 2022, to close at $61.08 per share on January 18, 2022.

Then, on March 9, 2022, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") issued
an investigative report (the "Hindenburg Report") alleging, among
other things, that "Natera's revenue growth has been fueled by
deceptive sales and billing practices aimed at doctors, insurance
companies and expectant mothers."

On this news, the price of Natera common stock fell as much as
$28.65 per share, or more than 52%, from a close of $54.75 per
share on March 8, 2022, to an intra-day low of $26.10 per share on
March 9, 2022.

On March 14, 2022, a jury found that Natera had intentionally and
willfully misled the public by utilizing false advertisements to
market Prospera in violation of the federal Lanham Act, the
Delaware Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Delaware common law.
Among other things, the jury found that Natera's marketing falsely
claimed that Prospera was more accurate than the competing kidney
transplant testing offered by CareDx, Inc. ("CareDx"). Ultimately,
the jury awarded CareDx $44.9 million in monetary damages.

On this news, Natera common stock fell as much as $8.81 per share,
or approximately 22.5%, from an intra-day high of $39.13 per share
on March 14, 2022, to close at $30.32 per share on March 15, 2022.

On April 19, 2022, the United States Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") issued a safety communication "to educate patients and
health care providers and to help reduce the inappropriate use of
[NIPTs]." The FDA cautioned that statements about NIPTs'
reliability and accuracy "may not be supported with sound
scientific evidence" and revealed the existence of "cases where a
screening test reported a genetic abnormality and a confirmatory
diagnostic test later found that the fetus was healthy." The FDA
suggested that patients discuss benefits and risks with a
healthcare provider before deciding to undergo NIPT or making any
pregnancy-related decisions on the basis of NIPT results. In
addition, the FDA advised health care providers that they should
not rely on NIPT results alone to diagnose chromosomal
abnormalities or disorders.

On this news, the price of Natera common stock fell as much as
$1.53 per share, or approximately 3.9%, from an intra-day high of
$39.63 per share on April 19, 2022, to close at $38.10 per share on
April 20, 2022.

This Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts, about the
Company's business and operations. Specifically, Defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose: (1) Panorama was not
reliable and resulted in high rates of false positives; (2)
Prospera did not have superior precision compared to competing
tests; (3) as a result of Defendants' false and misleading claims
about Natera's technology, the Company was exposed to substantial
legal and regulatory risks; (4) Natera relied upon deceptive sales
and billing practices to drive its revenue growth; and (5) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.

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

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Natera shares and suffered a
loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Alexandra Raymond by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

                 About Bragar Eagel & Squire

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

NATERA INC: Howard G. Smith Reminds of June 27 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Natera,
Inc. ("Natera" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NTRA) common stock
between February 26, 2020 and April 19, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Natera investors have until June 27, 2022 to file a lead
plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Natera investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

On January 1, 2022, an article from the New York Times called into
question the accuracy of certain prenatal tests, including Natera's
Panorama test, alleging that positive results on tests are
incorrect approximately 85 percent of the time, and that patients
who receive a positive result are supposed to pursue follow-up
testing, which "can cost thousands of dollars, come with a small
risk of miscarriage and can't be performed until later in
pregnancy."

On this news, Natera's stock price fell $5.35, or 5.7%, over two
trading days to close at $88.04 per share on January 4, 2022,
thereby injuring investors.

Then, on January 14, 2022, a nonprofit watchdog group filed a
complaint with the SEC requesting an investigation into whether
Natera had "repeatedly" claimed that its tests were "much more
reliable than it appears they really are."

On this news, Natera's stock fell $6.29, or 9.3%, to close at
$61.08 per share on January 18, 2022.

On March 9, 2022, Hindenburg Research published a report which
alleged, among other things, that Natera's revenue growth has been
"fueled by deceptive sales and billing practices aimed at doctors,
insurance companies and expectant mothers."

On this news, Natera's stock price fell $17.95, or 32.8%, to close
at $36.80 per share on March 9, 2022, thereby further injuring
investors.

Then, on March 14, 2022, a Delaware District Court jury found that
Natera had engaged in false advertising, including claims that its
kidney transplant test, Prospera, was more accurate than its
competing tests.

On this news, Natera's stock price fell $5.57 per share, or 15.5%,
to close at $30.32 per share on March 15, 2022, thereby further
injuring investors.

Then, on April 19, 2022, the United States Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") issued a safety communication "to educate
patients an health care providers and to help reduce the
inappropriate use" of non-invasive prenatal tests ("NIPT"),
cautioning that NIPTs' reliability and accuracy "may not be
supported with sound scientific evidence," revealing that there had
been "cases where a screening test reported a genetic abnormality
and a confirmatory diagnostic test later found that the fetus was
healthy."

