/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220516.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 16, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 91

                            Headlines

121 INFLIGHT: Rosas Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Wrongful Termination
3M COMPANY: Court Junks Securities Class Suit in Minnesota
3M COMPANY: Faces Suits "Bair Hugger" Patient Warmer
3M COMPANY: Faces Suits Over Patient Warming System in Canada
3M COMPANY: Sued Over Hazardous Chemicals

5830 RESTAURANT: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Rodriguez Suit
A.B.W. ENTERPRISES: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Shaw's Class Action Settlement Gets Final OK
ACCOLADE INC: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
ACCURA HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gaul Suit Alleges

ADELANTE SHOE: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ADVANCED HOME: Angela Bronson Files Bid for Class Certification
ALL ELITE WRESTLING: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ALL ELITE WRESTLING: Faces Class Lawsuit Over ADA Violations
ALLDAYSHIRTS.COM: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Zelenski Says
AMERIHOME MORTGAGE: Baxter Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
ANDERSON COUNTY, TX: Martinez Files Suit in E.D. Texas
APPLE INC: Settles Class-Action Lawsuit Over iPhone 4S Throttling
AQUAJOGGER: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Court Junks Green Plains Suit
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Faces AOT Antitrust Suit in IL Court
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Faces UWGP Antitrust Suit in WI Court
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: MRE Antitrust Suit Dismissed
ARQIT QUANTUM: Bragar Eagel Reminds of July 5 Deadline

ATOTECH LIMITED: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Nix PFOA/PFOS PI Suit
AURINIA PHARMA: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of June 14 Deadline
AVO SHOPPING: Fails to Timely Provide Mass Layoff Notice, Diaz Says
B.P. EXPLORATION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Campbell Suit
BARK ENTERTAINMENT: Spence-Baakko Sues Over Unpaid Wages

BEAR VALLEY: Filing of Conditional Class Cert Bid Due March 6, 2023
BENEFIT RECOVERY: Settles Class Action Suit Over 2020 Data Breach
BOISE DISTRICT: Ct. Tosses Bids to Strike Expert Reports in Zeyen
BONNIE HENRY: Group Can Move Forward With COVID-19 Mandate Suit
BRIDGEWAY INC: Underpays Mental Health Associates, Smith Says

BRIGGS TRADITIONAL: Seeks to Strike Class Cert. Bid Memorandum
BRIGHTSTAR PROPERTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Vollmer Alleges
BROWN UNIVERSITY: Choi Appeals Summary Judgment in Refund Suit
C. & J. ENTERPRISES: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
C.S. BABYLON MARINE: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

CAMP LEJEUNE: Disclsoes Class Action Suit Over Water Contamination
CARLOS GHOSN: JCERS Seeks Initial Nod of Proposed Settlement
CARRIER CORPORATION: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CDK GLOBAL: Faces Sponder Suit Over Proposed Merger
CITIZENS OF HUMANITY: Redick Files ADA Suit in C.D. California

CMG PARTNERS: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
COINBASE INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Bielski
CONDUENT BUSINESS: May 13 Class Cert Response Extension Sought
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Arizona Tile Files Suit in C.D. California
CREATIVE PLANNING: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

CRESCA CORP: Vargas Sues Over Deceptive Collection Practices
CUSIP GLOBAL: May 18 Response for Summary Judgment Bid OK'd
CYTODYN INC: Files Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit in Wash.
DHI MORTGAGE: Case Management Order Entered in Ahlstrom Suit
DIRECT ENERGY: Dickson Appeals TCPA Suit Dismissal

DIRECT SPORTS: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Maldonado Appeals Case Dismissal
EAST LANSING, MI: Appeals Ruling in Heos Franchise Fee Suit
EPIC GAMES: Lawyers Give Up Challenge to $26.5 Million Settlement
EVERISE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Berzati Suit Alleges

FANEUIL INC: Failed to Protect Customers' Personal Info, Pagan Says
FASHION NOVA: Massa Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
FX LABS: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
G-UNIT BRANDS: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GLM INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages Under FLSA, Easton Suit Alleges

GLOBAL TELLINK: Albert Appeals Ruling in RICO Suit to 4th Cir.
GOLDEN MARGARITA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alexander Alleges
GOLFBALLS.COM INC: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GPO FEDERAL: Tilbe Sues over Improper Charge of Overdraft Fees
GRADY-WHITE BOATS: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

GREAT HUDSON: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
H&J LIQUIDATORS: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HALFTIME BAR: Zepeda Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
HAROLD CLARKE: Court Tosses Lumumba's Class Certification Bid
HAWAII SEA SPIRITS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

HEALTH WARRIOR: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HIGH BREW COFFEE: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HONEYWELL ASBESTOS: N.J. Federal Court Approves Class Settlement
HOOVESTOL INC: Court Sets Class Certification Briefing Schedule
HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Torrano Says

HV GLOBAL: Case Management Order Entered in Ramirez Suit
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Hit With Class Lawsuit for Oil-Burning Engines
ILLINOIS INSTITUTE: Hernandez Appeals Case Dismissal to 7th Cir.
INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of June 24 Deadline
INTERSTATE-RIM MANAGEMENT: Underpays Hotel Staff, Yurevich Claims

INTUIT INC: To Settle Texans' Suit Over Cash Over 'Free' TurboTax
IQ DATA: Stewart Sues Over Illegal Recording of Phone Conversation
IRONNET INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of June 21 Deadline
IRONNET INC: Gross Law Reminds Investors of June 21 Deadline
ISOLA IMPORTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Valderrama Suit Alleges

JACK ERWIN: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JACK WOLFSKIN: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Seeks to Deny Certification of Claims in Hall
JUST COFFEE: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JUUL LABS: Clarksville-Montgomery Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis

KEURIG DR PEPPER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kraemer Suit Alleges
L.L. BEAN: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Martine Suit Removed to S.D. California
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Villanueva Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
LIBERTY POWER: Court Tosses Sapan Bid for Sub-Class Certification

MAHA INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Pay, Kim Suit Alleges
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Barrack Rodos Reminds of June 28 Deadline
MARRIOTT INTERNATIOAL: Data Breach Suit May Proceed, Judge Rules
MERRILL GARDENS: Ramirez Suit Moved From C.D. to E.D. California
META PLATFORMS: Over 1.4M Illinois Users Could Receive Settlement

METRO COMMUNICATION: Rios Sues Over Sales Staff's Unpaid Overtime
MHC HERITAGE: Noel, Wiksten Seek to Certify Class
MIDDLESEX WATER: Class Action Over Water Contamination Certified
MONTEREY FINANCIAL: May 26 Continuance of Class Cert Hearing Sought
MUGHAL GENERAL: Sultan Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Bragar Eagel Reminds of July 5 Deadline
MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Burnett Wins Class Certification Bid
NETFLIX INC: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Financial Statements
NEW YORK: Lee Appeals Summary Judgment Bid Denial in Knight Suit

NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Labaton Sucharow Discloses Settlement of Lawsuit
NORTHEASTERN FINE: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NOVEX BIOTECH: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OIL PRICE INFORMATION: Bogard Suit Transferred to N.D. California
ON SPEC LLC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

OPACHS LLC: Faces Smith Suit Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
ORGANIC BY NATURE: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OZ MANAGEMENT: Prelim Pretrial Conference Order Entered in Wallis
PARKER JEWISH: Pezolano Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices
PECO FOODS: Carson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Poultry Workers

PERMANENT GENERAL: Connor, Pugh Seek Approval of Class Notice
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Haston Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
PILLPACK LLC: Williams Seeks to Certify Proposed Narrowed Class
PLAID INC: Settles Data Privacy Class Action Lawsuit for $58-M
POCHA POCHA: Park Sues Over Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages

PREMIUM COMPOUNDING: Oak Park Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Rhodes Files Suit in D. Arizona
QUALI-TEX BALL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Byrne Suit Alleges
RALEY'S: E.D. California Remands Dempsey Suits to State Courts
RAVALLI COUNTY, MT: Seeks to Extend Class Cert. Response to May 6

REBECCA MINKOFF: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
REDWIRE CORPORATION: Securities Class Suit in Florida Underway
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Porter Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
RISKIFIED LTD: Claimsfiler Reminds Investors of July 1 Deadline
RISKIFIED LTD: Kessler Topaz Reminds of July 1 Deadline

RISKIFIED LTD: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 1 Deadline
RIVIANA FOODS: Kutzback Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective Action
RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Faherty Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Pierce, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action
SHOPIFY INC: Fails to Secure Consumers' Info After Data Breach

SOUTHERN METHODIST: Hogan Appeals Tuition Fee Refund Suit Dismissal
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Bombin, Rood Seek to Certify Class
SPARTAN RACE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Mejia Suit Says
ST. LOUIS, MO: Cody Bid to File Amended Complaint Partly OK'd
STEWARD HEALTH: Amended Class Cert Docket Control Order Sought

STRIVECTIN OPERATING: First Case Management Sched Order Entered
STUCKEY CONSTRUCTION: Perry Conditional Status Bid Tossed
SUNOCO INC: Appeals Ruling in Cline's Breach of Contract Suit
SUTTER HEALTH: Sidibe Appeals Summary Judgment Bid Ruling
TIKTOK INC: Opt-Outs Fire Back in Request for Exclusion From Suit

TRI-COUNTY BEHAVIORAL: Fails to Provide Proper OT Pay, Pegues Says
T‐MOBILE USA: Faces Burnham FLSA Suit Over Unpaid OT in W.D. Wash.
UNCOMMONGOODS LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Mejia Claims
UNITED SERVICES: Davidson Must File Class Cert. Bid by Oct. 24
UNITED STATES: Vargas Appeals Denial of Bid to Intervene in Roman

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: PETA Appeals Injunction Order in Sullivan
USPACK LOGISTICS: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Easterday Suit
VANGUARD CHESTER: Mismanages Mutual Funds, Harvey Suit Alleges
VELASQUEZ CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Avila Claims
VOLTA INC: Faces Alvarez Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price

VOYAGER DIGITAL: Faces Suit Over Unregistered Crypto Securities
WARGAMING GROUP: Faces W.B. Suit Over Illegal Online Gambling
WESTERN EXPRESS: Class Settlement in Rivera Suit Has Final Approval
WILLIAMS-SONOMA STORES: Souci Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Fails to Pay Wages on a Weekly Basis, Suit Says

WINDOW SELECT: Customers File Class Action Suit Over Alleged Scam
WISCONSIN: Seeks Denial of Peshek Class Certification Bid
WYNNDALCO ENTERPRISES: Citizens Appeals Judgment in BIPA Suit
XP POWER: Seeks to File Portions of Sur-Reply Under Seal
[*] Canada's Courts Discuss Evolving COVID Suit Certifications


                            *********

121 INFLIGHT: Rosas Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Wrongful Termination
----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL ROSAS, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 121 INFLIGHT CATERING, LLC, a California
limited liability company, DNATA US INFLIGHT CATERING, LLC, a
California limited liability company and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 22STCV14204 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
April 28, 2022) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor
practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

The Plaintiff worked for 121 Inflight Catering, LLC and Dnata US
Inflight Catering, LLC in the area of preparing meals for charter
flights. He was misclassified as an exempt employee and regularly
was required to work in excess of eight hours per workday and/or in
excess of 40 hours per workweek without receiving straight time or
overtime compensation for such overtime hours worked. During his
employment, the Defendants had a policy and/or practice that
allegedly failed to pay him all wages owed upon termination
including the overtime wages that were withheld by Defendants.

On February 21, 2020, the Plaintiff was told that he was terminated
because his position had been eliminated, however they hired
someone else to do the work he was doing but under a different
position name, asserts the complaint.

The Plaintiff brought this suit as he has suffered and continues to
suffer damages in the form of lost wages, and other employment
benefits.

121 Inflight Catering, LLC provides airline catering services to
international commercial airlines.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Armond M. Jackson, Esq.
          Andrea M. Fernandez-Jackson, Esq.
          Anthony S. Filer Jr., Esq.
          JACKSON, APC
          2 Venture Plaza, Ste. 240
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 281-6857
          Facsimile: (949) 777-6218
          E-mail: ajackson@jacksonapc.com
                  afernandez@jacksonapc.com
                  afiler@jacksonapc.com

3M COMPANY: Court Junks Securities Class Suit in Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------
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 September 2021, a Minnesota
federal court granted 3M's motion to dismiss the securities class
action filed in July 2019 by the Heavy & General Laborers' Locals
472 & 172 Welfare Fund against 3M Company, its former Chairman and
CEO, current Chairman and CEO, and former CFO in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding 3M's exposure to liability associated with
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and bring claims for damages
under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC
Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and under Section 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 against the individual
defendants. In October 2019, the court consolidated the securities
class actions and appointed a group of lead plaintiffs.

In January 2020, the defendants filed a motion to transfer venue to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. In August
2020, the court denied the motion to transfer venue, and in
September 2020, the defendants filed a petition for writ of
mandamus to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In
November 2020, the federal Court of Appeals granted 3M's petition
for a writ of mandamus and directed the New Jersey federal court to
transfer the action to the Minnesota federal court. The defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the action in January 2021, and in
September 2021, the Minnesota federal court granted 3M's motion to
dismiss the securities class action, which judgment is now final.

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


3M COMPANY: Faces Suits "Bair Hugger" Patient Warmer
----------------------------------------------------
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 as of March 31, 2022, the
company was a named defendant in approximately 5,267 lawsuits in
the United States and one Canadian putative class action with a
single named plaintiff, alleging that its "Bair Hugger" patient
warming system caused a surgical site infection.

As previously disclosed, 3M is a named defendant in lawsuits in
federal courts involving over 5,000 plaintiffs alleging that they
underwent various joint arthroplasty, cardiovascular, and other
surgeries and later developed surgical site infections due to the
use of the Bair Hugger patient warming system. The plaintiffs seek
damages and other relief based on theories of strict liability,
negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, failure to
warn, design and manufacturing defect, fraudulent and/or negligent
misrepresentation/concealment, unjust enrichment, and violations of
various state consumer fraud, deceptive or unlawful trade practices
and/or false advertising acts.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML)
consolidated all cases pending in federal courts to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota to be managed in a
multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding. In July 2019, the court
excluded several of the plaintiffs' causation experts, and granted
summary judgment for 3M in all cases pending at that time in the
MDL. Plaintiffs appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit. Plaintiffs also appealed a 2018 jury
verdict in favor of 3M in the first bellwether trial in the MDL and
appealed the dismissal of another bellwether case. The Eighth
Circuit court heard oral argument on all pending appeals in March
2021. A panel of the appellate court in August 2021 reversed the
district court's exclusion of the plaintiffs' causation experts and
the grant of summary judgment for 3M. The Company sought further
appellate en banc review by the full Eighth Circuit court. In
November 2021, the Eighth Circuit court denied 3M's petition for
rehearing en banc.

In February 2022, the company filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. The MDL court has not yet
issued a new case management order. In February 2022, the MDL court
ordered the parties to engage in any mediation sessions that a
court-appointed mediator deems appropriate, initial sessions will
take place within May 2022.

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


3M COMPANY: Faces Suits Over Patient Warming System in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 June 2016, the company was
served with a putative class action filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice for all Canadian residents who underwent various
joint arthroplasty, cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later
developed surgical site infections that the representative
plaintiff claims was due to the use of the "Bair Hugger" patient
warming system.

The representative plaintiff seeks relief (including punitive
damages) under Canadian law based on theories similar to those
asserted in the MDL.

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


3M COMPANY: Sued Over Hazardous Chemicals
-----------------------------------------
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 it is facing a putative class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
in October 2018 brought by a firefighter allegedly exposed to
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) chemicals through his use of
firefighting foam, purporting to represent a putative class of all
U.S. individuals with detectable levels of PFAS in their blood.

3M and other defendants, including DuPont and Chemours, were named
in said action. The plaintiff brings claims for negligence,
battery, and conspiracy and seeks injunctive relief, including an
order "establishing an independent panel of scientists" to evaluate
PFAS. 3M and other entities jointly filed a motion to dismiss in
February 2019. In September 2019, the court denied the defendants'
motion to dismiss. In February 2020, the court denied 3M's motion
to transfer the case to the AFFF MDL. In March 2022, the court
certified a class of "individuals subject to the laws of Ohio, who
have 0.05 ppt of PFOA (C-8) and at least 0.05 ppt of any other PFAS
in their blood serum."

The judge ordered additional briefing to permit defendants to
narrow the proposed nationwide class by "showing what states do not
recognize the type of claim for relief filed by" the plaintiff. The
defendants have filed a petition for permission to file an
interlocutory appeal of the certification order with the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals.