On this news, Natera's stock fell $1.53, or 3.9%, to close at
$38.63 per share on April 19, 2022, thereby injuring investors
further.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) Panorama was not reliable and resulted in high rates of
false positives; (2) Prospera did not have superior precision
compared to competing tests; (3) as a result of Defendants' false
and misleading claims about Natera's technology, the Company was
exposed to substantial legal and regulatory risks; (4) Natera
relied upon deceptive sales and billing practices to drive its
revenue growth; and (5) as a result, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

If you purchased Natera common stock, have information or would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847,
toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com. [GN]

NEW YORK: Z.Q. Appeals Dismissal Case Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Z.Q., by his parent, G.J., et al., filed an appeal from
a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Z.Q., by his parent,
G.J.; G.J., individually and on behalf of Z.Q.; J.H., by his
parent, Y.H.; Y.H., individually and on behalf of J.H.; J.A., by
his parent, D.S.; D.S., individually and on behalf of J.A.; M.S.,
by his parent, R.H.; R.H., individually and on behalf of M.S.;
D.V., by his guardian, V.L.; V.L., individually and on behalf of
D.V.; J.W., by his parent, A.W.; A.W., individually and on behalf
of J.W.; D.M., by his parent, E.L.; E.L., individually and on
behalf of D.M.; C.B., by his parent, C.B.2; C.B.2, individually and
on behalf of C.B., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; NEW
YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION; RICHARD CARRANZA, in his official
capacity as Chancellor of the New York City School District; NEW
YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT; NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF REGENTS;
and BETTY A. ROSA, in her official capacity as Interim Commissioner
of Education and President of the University of the State of New
York, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-09866, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Plaintiffs bring this action to seek redress for Defendants'
pervasive failure to meet their obligation to provide a free
appropriate public education to all New York City students with
disabilities during the COVID-19 crisis.

During the pandemic, the Defendants have failed to provide services
and programs consistent with these students' Individualized
Education Programs during remote learning, says the complaint.
These failures have been compounded by Defendants' additional
failures to provide technology, translation, and interpretation
services to families of students who need these resources to learn
remotely, leaving these students even further behind. And even as
circumstances evolved and allowed for in-person learning,
Defendants still failed to provide the in-person component to
students whose disabilities require such instruction.

While the pandemic may have made it harder to provide services,
this does not discharge Defendants of their legal obligations to
ensure those services are provided or to remedy the educational
losses suffered by students with disabilities, the complaint says.
Defendants have failed to meet those obligations and have
demonstrated no mechanism or plan to rectify those failures.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs brought this complaint on their own
behalf and on behalf of Class members under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. Section 1400 et seq., Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Section 794, and
the New York Education Law.

On March 18, 2022, Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr, entered an order
dismissing the case without prejudice to renewal upon exhaustion.
The Order further states that the pending motions to stay discovery
are denied as moot.

The Plaintiffs is now taking an appeal from this ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as Z.Q. v. New York City Department
of Education, Case No. 22-939, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 26, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Z.Q., by his parent, G.J., et al., are
represented by:

          Joshua Kipnees, Esq.
          PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
          1133 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 336-2000

               - and -

          Rebecca Caren Shore, Esq.
          ADVOCATES FOR CHILDREN OF NEW YORK
          151 West 30th Street
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 822-9574  

Defendants-Appellees New York City Department of Education, et al.,
are represented by:

          Sylvia Hinds-Radix, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-0800

               - and -

          Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
          NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          28 Liberty Street
          New York, NY 10005

ON-LINE ADMINISTRATORS: Trenz Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff BRIAN TRENZ appeals the dismissal of his lawsuit entitled
Brian Trenz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. On-Line Administrators, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-08356, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

In 2008, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("Volkswagen") launched
its Target and Retain Aftersales Customers ("TRAC") program.
Through this program, it paid for over 900 dealerships across the
country to retain Peak Performance Marketing Solutions, Inc.
("Peak") to place service reminder calls to their customers. A
class action alleging the use of autodialers and automated voices
to make calls without the plaintiff's consent eventually followed.


The court denied plaintiffs' first motion for class certification.
Nonetheless, plaintiffs amended their pleading and ultimately
succeeded in certifying two classes. The court's certification
order expressed "reservations" regarding whether the proposed
classes satisfied the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance requirement.
Ultimately, however, it found that the defendants would need to
produce "significantly more" evidence to show that customers had
provided "actual consent to be contact by an autodialer" such that
"individualized inquiries actually predominated over the common
questions."