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


5830 RESTAURANT: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Rodriguez Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carrillo Rodriguez, on his
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 5830
Restaurant Corp. et al., Case No. 21-cv-01166-KLM (D. Colo.), the
Hon. Judge Kristen L. Mix entered an order granting the plaintiff's
motion to amend scheduling order:

The Scheduling Order is amended as follows:

  -- the current Discovery Cut-off set for July 14, 2022, is
     amended to be the Class Certification Discovery Cut-off;
     and

  -- the current Dispositive Motions Deadline set for August 15,
     2022, is amended to be the Class Certification Motion(s)
     Deadline.

  -- The Deadlines concerning merits discovery will be set after
     resolution of any class certification motion(s).

The Court said, "Although Plaintiff's reason for not making the
bifurcation request at the time of the Scheduling Conference is
rather weak, the Court finds it adequate, if just barely, to meet
the good cause standard for amendment of the Scheduling Order.
After the parties negotiated the terms of their proposed Scheduling
Order with a stated goal of early settlement, and after the Court
entered the Scheduling Order, the Defendants switched gears and
refused to negotiate as to the Estes Park, Longmont and Lyons
locations. Good cause exists to amend the scheduling order in light
of Defendants' bait-and-switch."

A copy of the Court's order dated April 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wjczvD at no extra charge.[CC]


A.B.W. ENTERPRISES: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A.B.W. Enterprises,
Inc. The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. A.B.W. Enterprises, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-02612 (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022).

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

A.B.W. Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Agnes B --
https://www.agnesb.us/ -- retails apparel. The Company offers
shirts, pants, jeans, jackets, coats, suits, and sweatshirts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Shaw's Class Action Settlement Gets Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
issued a judgment granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for
final approval of class action settlement, attorneys' fees, and
costs in the lawsuit titled JASMAINE SHAW, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABERCROMBIE &
FITCH CO., an Ohio corporation; ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC.,
an Ohio corporation; HOLLISTER COMPANY, an Ohio corporation; and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01490-JGB (Ex)
(C.D. Cal.).

The Court, upon reviewing and considering the unopposed motion for
final approval of class action settlement, attorneys' fees, and
costs of Plaintiff Jasmaine Shaw, the Court orders that judgment is
entered in the action on the terms set forth in the Court's Order
Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Amended Class
Action Settlement, Attorneys' Fees, and Costs, which is
incorporated by this reference as though set forth in full.

District Judge Jesus G. Bernal grants final approval to the
parties' Settlement Agreement. He finds that the Settlement
Agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, appears to be the
product of arm's-length and informed negotiations, and treats all
members of the class fairly. The parties will perform their
obligations pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and
the Order.

The following class is certified under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(c) for settlement purposes:

     All individuals who worked for Defendants in California as a
     non-exempt, hourly paid employee at any time during the
     period from August 8, 2018 through preliminary approval or
     July 9, 2021, whichever date is sooner.

Judge Bernal finds that the form, manner, and content of the Class
Notice meet the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
23(c)(2).

Judge Bernal rules that Plaintiff Jasmaine Shaw will be paid a
service award of $7,500 in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement, the Order, and this Judgment. Class Counsel
will be paid $1,000,000 in attorneys' fees and $17,770.66 in costs
in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the
Order.

The Settlement Administrator, ILYM Group, Inc., will be paid
$100,000 in settlement administration costs in accordance with the
terms of the Settlement Agreement and the Order.

The Agreement allocates $150,000 of the gross settlement to PAGA
penalties (PAGA Payment). Seventy-five percent of the PAGA Payment,
or $112,500, will be paid to the California Labor and Workforce
Development Agency; and the remaining 25%, or $37,500, will be
distributed to Aggrieved Employees as part of their individual
settlement payments, in accordance with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement.

All Class Members, who did not validly and timely request exclusion
from the Settlement, have released their claims, as set forth in
the Settlement Agreement, against any of the released parties.

Except as to any Class Members, who have validly and timely
requested exclusion, this action is dismissed with prejudice, with
all parties to bear their own fees and costs except as set forth
herein and in the prior orders of this Court, Judge Bernal states.

Without affecting the finality of the Order, the Court retains
jurisdiction over the parties, including Class Members, for the
purposes of construing, enforcing, and administering the Order and
Judgment, as well as the Settlement Agreement itself.

The Clerk is directed to enter this Judgment pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 58.

A full-text copy of the Court's Judgment dated April 25, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2p8d3km3 from Leagle.com.


ACCOLADE INC: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an
investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Accolade, Inc. (NASDAQ: ACCD) resulting from
allegations that Accolade may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Accolade securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5790 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On April 28, 2022, after market hours, Accolade
released its 2022 4th quarter financial results. Accolade revealed
that "a large customer notified us that they would be ending their
service relationship with us after the end of calendar 2022."
Furthermore, Accolade reported steep losses, with a quarterly loss
of $0.27 per share, missing consensus estimates. During the
earnings call, Accolade CEO Rajeev Singh revealed that the 'large
customer' was Comcast, one of Accolade's largest and oldest
customers.

On this news, Accolade's stock price fell $5.50 per share, or over
49%, to close at $5.56 per share on April 29, 2022.

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

ACCURA HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gaul Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA GAUL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ACCURA HEALTH VENTURES, LLC; AMERICAN
HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, L.L.C. d/b/a ACCURA HEALTHCARE
MANAGEMENT SERVICES; ACCURA HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS LLC; and AMERICAN
HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATES, INC. d/b/a ACCURA HEALTHCARE OF IOWA,
Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00154-RGE-SHL (S.D. Iowa., May 5,
2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Gaul was employed by the Defendants as healthcare
worker.

ACCURA HEALTH VENTURES, LLC operates as a nursing and
rehabilitation center. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 867-4791
          Email: rmorgan@forthepeople.com

               - and -

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

ADELANTE SHOE: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adelante Shoe Co. The
case is styled as Roberta Feliz, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Adelante Shoe Co., Case No.
1:22-cv-03691 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022).

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

Adelante Shoe -- https://adelanteshoes.com/ -- offers a unique
collection of handmade leather boots, sandals, loafers, and
more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ADVANCED HOME: Angela Bronson Files Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA BRONSON AND PAUL
HINZMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. ADVANCED HOME TECHNOLOGIES, INC. D/B/A AHT WISCONSIN WINDOWS,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00247 (W.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff Angela Bronson
asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following Class as
to Count I of her claims against Advanced Home, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23:

   "All persons to whom: (a) AHT made more than one nonemergency
   telephone call within 12 months; (b) promoting AHT services;
   (c) to a residential telephone number; (d) who had previously
   made a "do not call request" to AHT; (e) but received two or
   more calls in a twelve-month period after that request was
   recorded by AHT; (f) between May 5, 2017 and February 8, 2022."

Advanced Home serves homeowners, architects, builders, interior
designers and remodelers in Los Angeles, California and the
surrounding areas.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson Street, Suite #201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 237-1775
          Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
          E-mail: raina@turkestrauss.com
                  sam@turkestrauss.com

               - and -

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (617) 485-0018
          Facsimile: (508) 318-8100
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

ALL ELITE WRESTLING: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against All Elite Wrestling,
LLC. The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. All Elite Wrestling, LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-03601 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2022).

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

All Elite Wrestling, commonly shortened to AEW --
http://www.allelitewrestling.com/-- is an American professional
wrestling promotion based in Jacksonville, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALL ELITE WRESTLING: Faces Class Lawsuit Over ADA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
cultaholic.com reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed
against All Elite Wrestling alleging that shopaew.com violates the
Americans With Disabilities Act, according to Brandon Thurston of
Wrestlenomics.

The lawsuit has been filed on the grounds that the website is
inaccessible for visually-impaired people who use screen-reading
software. The plaintiff noted they tried to purchase goods from
shopaew.com in April 2022 but were unable to do so due to several
issues.

The plaintiff has demanded compensatory damages, an injunction that
requires shopaew.com to comply with the Americans With Disabilities
Act, and a declaration which states AEW own a website that
discriminates against the blind and visually-impaired.

The plaintiff has filed several similar class-action lawsuits this
year already.

A similar lawsuit was also filed against WWE in 2020 which was
settled with an out of court settlement.

All Elite Wrestling have used shopaew.com to sell the company's
merchandise since the promotion's founding in 2019. A global
version of the store was then launched in May 2021 which allowed
international fans from 224 countries to buy AEW merchandise. [GN]

ALLDAYSHIRTS.COM: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alldayshirts.Com,
LLC. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Alldayshirts.Com, LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-03730 (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2022).

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

AllDayShirts.com -- https://www.alldayshirts.com/ -- offers high
quality blank t-shirts and bulk apparel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Zelenski Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DOROTHY ZELENSKI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN FINANCIAL RESOURCES, INC.
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02392 (D.N.J., April 26, 2022) is a
class action for damages with respect to American Financial
Resources, Inc. for its failure to exercise reasonable care in
securing and safeguarding its client's sensitive information, in
violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

The suit is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated customers who used AFR's services and had their sensitive
information accessed by unauthorized parties because of a lapse in
network security in December of 2021, referred as the data breach.

As a result of the data breach, Plaintiff and Class members will
experience various types of misuse of their sensitive information
in the coming years, including but not limited to unauthorized
credit card charges, unauthorized access to email accounts, and
other fraudulent use of their financial information, asserts the
complaint.

Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, breach of
contract, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
bailment, unjust enrichment, and breach of confidence, and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

American Financial Resources, Inc. is a full-service mortgage
lender that operates across the United States, including in
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
          Montvale, NJ 07645
          Telephone: (845) 356-2570
          Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
          E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
                  memert@kgglaw.com

AMERIHOME MORTGAGE: Baxter Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
TONDA M. BAXTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERIHOME MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01086-SAG (Md. Cir. Ct., Baltimore Cty., May 5,
2022) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
Maryland's Consumer Debt Collection Act and common laws.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has used an improper
method of debt collection for the purpose of churning unlawful fees
and charges not owed or due. The Defendant has imposed certain fees
and charges onto the residential mortgage accounts of the Plaintiff
and Class members for accepting payments by telephone and/or by the
Internet. These so-called convenience fees to accept payments of
consumer debts by telephone or over the Internet are not authorized
by the documents governing the Plaintiff's loan, Maryland law, and
Class members' loans. As a result of the Defendant's alleged
unlawful practices, the Plaintiff and Class members have sustained
damages and losses.

Amerihome Mortgage Company, LLC is a collector and a mortgage
lender/servicer in Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Phillip R. Robinson, Esq.
         CONSUMER LAW CENTER LLC
         8737 Colesville Road, Suite 308
         Silver Spring, MD 20910
         Telephone: (301) 448-1304
         E-mail: phillip@marylandconsumer.com

ANDERSON COUNTY, TX: Martinez Files Suit in E.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anderson County, TX,
et al. The case is styled as Cristian Martinez, Paul Estrada,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Anderson County, TX, Karina Garcia, Case No. 6:22-cv-00171 (N.D.
Ala., May 4, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.

Anderson County -- https://www.co.anderson.tx.us/ -- is a county in
the U.S. state of Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Natasha Baker, Esq.
          EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW
          400 7th St. NW, Suite 602
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: (202) 922-6863
          Email: nbaker@equaljusticeunderlaw.org


APPLE INC: Settles Class-Action Lawsuit Over iPhone 4S Throttling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cristina Alexander at digitaltrends.com reports that Apple has
reached a settlement on a class-action lawsuit filed in December
2015 over claims its iOS 9 update throttled the performance of the
iPhone 4S. According to MacRumors, the company is willing to pay
$15 to each iPhone 4S owner for their poor performance claims.

The lawsuit was filed by Chaim Lerman and 100 other customers from
New York and New Jersey who accused Apple of planned obsolescence
of the iPhone 4S by knowingly slowing it down following the iOS 9
update. The plaintiffs claimed the company misrepresented the iOS 9
update as being compatible with the iPhone 4S (which came out in
2011) on its website, promising to bring faster performance to the
device along with the newer models at the time. Instead, they said
the update throttled all the apps, including the Phone app, and
rendered their iPhone 4S devices completely useless.

Not only did Apple falsely market iOS 9's compatibility with the
iPhone 4S, but the plaintiffs argued that it didn't warn them that
the update would throttle their phones. The plaintiffs claimed that
the company purposefully throttled the performance of the iPhone 4S
so that they would have no other choice but to upgrade to a newer
phone, which was already an expensive proposition for some of
them.

Lerman and the rest of the group originally asked for over $5
million for the damages the iOS 9 update caused to their iPhone 4S
devices with the option to seek treble damages. However, Apple said
it allocated $20 million to compensate the suing iPhone 4S owners
for the gross inconvenience the iOS 9 update caused them. In the
settlement motion, the company said it will be setting up a website
for other iPhone 4S customers who believe they are entitled to the
$15 settlement, where consumers can submit a declaration form
establishing that the update damaged their phone. [GN]

AQUAJOGGER: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AquaJogger. The case
is styled as Roberta Feliz, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AquaJogger, Case No. 1:22-cv-03692
(S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022).

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

The AquaJogger -- https://www.aquajogger.com/ -- is a Bouyancy Belt
used for water fitness, aquatic therapy, athletic training, and
much more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Court Junks Green Plains Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2022, that in August 16, 2021,
the court granted ADM's motion to dismiss a putative class action
lawsuit filed by Green Plains Inc. (GP), dismissing one claim with
prejudice and declining jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claim.

In July 14, 2020, GP and its related entities filed a putative
class action lawsuit, alleging substantially the same operative
facts, in federal court in Nebraska, seeking to represent sellers
of ethanol.

ADM is principally into the merchandising and transporting
agricultural commodities, and manufacturing products for use in
food, beverages, feed, energy, and industrial applications, and
ingredients and solutions for human and animal nutrition.

ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Faces AOT Antitrust Suit in IL Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company (ADM) disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2022, that it is
facing an anti-trust suit filed in September 4, 2019 by AOT Holding
AG under the U.S. Commodities Exchange Act in federal district
court in Urbana, Illinois, alleging that the company sought to
manipulate the benchmark price used to price and settle ethanol
derivatives traded on futures exchanges.

In March 16, 2021, AOT filed an amended complaint adding a second
named plaintiff Maize Capital Group, LLC. AOT and Maize allege that
members of the putative class suffered "hundreds of millions of
dollars in damages" as a result of the company's alleged actions.

ADM is principally into the merchandising and transporting
agricultural commodities, and manufacturing products for use in
food, beverages, feed, energy, and industrial applications, and
ingredients and solutions for human and animal nutrition.

ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Faces UWGP Antitrust Suit in WI Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2022, that in November 11,
2020, United Wisconsin Grain Producers LLC (UWGP) filed a lawsuit
in federal court in Illinois alleging substantially the same facts
and asserting claims under the Sherman Act and Wisconsin law.

The court granted ADM's motion to dismiss the UWGP complaint
without prejudice in September 28, 2021, respectively. UWGP filed
an amended complaint on October 19, 2021, which ADM moved to
dismiss on December 9, 2021.

ADM is principally into the merchandising and transporting
agricultural commodities, and manufacturing products for use in
food, beverages, feed, energy, and industrial applications, and
ingredients and solutions for human and animal nutrition.


ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: MRE Antitrust Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2022, that a federal court in
Illinois granted ADM's motion to dismiss a putative class action
filed by Midwest Renewable Energy, LLC (MRE) without prejudice on
August 9, 2021

In July 23, 2020, MRE filed said case alleging that the company
sought to manipulate the benchmark price used to price and settle
ethanol derivatives traded on futures exchanges under the Sherman
Act.

MRE filed an amended complaint on August 30, 2021, which ADM moved
to dismiss on September 27, 2021.

ADM is principally into the merchandising and transporting
agricultural commodities, and manufacturing products for use in
food, beverages, feed, energy, and industrial applications, and
ingredients and solutions for human and animal nutrition.


ARQIT QUANTUM: Bragar Eagel Reminds of July 5 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Arqit Quantum, Inc. ("Arqit" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: ARQQ) in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Arqit securities between September
7, 2021 and April 18, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until July 5, 2022 to apply to the Court
to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Arqit is a cybersecurity company that purports to be developing
quantum encryption technology to secure against cyber-attacks.

The Company, headquartered in London, England, went public in
September 2021 when it merged with Centricus Acquisition Corp.
(NASDAQ: CENH, CENHW, CENHU), a special purpose acquisition
company, or SPAC.