On March 25, 2022, the Court entered an order that held that (1)
the Post-October 16, 2013 Class that was certified on September 25,
2017, is decertified; (2) the claims of Plaintiffs Farrell and
Simms are dismissed with prejudice as to their individual claims,
and without prejudice as to the claims of the Post-October 16, 2013
Class; and (3) the clerk is ordered to enter final judgment and
close the file.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Brian Trenz, et al. v. On-Line
Administrators, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-55418, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 26,
2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Brian Trenz Mediation Questionnaire was due on May
3, 2022;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by May 23, 2022;

   -- Transcript is due on June 21, 2022;

   -- Appellant Brian Trenz opening brief is due on August 1,
2022;

   -- Appellees On-Line Administrators, Inc. and Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc. answering brief is due on August 31, 2022; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant BRIAN TRENZ, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          James Richard Patterson, Esq.
          PATTERSON LAW GROUP
          1350 Columbia Street, Unit 603
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 398-4760

Defendants-Appellees ON-LINE ADMINISTRATORS, INC., a California
Corporation, DBA Peak Performance Marketing Solutions, and
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., a New Jersey Corporation, are
represented by:

          Valerie Elizabeth Alter, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 228-3700

               - and -

          Fred R. Puglisi, Esq.
          Jay T. Ramsey, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
          333 S Hope Street, 43rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
          Telephone: (310) 228-2259

               - and -

          Teresa Carey Chow, Esq.
          Matthew Pearson, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
          Telephone: (310) 820-8800

               - and -

          Billy Martin Donley, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          811 Main Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 646-1382  

               - and -

          Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
          BAKER HOSTETLER LLP
          1801 California Street
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 764-4013

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Housey Appeals False Ad Case Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Belinda Housey filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled BELINDA HOUSEY, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. PROCTER & GAMBLE
COMPANY, Case No. 1:21-cv-02286, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City).

This consumer class action was brought by the Plaintiff on March
16, 2021 against Procter & Gamble for its false advertising, unfair
and deceptive marketing practices, and the materially misleading
claims and omissions it employed and disseminated in connection
with the sale of its line of Crest (TM) toothpastes containing
charcoal.

Charcoal is highly porous and has adsorptive qualities that can be
useful in certain contexts. In recent years, health and beauty
products containing activated charcoal have become a consumer
sensation. Opportunistic marketers, celebrities and social media
influencers tout a variety of certain charcoal products for
purported detoxifying properties and other enhanced wellbeing and
health benefits. Consumers have been willing to pay a premium for
these charcoal products based on these purported benefits.

P&G sells oral care products containing charcoal, including: "Crest
(TM) 3D White Whitening Therapy -- Charcoal with Hemp Seed Oil";
"Crest (TM) Gum Detoxify Charcoal Toothpaste"; "Crest (TM) 3D White
Whitening Toothpaste with Charcoal."

Allegedly, P&G actively misleads consumers to believe the Charcoal
Toothpastes are enamel-safe whitening toothpastes that gently
clean, and that can promote healthier gums. P&G promotes the
Charcoal Toothpastes with multiple claims printed on the product
packaging and tube labels of the Charcoal Toothpastes, specifically
including that the Charcoal Toothpastes have "enamel safe
whitening" capabilities, that they promote "healthy gums", and they
can "gently clean."

On August 26, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint filed in the case which the Court granted on
March 24, 2022 through an Order entered by Judge Naomi Reice
Buchwald. On March 25, 2022, a Clerk's Judgment followed granting
Defendant's motion to dismiss and dismissing the complaint with
prejudice.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of this ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as Housey v. Procter & Gamble
Company, Case No. 22-888, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, filed on April 25, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Belinda Housey, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Michael Reese, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com

Defendant-Appellee Procter & Gamble Company is represented by:

          Andrew Soukup, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          1 CityCenter
          850 10th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 662-5066
          E-mail: asoukup@cov.com

PROTRANS INTERNATIONAL: Underpays Dock Coordinators, Briz Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, OSCAR MORENO BRIZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROTRANS INTERNATIONAL,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:22-cv-00144 (S.D. Tex., May 9, 2022)
arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a dock coordinator
from June 2020 until December 2021 at the Defendant’s facilities
in McAllen, Texas.

The Plaintiff alleges that although the Defendant paid him and
other similarly situated Dock Coordinators overtime compensation at
the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for
all hours they worked in excess of 40 per workweek, the Defendant
did not include the non-discretionary bonuses they received in
their regular rates when calculating their overtime pay. As a
result, despite regularly working more than 40 hours per workweek,
they were not properly paid overtime compensation for all hours
they worked.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action
complaint on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
Dock Coordinators seeking to recover unpaid wages and overtime
premiums, liquidated damages, and attorney’s fees and costs, and
other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Protrans International, LLC provides financial solutions that focus
on reducing spend. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Tel: (501) 221-0088
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Waterproof Coats Contain PFAS, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards at topclassactions.com reports that popular winter
jacket retailer REI sells waterproof coats that contain unsafe
levels of toxic chemicals, a new class action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Lauren Lupia filed the class action lawsuit against
Recreational Equipment, Inc. (REI) Apr. 25 in a California federal
court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws.