On April 18, 2022, an article in The Wall Street Journal entitled
"British Encryption Startup Arqit Overstates Its Prospects Former
Staff and Others Say" raised significant issues about the Company
and its prospects. The article notes that when the Company went
public last fall, the Company's Founder and Chief Executive David
Williams told investors Arqit had an "impressive backlog" of
revenue and was ready "for hyperscale growth." However, the article
also states that "Arqit has given investors an overly optimistic
view of its future revenue and the readiness and workability of its
signature encryption system, according to former employees and
other people familiar with the company, and documents viewed by The
Wall Street Journal."

Following today's news, the price of Arqit stock dropped $2.57 per
share, over 17%, to close at $12.49 per share.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
and in the Proxy Statement issued in connection to the Merger made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1)
Arqit's proposed encryption technology would require widespread
adoption of new protocols and standards of for telecommunications;
(2) British cybersecurity officials questioned the viability of
Arqit's proposed encryption technology in a meeting in 2020; (3)
the British government was not an Arqit customer but, rather,
providing grants to Arqit; (4) Arqit had little more than an
early-stage prototype of its encryption system at the time of the
Merger; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Arqit 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

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

AURINIA PHARMA: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of June 14 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP reminds investors that a
federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed against
Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Aurinia" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
AUPH) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
Aurinia securities between May 7, 2021 and February 25, 2022, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

All investors who purchased the shares of Aurinia Pharmaceuticals
Inc. and incurred losses are advised to contact the firm
immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212)
545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the
action or join the case on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc., you
may, no later than June 14, 2022, request that the Court appoint
you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf
Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Aurinia is a biopharmaceutical company that develops and
commercializes therapies to treat various diseases with unmet
medical need in Japan and the People's Republic of China. The
Company's only product is LUPKYNIS, which it offers for the
treatment of adult patients with active lupus nephritis.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:

-- Aurinia was experiencing declining revenues;
-- Aurinia's 2022 sales outlook for LUPKYNIS would fall well short
of expectations;
accordingly, the Company had significantly overstated LUPKYNIS's
commercial prospects;
as a result, the Company had overstated its financial position
and/or prospects for 2022; and
-- as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On February 28, 2022, Aurinia issued a press release announcing its
financial results for the quarter and full year ended December 31,
2021. Among other items, Aurinia reported a year-over-year revenue
decline and announced a lower-than-expected sales outlook for
2022.

On this news, Aurinia's common share price fell $3.94 per share, or
24.26%, to close at $12.30 per share on February 28, 2022.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. [GN]

AVO SHOPPING: Fails to Timely Provide Mass Layoff Notice, Diaz Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTA STEPHANIE DIAZ, MIKIAL REDMOND, MARIYA MALAYEVA, and FELIX
ROXAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. THE AVO SHOPPING COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-02591 (E.D.N.Y., May 5, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendant for violation of the Workers Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act, the New York State Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act, and the New York Labor Law.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to timely provide the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated workers with the proper required
written notice after being subjected to a mass layoff and/or plant
closing. Moreover, the Defendant also failed to pay the Plaintiffs
and Class members for accrued, unused paid time off, which was
payable at the time of their termination.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as customer success/service
specialists until the termination of their employment on April 28,
2022.

The Avo Shopping Company, Inc. is a provider of grocery delivery
services, with a principal place of business located at 4138 37th
Street, Long Island City, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Tanvir H. Rahman, Esq.
         RAHMAN LAW P.C.
         477 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (212) 920-4096
         Facsimile: (347) 467-4142
         E-mail: thr@rahmanlawyer.com

B.P. EXPLORATION: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Campbell Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sarah S. Vance of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana grants the BP parties' motion for summary
judgment in the lawsuit styled TREVOR CAMPBELL v. B.P. EXPLORATION
& PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL. SECTION "R" (1), Case No. 17-3524 (E.D.
La.).

Before the Court is Defendants BP Exploration & Production, Inc.,
BP American Production Company, and BP p.l.c.'s (collectively the
"BP parties") motion for summary judgment. The remaining
Defendants, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Transocean
Deepwater, Inc., Transocean Holdings, LLC, and Transocean Offshore
Deepwater Drilling, Inc., join the BP parties' summary judgment
motion.

Background

The case arises from Plaintiff Trevor Campbell's alleged exposure
to toxic chemicals following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the
Gulf of Mexico. The Plaintiff alleges that he assisted in the
clean-up of the Deepwater Horizon spill. Campbell asserts that, as
part of this work, he was exposed to harmful chemicals, including
oil, oil-dispersing chemicals, and decontaminants. The Plaintiff
asserts that such exposure has resulted in "dizziness, nausea,
headaches, sinus problems, eye irritation, rashes, skin lesions,
and various pulmonary issues."

Mr. Campbell's case was originally part of the multidistrict
litigation ("MDL") pending before Judge Carl J. Barbier. Campbell's
case was severed from the MDL as one of the "B3" cases for
plaintiffs, who either opted out of or were excluded from the
Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement
Agreement. After Campbell's case was severed, it was reallocated to
this Court.

On July 28, 2021, the Court issued a scheduling order, which
established, among other deadlines, that the Plaintiff's expert
disclosures had to be "obtained and delivered" to defense counsel
by no later than Feb. 25, 2022. The Defendants now move for summary
judgment, arguing that because the Plaintiff has not identified any
expert testimony, he is unable to carry his burden of causation.
The Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the Defendants'
motion.

Discussion

The Plaintiff asserts claims for general maritime negligence,
negligence per se, and gross negligence against the Defendants as a
result of the spill and its cleanup. The Defendants contend that
the Plaintiff cannot prove that exposure to oil or dispersants was
the legal cause of his alleged injuries, and thus he cannot prove a
necessary element of his claims against the Defendants.

Judge Vance notes that there is no indication that the Plaintiff
has retained an expert to provide testimony at trial to establish
causation. Nor is there an indication that the Plaintiff will
present expert testimony from his treating physician. The Plaintiff
did not make any expert disclosures by the Court-ordered deadline,
nor did he move for an extension.

Additionally, the Plaintiff has failed to oppose the BP parties'
motion or provide any evidence of causation. Accordingly, because
the Plaintiff cannot prove a necessary element of his claims
against the Defendants, his claims must be dismissed, Judge Vance
opines.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is
granted. The Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order and Reasons dated April 25,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4hbfwppz from
Leagle.com.


BARK ENTERTAINMENT: Spence-Baakko Sues Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
JESSE SPENCE-BAAKKO on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BARK ENTERTAINMENT LLC, Defendant, Case No.
22-cv-499 (E.D. Wis., April 26, 2022) is a collective and class
action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws for unpaid wages,
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys'
fees, and declaratory and/or injunctive relief.

Bark Entertainment LLC is a Washington-based entertainment company.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant to work primarily at its
"Skyline Comedy Club" location in Wisconsin in approximately July
2018 until the end of his employment in April 2022.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's failure to compensate
hourly paid, non-exempt employees including Plaintiff, for
compensable work performed at the correct and lawful overtime rate
of pay was intentional, willful, and violated FLSA and WWPCL.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          David M. Potteiger, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
          Brookfield, WI 53005  
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com

BEAR VALLEY: Filing of Conditional Class Cert Bid Due March 6, 2023
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYANA RAMPLEY,
individually and on behalf of all employees similarly situated, v.
BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY HEALTHCARE DISTRICT, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 5:21-cv-01270-JWH-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge John W. Holcomb entered an order granting parties joint
stipulation to continue conditional certification motion and
related briefing as follows:

   1. The Deadline to file Conditional        March 6, 2023
      Class Certification Motion
      continued to:

   2. The Deadline to file Opposition         March 27, 2023
      to Class Certification Motion is
      continued to:

   3. The Deadline to file Reply to           April 17, 2023
      Class Certification Motion is
      continued to:

   4. The Hearing on Class Certification      May 8, 2023
      Motion is continued to:

   5. The Deadline to file                    Nov. 8, 2023
      Decertification Motion is
      continued to:

   6. The Deadline to file Opposition         Dec. 20, 2023
      to Decertification Motion is
      continued to:

   7. The Deadline to file Reply to           Jan. 24, 2024
      Decertification Motion is
      continued to:

   8. The Hearing on Decertification          Feb. 16, 2024
      Motion is continued to:

Bear Valley Community Hospital provides services to the residents,
2nd homeowners and visitors of Big Bear Valley who are in need of
emergency medical care.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38YunEb at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          John A. Young, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  jyoung@mahoney-law.net

The Attorneys for Bear Valley Community Healthcare District, are:

          Jeffrey S. Ranen, Esq.
          William C. Sung, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          633 West 5 th Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 250-1800
          Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
          E-Mail: Jeffrey.Ranen@lewisbrisbois.com
                  William.Sung@lewisbrisbois.com

BENEFIT RECOVERY: Settles Class Action Suit Over 2020 Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
topclassactions.com reports that Benefit Recovery Specialists
agreed to settle claims it failed to protect consumers from a 2020
data breach.

The settlement benefits individuals whose personal information was
compromised in the Benefit Recovery Specialists data breach between
April 20 and 30, 2020.

Benefit Recovery Specialists is a billing and collections company
that offers services to healthcare systems. In July 2020, the
company announced that a data breach compromised information for
274,837 people, according to HIPAA Journal. The breach compromised
names, birth dates, provider names, policy numbers, billing codes,
and some Social Security numbers.

Affected consumers quickly took legal action against Benefit
Recovery Specialists, claiming the company failed to take
reasonable measures to protect their data. As a result of this
failure, plaintiffs and other consumers are allegedly at risk for
fraud and identity theft. Consumers will struggle with these risks
for years, the data breach class action lawsuit contends.

Benefit Recovery Specialists hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but
agreed to resolve this class action lawsuit with a settlement
agreement.

Under the terms of the settlement, Class Members are eligible for
two years of credit and identity services. These services are
offered at no cost to Class Members through IDX and include credit
monitoring, dark web monitoring, identity recovery, and identity
theft insurance coverage up to $1 million.

The settlement also provides up to $2,500 in reimbursement for
costs related to the data breach.

Economic costs are covered if they are a direct result of the data
breach and haven't been reimbursed by a third party. However, costs
that IDX denied reimbursement for are not eligible for payment
under the settlement. Documentation of expenses is required,
including tax documents, bills or invoices, claims documentation,
and more.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is May 31, 2022.

The final approval hearing for the Benefit Recovery Specialists
data breach settlement is scheduled for July 13, 2022.

In order to receive a payment from the settlement, Class Members
must submit a valid election and/or reimbursement form by July 29,
2022.

An election form is required for credit monitoring benefits while a
reimbursement form is required for cash payments.

Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits individuals whose personal information was
compromised in the Benefit Recovery Specialists data breach between
April 20 and 30, 2020.

Potential Award
Varies

Proof of Purchase
Documentation of expenses are required, including tax documents,
bills or invoices, claims documentation, and more.

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

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

Claim Form Deadline
07/29/2022

Case Name
Goetz v. Benefit Recovery Specialists, Inc., Case No. 20 CV 550, in
the Walworth County Wisconsin Circuit Court

Final Hearing
07/13/2022

Settlement Website
BenefitRecoverySettlement.com

Claims Administrator
BRSI Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Info@BenefitRecoverySettlement.com
833-937-0337

Class Counsel
Lynn A Toops
COHEN & MALAD, LLP

J Gerard Stranch IV
BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC

Samuel J. Strauss
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP

Defense Counsel
Claudia C McCarron
MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC [GN]

BOISE DISTRICT: Ct. Tosses Bids to Strike Expert Reports in Zeyen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKE ZEYEN, et al., v.
BOISE DISTRICT No. 1, et al. Case No. :18-cv-00207-RCT (D. Idaho),
the Hon. Judge Richard C. Tallman entered an order denying motions
to strike expert reports in support of class certification.

The arguments raised in Defendants' motions to strike will be
considered in evaluating what weight, if any, to give Dr. Joki and
Rannell's expert reports in making a class certification decision,
the Court says.

The Plaintiffs first moved for class certification on November 13,
2019. On April 4, 2020, the Plaintiffs moved for entry of an order
certifying the class, or, alternatively, requested a hearing date
on the motion. The Court denied the motion as to class
certification at this stage of the litigation but granted the
request for a hearing date.

Following oral argument and consideration of the parties' filings,
the Court denied, without prejudice, the motion for class
certification of all students enrolled in kindergarten through 12th
grade in public and charter schools in Idaho, and their parents
and/or guardians, since school year 2014–2015.

In denying the motion, the Court found that "the definition of the
proposed class does not meet the requirements" of Federal of Civil
Procedure "Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) because it fails to specify the
categories of fees sought, and fails to show a sufficient
similarity of interest between named plaintiffs and proposed class
members."

The Boise School District No. 1, is a comprehensive public school
district in Boise, Idaho.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PhOX3h at no extra charge.[CC]

BONNIE HENRY: Group Can Move Forward With COVID-19 Mandate Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
infotel.ca reports that a B.C. group suing Dr. Bonnie Henry has won
the right to proceed to the next step in a class-action lawsuit
concerning the government's COVID 19 mandates.

On May 4, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Simon Coval granted the
Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy
permission to move forward with its class-action claim against Dr.
Henry.

The class-action suit challenges three Public Health Orders largely
surrounding the vaccination status of healthcare workers.

The group says it has the "resources and expertise" to prosecute
the class-action claim and that "the importance of their case
transcends the interests of individual healthcare workers and
concerns society's interest in having healthcare decisions made in
accordance with scientific research."

Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy is
run by software engineer Kipling Warner, who is also named in the
legal case.

The not-for-profit group has raised more than $250,000 from an
online crowdfunding campaign.

According to the Georgia Straight, in 2011 Warner wrote to then
Tory public safety minister Vic Toews asking for an investigation
into the 9/11 attacks.

Warner had claimed that bankers were responsible for the attacks on
the World Trade Center and not al-Qaeda.

According to the May 4 Supreme Court decision, the Canadian Society
for the Advancement of Science in Public Policy relies on
"voluminous research" from the former Chief Medical Officer of
Manitoba, Dr. Joel Kettner, to argue its case.

According to Dr. Kettner, B.C.'s public health orders "failed to
comply with generally accepted principles of public health
governance and the Charter."

The Doctor's research also points to less restrictive measures in
other jurisdictions.

Dr. Henry's lawyer says the group has no history of involvement in
public health orders and its connection to healthcare is "vague and
weak."

Dr. Henry's lawyer goes on to say the group is a "purpose-built
anti-COVID-19 measures entity."

The crux of the recent court decision was whether the proposed
class-action suit has what's known as public interest standing.

The Justice decided the case did and could go ahead.

"(The) Canadian Society for the Advancement of Science in Public
Policy alleges that its alternative proposals reflect a superior
approach, taken in other Provinces and elsewhere around the world,
much less intrusive on healthcare workers' Charter rights. In my
view, this raises substantial questions that meet the threshold of
'clearly not frivolous,'" Justice Coval said in the decision.

However, while Justice Coval allowed the group's class-action suit
to move forward, he did block Warner from moving forward with a
private case.

Warner had argued the Public Health Orders had affected him because
he'd been on the waitlist for surgery related to a sports injury
for about a year.

The Justice didn't buy it.

"In my view, Mr. Warner offers no evidentiary basis, beyond this
unsupported, conclusory statement, to suggest any right at stake or
any personal or special impact from the (public health orders),"
Justice Coval said in the decision. "There is nothing, for example,
to suggest his wait for surgery was unusual or impacted by the
(public health orders)." [GN]

BRIDGEWAY INC: Underpays Mental Health Associates, Smith Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE BRIDGEWAY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:22-cv-00389-KGB (E.D. Ark., April 28, 2022) is a collective
action brought by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, against Defendant for violations of the
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a mental health
associate from August of 2021 until November of 2021.

The Bridgeway, Inc. is a mental-health hospital in North Little
Rock, Arkansas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BRIGGS TRADITIONAL: Seeks to Strike Class Cert. Bid Memorandum
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ROBERTO
RIOS-GUTIERREZ, ET AL., v. BRIGGS TRADITIONAL TURF FARM, INC., ET
AL., Case No. 4:21-cv-00374-FJG (W.D. Mo.), the Defendants Briggs
Traditional Turf Farm, Inc., L.C., Briggs Turf Farm, LLC, Lawrence
Briggs, Capen Briggs, Kenosha, LLC and Naude-D Investments, LLC
move the Court to strike the Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in
Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification as an
untimely filed pleading.

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order entered by the Court on January
26, 2022, the Plaintiffs' deadline to file their motion for class
certification was April 8, 2022.