She's suing on behalf of anyone who bought REI waterproof apparel,
which she says is unfit for use because it contains heightened
levels of unsafe fluorine and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS).

PFAS, which are sometimes known as "forever chemicals," are a group
of synthetic chemicals known to be harmful to both the environment
and humans. Because they persist and accumulate over time, they are
harmful even at very low levels, the REI class action lawsuit
states.

Scientists are studying how PFAS affect human health and how the
risks may be underestimated, the lawsuit states. The Centers for
Disease Control (CDC) has warned of a host of potential health
effects associated with PFAS exposure, including cancer, liver
damage, decreased fertility, immune system suppression and
increased risk of asthma and thyroid disease.

Independent REI Product Testing Revealed PFAS, Class Action
Alleges
Despite REI's representations that its products are "sustainable
gear built to last" and "Fair Trade CertifiedTM," independent
research conducted by Toxic-Free Future, a nonprofit organization
that conducts scientific studies, found that the products contain
PFAS, the class action lawsuit claims.

"Because several of the products are waterproof jackets meant to
resist rain, consumers frequently use the jackets' hoods, which
rest directly against the skin, near the nose, mouth and eyes," the
lawsuit states.  

"As a result, consumers are at a heightened risk of exposure to
PFAS through ingestion," Lupia says.

REI does not warn consumers about the PFAS at any point, according
to the lawsuit.

Lupia is suing for violation of California consumer laws, as well
as for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and
breach of warranty. She's seeking certification of the class
action, damages, fees, costs, medical monitoring for plaintiffs and
a jury trial.

The news comes as three Almay makeup customers are suing the brand
and its parent company, Revlon, saying the makeup purports to be
clean and healthy but actually contains harmful PFAS.

Did you know there could be toxic chemicals in raincoats? Let us
know your thoughts in the comments!

The plaintiffs are represented by Sean L. Litteral and Rachel L.
Miller for Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

The Recreational Equipment Class Action Lawsuit is Lauren Lupia v.
Recreational Equipment, Inc, Case No. 3:22-cv-02510, in the U.S.
District Court Northern District of California.[GN]

RIOT GAMES: Website Not Accessible to Blind Users, Abreu Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIGI ABREU, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. RIOT GAMES MERCHANDISE, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-03652
(S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2022) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully
accessible to -- and independently usable by -- the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people who use screen-reading
software in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990.

The Plaintiff asserts this action individually and on behalf of all
other visually-impaired and/or legally blind individuals in the
United States who have attempted to access Defendant's website and
have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and/or
services offered on the website during the past three years from
the date of the filing of the complaint .

In April 2022, the Plaintiff browsed and attempted to transact
business on Defendant's website, merch.riotgames.com/en-us. The
main reason the Plaintiff visited the website was to, inter alia,
purchase products, goods, and/or services. The website sells/offers
riot Games apparel, collectibles, art, and accessories. The website
had the following accessibility issues, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant and its website allegedly violate Title III of ADA,
and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), as the website is
not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff and the Class bring this action against Defendant
seeking preliminary and permanent injunction, other declaratory
relief, statutory damages, actual and punitive damages,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys'
fees and expenses.

The Plaintiff is visually-impaired and/or legally blind. Plaintiff
uses the NVDA screen-reader to access websites on the Internet.
During Plaintiff's visits to Defendant's website, the last
occurring in April 2022, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access
barriers that denied Plaintiff full and equal access to the goods
and/or services offered to (and made available for) the general
public. These access barriers were the reason that Plaintiff was
denied the full enjoyment of the goods and/or services offered on
the website.

The Defendant is an online retail company that owns and operates a
website offering products that Defendant delivers to New York and
across the country. The Defendant offers its website so that, inter
alia, the general public can transact business on it. The goods and
services offered by Defendant's website include, but are not
limited to: riot Games apparel, collectibles, art, and
accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          Jarrett S. Charo, Esq.
          William J. Downes, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP, Esq.
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: (212) 595-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 595-9700
          E-mail: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
                  jcharo@mizrahikroub.com
                  wdownes@mizrahikroub.com

ROBLOX CORP: Faces V.R. Suit Over Deceptive In-Game Purchases
-------------------------------------------------------------
V.R., a minor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ROBLOX CORPORATION, Case No. (May 5, 2022) is a
putative class action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated who disaffirm their entire
contracts with the Defendant and seek restitution in the amount
already paid to the Defendant on their now-void contracts.

The Plaintiff and the putative class have allegedly suffered injury
due to deceptive and misleading trade practices by Defendant in
marketing and selling in-game items and in-game currency for its
popular video game, Roblox. These items and in-game currency are
frequently purchased by minors who are unable to exercise their
unrestricted rights under state laws to rescind contracts into
which they entered with the Defendant.

Roblox is ostensibly free-to-play. However, Roblox realizes
billions of dollars in revenue, largely from children. Roblox is
monetized through a system where players can obtain new characters,
weapons, and other resources in exchange for virtual currency. The
in-game currency can be purchased from the Defendant using real
money.

The Plaintiff brings this action for declaratory, equitable, and
monetary relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, Business and
Professions Code § 17200 et seq., and/or for Unjust Enrichment.

Roblox is an online game platform developed by Defendant. Roblox
breaks away from the traditional pay-for-game model, wherein a
consumer pays a one-time fee for a game and gains access to all of
its features, and instead offers the game for free with the hopes
that players purchase various in-game items. This is referred to as
the free-to-play or "freemium" model.

However, while Roblox can ostensibly be played without making
in-game purchases, the game encourages impressionable minors to
make in-game purchases. This is because many of Roblox's most
desirable in-game items and avatars can only be obtained by
purchasing the items with virtual currency referred to as "Robux."
Obtaining Robux generally 24 requires users to purchase it with
real money, says the suit.

This system was created to capitalize on and encourage addictive
behaviors. Minors are especially susceptible to these
addiction-enhancing elements of game design. The experience of
acquiring in-game items holds a strong appeal for minors and
reinforces their desire to keep playing and continue making
purchases.

The Defendant misleads or misrepresents the applicable law for
transactions, including in-App purchases, with minors.
Specifically, Defendant knows that in the state of California, and
in most states nationwide, the law allows minors to disaffirm
contracts. Defendant also knows that a minor can disaffirm
contracts without any restrictions; the law permits a minor to do
so. And finally, Defendant knows that contracts with minors for
"personal property not in the immediate possession or control of
the minor[s]" are void under CA FAM section 6701. Yet, Defendant
operates a non-refund policy that misleads, misrepresents, and does
not acknowledge a minor’s right to obtain a refund, the suit
added.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
          Matthew A. Girardi, Esq.
          Julian C. Diamond, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  pfraietta@bursor.com
                  aleslie@bursor.com
                  mgirardi@bursor.com
                  jdiamond@bursor.com

TOYOTA MOTOR: Bixby Sues Over Family Medical Leave Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM BIXBY, individually and on behalf of all Others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC. and TOYOTA
MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-00059-DLB-CJS (E.D.K.Y., May 4, 2022) the Family Medical
Leave Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is
interfering with his use of FMLA leave, and the use of FMLA leave
by other similarly situated individuals, by overcalculating the
amount of leave they use.

TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA INC. operates as a holding company. The
Company manages all North American operations covering automotive
sales, engineering, manufacturing, economic research, advertising,
corporate communications, government affairs, and all other related
operations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc D. Mezibov, Esq.
          MEZIBOV BUTLER
          615 Elsinore Place
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 621-8800
          Facsimile: (513) 621-8833
          Email: mmezibov@mezibov.com

WESTERN AUSTRALIA: Faces Suit Over Detention Centre's Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Giovanni Torre at nit.com.au reports that the latest report on
conditions in Banksia Hill Detention Centre is a validation of the
class action being built against the State of Western Australia,
advocates say.

The report from Western Australia's Inspector of Custodial Services
said children in the facility were subject to "cruel, inhuman and
degrading" and called on the Department of Justice to immediately
rectify the situation.

Some 70 per cent of those detained in Banksia Hill are Aboriginal.

National Suicide Prevention & Trauma Recovery Project coordinator
Megan Krakouer and her colleague Gerry Georgatos have collected the
testimonies from hundreds of current and former Banksia Hill
inmates to build a class action.

"The report from Eamon Ryan is a validation of the testimonies we
have received from children across the state," she said.

"It highlights the inhuman suffering children have endured in this
facility. It also highlights the need for more Indigenous staff.

"It demonstrates the need for the class action against the State of
Western Australia, to save lives, to improve the life circumstances
not only for the children but also for their families on the
outside."

In February WA Children's Court president Hylton Quail and Social
Reinvestment WA campaign and coalition manager Sophie Stewart
condemned conditions in the detention centre.

Last November law firm Levitt Robinson Solicitors, which is
assisting in the prospective class action, wrote to WA Corrective
Services Minister Bill Johnston warning Banksia Hill was a
"tinderbox ready to ignite".

After the release of OICS report, lawyer Dana Levitt said the
problems in Banksia Hill have been known for years.

"Another damming OICS report is not going to fix the dire situation
at Banksia Hill, which results in the countries' most disadvantaged
and vulnerable children coming out worse than they went in," she
said.

"The conflation of adult and youth justice, and the failure to
implement recommendations year-on-year by successive WA
governments, renders Banksia Hill totally unfit for purpose.

"Locking them in their cells all day for weeks at a time, and
denying them access to education. . . . almost guarantees their
institutionalisation into adulthood."