The Plaintiffs' filed their Memorandum of Law in Support of
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification on April 9, 2022,
without seeking leave from the Court for an extension of time. In
the alternative, if the Court denies the Defendants' Motion to
Strike, Defendants' seek an extension of time of three (3) business
days after any such ruling to file their Suggestions in Opposition
to the Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anthony L. Gosserand, Esq.
          VAN OSDOL, PC
          1600 Genessee, Suite 246
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Telephone: (816) 421-0644
          Facsimile: (816) 421-0758
          E-mail: tgosserand@VanOsdolKC.com

BRIGHTSTAR PROPERTY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Vollmer Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER VOLLMER and JESSICA DIVELBISS, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BRIGHTSTAR PROPERTY
MAINTENANCE SERVICES, INC.; and LEON NELSON, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 6:22-cv-00850-PGB-DCI (M.D., Fla., May 6,
2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as maintenance
crews.

BRIGHTSTAR PROPERTY MAINTENANCE SERVICES, INC. provides
full-service commercial property maintenance. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          Christopher D. Gray, Esq.
          FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC
          16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
          Lutz, FL 33558
          Telephone: (727) 220-4000
          Facsimile: (727) 483-7942
          Email: wflorin@fgbolaw.com
                 cgray@fgbolaw.com

BROWN UNIVERSITY: Choi Appeals Summary Judgment in Refund Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs HYUN CHOI, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled HYUN CHOI, ANNA HOUSE, and AMY
PHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. BROWN UNIVERSITY, Defendant, C.A. No.
20-cv-191-JJM-LDA, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Rhode Island.

In the complaint, the students argue that the University failed to
fulfill its "contract" with students when it transitioned classes
online and then "unjustly enriched" itself with tuition revenue
that should have been returned to students. They argue that the
quality of the education they received online fell short of the
in-person experience they paid for.

But the University rejects the idea that additional reimbursements
are in order.

"While few aspects of our lives resemble life before the pandemic,
the core value of a Brown degree remains unchanged," University
spokesperson Brian Clark wrote in an email to The Herald.

The plaintiffs failed to identify "any contractual term that
obligates Brown to provide in-person, on-campus instruction,"
according to the motion to dismiss. "What Brown agrees to provide
in return for tuition is up to five courses of instruction per
semester -- with no promise as to the mode of instruction -- plus
the accompanying credits toward earning a degree (if the student
receives passing grades)," says the motion. "Brown met that
obligation, and Plaintiffs do not allege otherwise."

The University disputes the plaintiffs' claim that it unfairly
benefited from the transition to online learning. According to the
motion, the transition increased, rather than decreased, Brown's
costs. The plaintiffs "point to no purported cost savings to
Brown," the motion states, "and they ignore the obvious additional
cost Brown had to incur to continue operations during a pandemic."

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 6, 2022, Judge
John J. McConnell, Jr. granted the Defendant Brown's Motion for
Summary Judgment as to all counts.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Memorandum and
Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion to
dismiss the first amended class action complaint and Memorandum and
Order and Judgment entered in this action on March 23, 2022,
granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The appellate case is captioned as HYUN CHOI, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; ANNA HOUSE, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated; AMY PHAM,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. BROWN UNIVERSITY; THE CORPORATION OF BROWN
UNIVERSITY, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 22-1294, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on April 27,
2022.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants HYUN CHOI, ANNA HOUSE, and AMY PHAM,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Stephen M. Prignano, Esq.
          David J. Strachman, Esq.
          MCINTYRE TATE LLP
          50 Park Row West, Suite 109
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 351-7700
          Facsimile: (401) 331-6095
          E-mail: sprignano@mcintyretate.com
                  dstrachman@mcintyretate.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
          Whitney K. Siehl, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (708) 628-4949
          Facsimile: (708) 628-4950
          E-mail: dank@hbsslaw.com
                  whitneys@hbsslaw.com

C. & J. ENTERPRISES: Iskhakova Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against C. & J. Enterprises,
Inc. The case is styled as Marina Iskhakova, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. C. & J. Enterprises, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02620 (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022).

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

C&J Enterprises Inc. provides video production services. The
Company offers audio, lighting, backline, staging, power
distribution, radio, and event production services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


C.S. BABYLON MARINE: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against C.S. Babylon Marine,
Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. C.S. Babylon Marine, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-03642-LGS (S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2022).

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

Babylon Marine, Inc. -- https://www.babylonmarine.com/ -- carry a
range of Mercury outboards and boat parts from Land N Sea.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
          155 East 55th St., Ste. 6a
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: brad@markslawpc.com


CAMP LEJEUNE: Disclsoes Class Action Suit Over Water Contamination
------------------------------------------------------------------
Camp Lejeune Contaminated Water: Who's Affected?

Are you a veteran or family member of a veteran who has suffered
from health issues after exposure to tainted water at Camp
Lejeune?

For decades, United States Marines and their families may have been
exposed to tainted water at the Camp Lejeune training facility in
North Carolina, which has since been associated with a number of
serious health issues.

Between the 1950s and 1980s, the water on the military base was
reportedly tainted with improperly disposed solvents, eventually
leading to the discovery of highly concentrated toxins in the
water. However, this information was not disclosed to the public
until nearly two decades after it had been discovered, according to
a report by CNN.

Over a period of around 30 years, as many as 500,000 people may
have been exposed to Camp Lejeune contaminated water, CNN
discovered.

Now, those who have been diagnosed with related health issues after
exposure to tainted water at Camp Lejeune may turn to litigation.
Related cases would be filed in the Eastern District of North
Carolina.

Do You Qualify?
This investigation is seeking those who have experienced one or
more of the following health issues:

Bladder cancer
Kidney cancer
Liver cancer
Adult leukemia
Multiple myeloma
Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
Parkinson's disease
If you have suffered from one of the above health issues after
exposure to tainted water at Camp Lejeune, you may be able to join
a Camp Lejeune tainted water lawsuit investigation and pursue
compensation.

The Camp Lejeune contaminated water investigation is currently open
to anyone who lived at Camp Lejeune for a minimum of thirty days
between August 1, 1953, and December 31, 1987.

Fill out the form on this page for more information.

What is Camp Lejeune?
Camp Lejeune is a military training facility in Jacksonville, North
Carolina for the United States Marine Corps. It has been in
operation since the 1940s, but from the 1950s to the 1980s, people
on the base-including Marines, family members, and others-were
regularly drinking tap water tainted with harmful chemicals ranging
from 240 to 3400 times the levels allowed by safety standards.

This information was cited in a press release by U.S.
Representatives Matt Cartwright, Gregory Murphy, and David Price
upon announcing the recent House passage of legislation regarding
exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune.

Camp Lejeune Justice Act
The Camp Lejeune Justice Act was passed in the House on March 3,
2022, with bipartisan support. It now awaits Senate approval.

If the Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022 is approved by the Senate,
the legislation will allow those who have experienced health issues
as a result of on-base water contamination to pursue litigation.

The bill was put forward within the Honoring our PACT Act of 2021,
which is a more expansive act improving benefits for veterans that
have been exposed to toxins.

The Camp Lejeune Justice Act passed the House in a 256-174 vote. A
total of 222 Democrats and 34 Republicans were voted in favor of
the act.

"Anybody who served in the United States Marine Corps, and went for
combat training, probably went to Camp Lejeune in North Carolina,"
Rep. Cartwright told The Hill. "So this is not just a North
Carolina issue; it's a national issue."

Join a Camp Lejeune Tainted Water Class Action Lawsuit
Investigation
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with a serious health
issue such as cancer or Parkinson's disease after exposure to
tainted water at Camp Lejeune, you may be able to file a lawsuit.


This investigation is seeking those who have experienced one or
more of the following health issues:

Bladder cancer
Kidney cancer
Liver cancer
Adult leukemia
Multiple myeloma
Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
Parkinson's disease
Marine Corps members or their family members who have been
diagnosed with one of these health issues after tainted water
exposure at Camp Lejeune between 1953 and 1987 may be able to join
a Camp Lejeune tainted water lawsuit investigation and pursue
compensation. [GN]

CARLOS GHOSN: JCERS Seeks Initial Nod of Proposed Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACKSON COUNTY EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. CARLOS GHOSN, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01368
(M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs Jackson County Employees' Retirement
System and Providence Employees Retirement System, move the Court
for an order:

   (1) granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement;

   (2) approving the form and manner of giving notice of the
       proposed settlement to the Class;

   (3) preliminarily granting class certification for settlement
       purposes; and (4) setting a hearing date for final
       approval thereof, and a schedule for various deadlines
       relevant thereto.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 22, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MZh4C9 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
          Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
          Christopher H. Kyons, Esq.
          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq.
          Eric I. Niehaus, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2203
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: jmartin@rgrdlaw.com
                  cwood@rgrdlaw.com
                  clyons@rgrdlaw.com
                  darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                 elleng@rgrdlaw.com
                 ericn@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
          VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD &
          TIMMONY, P.C.
          79 Alfred Street
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 578-1200
          Facsimile: (313) 578-1201
          E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com

CARRIER CORPORATION: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Carrier Corporation.
The case is styled as Richard Mejia, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Carrier Corporation, Case No.
1:22-cv-03680 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022).