Earlier this month the WA government announced it would invest
$25.1 million towards improving services for youth in detention as
part of the 2022-23 State Budget.

That included a new $7.5 million Crisis Care Unit at Banksia Hill
and $3.6 million towards staffing an Aboriginal Services Unit to
provide cultural support and services to help address
overrepresentation of Aboriginal youth at the detention centre.

South Metropolitan MLC Brad Pettitt said Banksia Hill was a Don
Dale disaster waiting to happen.

"It should not require multiple suicide attempts for kids to be
given the basic supports they are entitled to," he said.

"The human rights violations occurring at Banksia Hill are not
going to be fixed by chucking a bit of money at it."

"WA needs to fundamentally reform our youth justice system and that
starts with raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14."

Mr Pettitt said WA needed better independent police and prison
oversight and investment in First Nations-led programs to support
at-risk children in their communities. [GN]

WESTJET AIRLINES: Suit Over Expiring Credits Tossed by Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Lindsay at CBC News reports that B.C.'s highest court has
reversed a decision to certify a class-action lawsuit over
WestJet's one-year expiry policy for "travel bank credits," saying
they're not equivalent to gift cards and don't fall under the same
consumer protection laws.

In a unanimous decision, a panel of three judges of the B.C. Court
of Appeal dismissed a lawsuit filed by a Vancouver woman on behalf
of WestJet passengers who've received expiring travel credits
because of things like cancelled flights and lost luggage.

A B.C. Supreme Court judge had certified the suit as a class action
in 2020, finding there was a reasonable argument to be made that
these credits fall under legislation prohibiting expiry dates on
gift cards or prepaid credit cards.

But Appeal Court Justice Patrice Abrioux wrote in his reasons that
the lower court judge had erred in her approach, and it was clear
WestJet's credits aren't covered by the same laws.

B.C.-based class-action lawsuit targets 1-year expiry on WestJet
travel credits
Abrioux said his reading of provincial consumer protection
legislation suggests that, by definition, gift cards and prepaid
credit cards must have "a prepaid fixed amount which the purchaser
or gift card holder may use up to the amount that has been prepaid,
or 'topped up.'"

In the case of plaintiff Tiana Sharifi, who lost $421.80 when her
credits for a cancelled trip expired, the justice said she had not
directly prepaid for a fixed amount of travel credits.

"Or to state the matter this way: Ms. Sharifi purchased a prepaid
flight. She did not purchase a prepaid purchase card, gift card,
gift certificate or otherwise, for WTB [WestJet travel bank]
credits," Abrioux wrote.

"Indeed, it is clear that Ms. Sharifi's entitlement to receive WTB
credits was entirely contingent on future events and she may never,
in fact, receive the credits in question."

'Prerogative of the legislatures' to change laws
The decision goes on to say that the "entirely contingent nature"
of WestJet's credits means that they are "an entirely different
form of financial product or device" than those covered in B.C.'s
Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act and similar
legislation in other provinces.

"If contingent credits are to be subject to the provisions of
consumer protection legislation either in this or the other
provinces in question, then that is the prerogative of the
legislatures, not the courts," Abrioux said.

B.C. Court of Appeal certifies former flight attendant's
class-action lawsuit against WestJet
According to Sharifi's original notice of civil claim, she had
booked round-trip flights for two people from Vancouver to Paris in
January 2018.

She cancelled the trip in May 2018 and was issued a $993.23 credit.
WestJet imposed a one-year expiry date on the credit, which was
issued to her travel bank account.

Though she used $571.46 of her credit on another flight to Calgary,
the rest expired.

B.C. couple's Disney World vacation turns to 4-month battle with
WestJet over flight refunds
Sharifi's credits were what WestJet calls "hard" credits, which are
issued for flight changes or cancellations and can be extended for
another year for a fee of about $20. "Soft" credits are issued for
reasons like lost luggage, customer complaints or airline
promotions and cannot be extended.

Sharifi had argued that tens of thousands of people have unjustly
had their WestJet credits expire or been forced to pay fees to
extend them. [GN]

WHO'Z THE BOSS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Behounek Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
JACOB BEHOUNEK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WHO'Z THE BOSS MUSIC, INC.; and DAVID A. HERRERO,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02341 (N.D., Ill., May 4, 2022) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an intern.

WHO'Z THE BOSS MUSIC, INC. is a Chicago-based full service music
library. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Faces 4,012 Individual Claims at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, as of March 31, 2022, is a named defendant, with
multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts that
purport to represent approximately 4,012 individual claimants,
compared to approximately 3,876 individual claimants with actions
pending December 31, 2021, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

3M Company states, "The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims
resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of
some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages
from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury
from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or
other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the
lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the
Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure
to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company,
which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by
other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises.

"The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is
substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in
2003. The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired
claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels
than in the past. Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more
serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and
black lung disease, will represent a greater percentage of total
claims than in the past. Over the past twenty plus years, the
Company has prevailed in fifteen of the sixteen cases tried to a
jury (including the lawsuits in 2018 described below). In 2018, 3M
received a jury verdict in its favor in two lawsuits – one in
California state court in February and the other in Massachusetts
state court in December – both involving allegations that 3M
respirators were defective and failed to protect the plaintiffs
against asbestos fibers. In April 2018, a jury in state court in
Kentucky found 3M's 8710 respirators failed to protect two coal
miners from coal mine dust and awarded compensatory damages of
approximately $2 million and punitive damages totaling $63 million.
In August 2018, the trial court entered judgment and the Company
appealed. During March and April 2019, the Company agreed in
principle to settle a substantial majority of the then-pending coal
mine dust lawsuits in Kentucky and West Virginia for $340 million,
including the jury verdict in April 2018 in the Kentucky case
mentioned above. That settlement was completed in 2019, and the
appeal has been dismissed. In October 2020, 3M defended a
respirator case before a jury in King County, Washington, involving
a former shipyard worker who alleged 3M’s 8710 respirator was
defective and that 3M acted negligently in failing to protect him
against asbestos fibers. The jury delivered a complete defense
verdict in favor of 3M, concluding that the 8710 respirator was not
defective in design or warnings and any conduct by 3M was not a
cause of plaintiff's mesothelioma. The plaintiff's appeal is
pending.

"The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that
its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when
used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances.
Consequently, the Company believes that claimants are unable to
establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are
attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products.
Nonetheless, the Company's litigation experience indicates that
claims of persons alleging more serious injuries, including
mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, are
costlier to resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it
therefore believes the average cost of resolving pending and future
claims on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it
experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were
asserted by medically unimpaired claimants. Since the second half
of 2020, the Company has experienced an increase in the number of
cases filed that allege injuries from exposures to coal mine dust;
that increase represents the substantial majority of the growth in
case numbers referred to above."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3liS1hP


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Defends 3,616 Claims at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albany International Corp. is a defendant in suits brought in
various courts in the United States by plaintiffs who allege that
they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic dryer fabrics
marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used in certain
paper mills, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "We were defending 3,616 claims as of March 31,
2022.

"We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the
Company and related companies in the future but are unable to
predict the number and timing of such future claims. Due to the
fact that information sufficient to meaningfully estimate a range
of possible loss of a particular claim is typically not available
until late in the discovery process, we do not believe a meaningful
estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with
respect to pending or future claims and therefore are unable to
estimate a range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts
already accrued for pending or future claims.

"While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we
have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable
given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurance
carrier has defended each case and funded settlements under a
standard reservation of rights. As of March 31, 2022, we had
resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 37,982 claims. The
total cost of resolving all claims was $10.5 million. Of this
amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier, who has
confirmed that we have approximately $140 million of remaining
coverage under primary and excess policies that should be available
with respect to current and future asbestos claims.

"The Company's subsidiary, Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc.
("Brandon"), is also a separate defendant in many of the asbestos
cases in which Albany is named as a defendant, despite never having
manufactured any fabrics containing asbestos. While Brandon was
defending against 7,709 claims as of March 31, 2022, only twelve
claims have been filed against Brandon since January 1, 2012, and
only $15,000 in settlement costs have been incurred since 2001.
Brandon was acquired by the Company in 1999 and has its own
insurance policies covering periods prior to 1999. Since 2004,
Brandon's insurance carriers have covered 100% of indemnification
and defense costs, subject to policy limits and a standard
reservation of rights.

"In some of these asbestos cases, the Company is named both as a
direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon
Mills ("Mount Vernon"). We acquired certain assets from Mount
Vernon in 1993. Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by
asbestos-containing products alleged to have been sold by Mount
Vernon many years prior to this acquisition. Mount Vernon is
contractually obligated to indemnify the Company against any
liability arising out of such products. We deny any liability for
products sold by Mount Vernon prior to the acquisition of the Mount
Vernon assets. Pursuant to its contractual indemnification
obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed the defense of these claims.
On this basis, we have successfully moved for dismissal in a number
of actions."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Nas9Az


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has 30,312 Pending Claims at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co., as of March 31, 2022, is a defendant in cases filed in
numerous state and federal courts alleging injury or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Of the 30,312 pending claims as of March 31,
2022, approximately 18,000 claims were pending in New York of which
approximately 16,000 are non-malignancy claims that were filed over
15 years ago and have been inactive under New York court orders.

"We have tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by the
jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court. We further
have pursued appeals of certain adverse jury verdicts that have
resulted in reversals in favor of the defense. We have also tried
several other cases resulting in plaintiff verdicts which we paid
or settled after unsuccessful appeals.

"The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance
recoveries and tax effects) by us for the three months ended March
31, 2022 and 2021 totaled $13.0 million and $9.1 million,
respectively. In contrast to the recognition of settlement and
defense costs, which reflect the current level of activity in the
tort system, cash payments and receipts generally lag the tort
system activity by several months or more, and may show some
fluctuation from period to period. Cash payments of settlement
amounts are not made until all releases and other required
documentation are received by us, and reimbursements of both
settlement amounts and defense costs by insurers may be uneven due
to insurer payment practices, transitions from one insurance layer
to the next excess layer and the payment terms of certain
reimbursement agreements. Our total pre-tax payments for settlement
and defense costs, net of funds received from insurers, for the
three months ended March 31, 2022 and, 2021 totaled $7.5 million
and $10.8 million, respectively.

"Cumulatively through March 31, 2022, we have resolved (by
settlement or dismissal) approximately 144,000 claims. The related
settlement cost incurred by us and our insurance carriers is
approximately $730 million, for an average settlement cost per
resolved claim of approximately $5,100. The average settlement cost
per claim resolved during the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020
and 2019 was $18,800, $13,900, and $15,800, respectively. Because
claims are sometimes dismissed in large groups, the average cost
per resolved claim, as well as the number of open claims, can
fluctuate significantly from period to period. In addition to large
group dismissals, the nature of the disease and corresponding
settlement amounts for each claim resolved will also drive changes
from period to period in the average settlement cost per claim.
Accordingly, the average cost per resolved claim is not considered
in our periodic review of our estimated asbestos liability."

A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3kWMTQd


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Inc. Has US$915MM Liabilities at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dow Inc., in its press release issued on April 21, 2022, has
reported US$915 million and US$931 million noncurrent
asbestos-related liabilities at March 31, 2022 and December 31,
2021, respectively, according to the Company's Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at
https://bit.ly/3w3j0Te


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l. Defends Product Liability Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc. is involved in a number of claims and
lawsuits incident to the operation of its businesses, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Some of these claims and lawsuits allege
personal injury or health problems resulting from exposure to
asbestos that was integrated into certain of our products. We have
never manufactured asbestos and have not incorporated
asbestos-containing components into our products for several
decades. A substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims
have been covered by insurance or other forms of indemnity or have
been dismissed without payment. The remainder of our closed cases
have been resolved for amounts that are not material, individually
or in the aggregate. Our defense costs for asbestos-related claims
are generally covered by insurance. However, our insurance coverage
for settlements and judgments for asbestos-related claims varies
depending on several factors and are subject to policy limits. We
may have greater financial exposure for future settlements and
judgments."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3PdanhE


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Has $52MM Reserves at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries Inc., as of March 31, 2022, has recorded total
asbestos-related reserves of $52 million, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

PPG Industries states, "The Company believes that, based on
presently available information, the total reserves of $52 million
for asbestos-related claims will be sufficient to encompass all of
the Company's current and estimable potential future asbestos
liabilities. These reserves, which are included within Other
liabilities on the accompanying condensed consolidated balance
sheets, involve significant management judgment and represent the
Company's current best estimate of its liability for these claims.

"The amount reserved for asbestos-related claims by its nature is
subject to many uncertainties that may change over time, including
(i) the ultimate number of claims filed; (ii) whether closed,
dismissed or dormant claims are reinstituted, reinstated or
revived; (iii) the amounts required to resolve both currently known
and future unknown claims; (iv) the amount of insurance, if any,
available to cover such claims; (v) the unpredictable aspects of
the tort system, including a changing trial docket and the
jurisdictions in which trials are scheduled; (vi) the outcome of
any trials, including potential judgments or jury verdicts; (vii)
the lack of specific information in many cases concerning exposure
for which the Company is allegedly responsible, and the
claimants’ alleged diseases resulting from such exposure; and
(viii) potential changes in applicable federal and/or state tort
liability law. All of these factors may have a material effect upon
future asbestos-related liability estimates. While the ultimate
outcome of the Company's asbestos litigation cannot be predicted
with certainty, the Company believes that any financial exposure
resulting from its asbestos-related claims will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position,
liquidity or results of operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/39Mn96x


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has U$1.0BB Liability at March 3
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation has reported total asbestos-related
liability for pending and future claims and defense and processing
costs of $1,005 million at March 31, 2022 ($1,016 million at
December 31, 2021), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "At March 31, 2022, approximately 26 percent of
the recorded claim liability related to pending claims and
approximately 74 percent related to future claims.

"The Corporation is and has been involved in a large number of
asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the
past four decades. These suits principally allege personal injury
resulting from exposure to asbestos‑containing products and
frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged
claims primarily relate to products that UCC sold in the past,
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on UCC's
premises, and UCC's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against
a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem"). In many
cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered
any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or that injuries
incurred in fact resulted from exposure to UCC's products."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3sqzOT6



                            *********

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 ***