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

Carrier Global Corporation -- http://www.corporate.carrier.com/--
is an American multinational home appliances corporation based in
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.



CDK GLOBAL: Faces Sponder Suit Over Proposed Merger
---------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY SPONDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CDK GLOBAL, INC.; LESLIE A. BRUN; WILLIE A.
DEESE; AMY J. HILLMAN; BRIAN KRZANICH; STEPHEN A. MILES; ROBERT E.
RADWAY; STEPHEN F. SCHUCKENBROCK; FRANK S. SOWINSKI; EILEEN J.
VOYNICK; MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC; CENTRAL PARENT LLC; and CENTRAL
MERGER SUB INC., Defendants, Case No. 2022-0395 (Ch. Del., May 5,
2022) is an action against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary
duties and aiding and abetting such breaches, in connection with
the Board's efforts to sell CDK Global to Central Parent, through
Purchaser (the "Proposed Transaction") via a tender offer (the
"Tender Offer").

According to the complaint, on April 7, 2022, CDK Global issued a
press release announcing that it had entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") dated March 20, 2022, to
sell CDK Global to Brookfield Business Partners, together with
institutional partners (collectively "Brookfield"). Under the terms
of the Merger Agreement, Brookfield, through Purchaser, will
acquire all outstanding
shares of CDK Global for $54.87 per share in cash (the "Offer
Price"). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Purchaser commenced the
Tender Offer on April 22, 2022.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Offer Price is inadequate, not
supported by CDK management's own best estimates of the Company,
not fair to CDK Global's stockholders and was shoe-horned into
purported "fairness" by the Company's financial advisor Morgan
Stanely's improper use of a risk-adjusted sensitivity case of
management's long-range plan ("Risk Adjusted Case").

The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the expiration of the Tender Offer
unless and until the Defendants cure their breaches of fiduciary
duty, or, in the event it is consummated, recover damages resulting
from the Defendants' violations of their fiduciary duties.

CDK GLOBAL, INC. is a provider of integrated information technology
and digital marketing solutions to the automotive retail industry.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Ernst,Esq.
          BIELLI & KLAUDER, LLC
          1204 N. King Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 803-4600
          Email: rernst@bk-legal.com

CITIZENS OF HUMANITY: Redick Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Citizens of Humanity,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Crystal Redick, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Citizens of Humanity,
LLC, Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-02993-FMO-AS (C.D.
Cal., May 4, 2022).

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

Citizens of Humanity -- https://citizensofhumanity.com/ -- is a Los
Angeles-based premium denim label that has captivated the world
with a devoted commitment to producing the highest quality denim,
without compromise.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
          Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 381-9988
          Fax: (213) 381-9989
          Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                 binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com


CMG PARTNERS: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CMG Partners, Inc.
The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CMG Partners, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03605 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2022).

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

CMG Partners -- https://www.cmgconsulting.com/ -- is a marketing
consultancy firm that enables organizations to realize their market
potential & growth focused.[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


COINBASE INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Bielski
-------------------------------------------------------
Coinbase, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling denying its
motion compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled ABRAHAM BIELSKI,
Plaintiff, v. COINBASE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-07478-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

Defendant Coinbase, Inc. operates a currency exchange.

Plaintiff Abraham Bielski created his Coinbase account in 2021.
Unfortunately, he was soon targeted by a scammer who purported to
be a PayPal representative. Bielski granted this unknown individual
remote access to his Coinbase account, which the perpetrator used
to transfer the equivalent of $31, 039.06 out of Bielski's digital
wallet. Bielski alleges that, after the scammer drained his
account, he turned to Coinbase for help.

Upon realizing he had been swindled, Bielski initiated a "live
chat" with a Coinbase representative, which turned out to be a mere
bot that provided canned responses. Bielski then called the
specific customer service "hotline" specified in his user agreement
as where to get help for a compromised account. He was once again
unable to speak with a human. Bielski then wrote two letters to
Coinbase at its San Francisco office pleading for help. It was not
until this lawsuit that Coinbase deigned to respond, albeit again
with only automated inquiries.

Bielski seeks to represent a class of similarly situated
individuals with claims against Coinbase for violations of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act and Regulation E therein.

Coinbase moved to compel arbitration based on its user agreement.

On April 8, 2022, District Judge William Alsup denied the motion to
compel arbitration saying that the arbitration agreement as a whole
is unconscionable and, hence, unenforceable.

The appellate case is captioned as Abraham Bielski v. Coinbase,
Inc., Case No. 22-15566, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 18, 2022.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant COINBASE, INC. is represented by:

          Nicholas David Marais, Esq.
          Steven Paul Ragland, Esq.
          KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS, LLP
          633 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 391-5400

Plaintiff-Appellee ABRAHAM BIELSKI, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Matthew Carlson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW D. CARLSON
          3959 N Buffalo Road, Suite 29
          Orchard Park, NY 14127
          Telephone: (716) 242-1234

CONDUENT BUSINESS: May 13 Class Cert Response Extension Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOE ALMON, JON CARNLEY,
CYNTHIA CLARK, JACKIE DENSMORE, JENNIFER KREEGAR, HAROLD MCPHAIL,
KATHLEEN PAGLIA, JB SIMMS, and KENNETH TILLMAN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CONDUENT BUSINESS
SERVICES, LLC d/b/a DIRECT EXPRESS (TM), COMERICA, INC., and
COMERICA BANK, Case No. 5:19-cv-01075-XR  (W.D. Tex.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order for a two-week extension of time,
up through and including May 13, 2022, for Defendants to file their
response to Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification.

The Parties also request a corresponding extension of time for
Plaintiffs to file a reply brief in support of their amended
motion.

The Parties state as follows:

   (1) The Court's March 25, 2022 Order denied in part and
       granted in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment
       and separately denied, without prejudice, the Plaintiffs'
       motion for class certification.

   (2) The 57-page order is exhaustive, and it significantly
       impacts both the claims that can be pursued in this case
       and on whose behalf those claims may be pursued.

   (3) In accordance with the order, Plaintiffs filed their
       amended motion for class certification on April 15, 2022.

   (4) Plaintiffs' Amended Motion alters the definition of the
       classes Plaintiffs seek to represent in this case.

   (5) Defendants' deadline for filing their response is
       currently April 29, 2022. This deadline has not yet
       expired.

Conduent provides business process services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 22, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/396LF2c at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          E. Adam Webb. Esq.
          G. Franklin Lemond
          WEBB KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
          1900 The Exchange, S.E. Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444-9325
          Facsimile: (770) 217-9950
          E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com
                  Franklin@WebbLLC.com

               - and -

          Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
          VAUGHT FIRM, LLC
          6122 Palo Pinto Ave.
          Dallas, TX 75214
          Telephone: (214) 675-8603
          Facsimile: (214) 261-5159
          E-mail: allen@vaughtfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jonathan R. Chally, Esq.
          COUNCILL, GUNNEMANN & CHALLY, LLC
          1201 Peachtree Street NE Building 400, Suite 100
          Atlanta, GA 30361
          Telephone: (404) 407-5250
          Facsimile: (404) 600-1624
          E-mail: jchally@cgc-law.com

               - and -

          David L. Balser, Esq.
          Adam Reinke, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 572-4600
          Facsimile: (404) 572-5100
          E-mail: dbalser@kslaw.com
                  areinke@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Henry B. Gonzalez III, Esq.
          GONZALEZ CHISCANO ANGULO & KASSON, PC
          9601 McAllister Freeway, Suite 401
          San Antonio, TX 78216
          Telephone: (210) 569-8500
          Facsimile: (210) 569-8490
          E-mail: hbg@gcaklaw.com

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Arizona Tile Files Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Continental Casualty
Company. The case is styled as Arizona Tile, LLC, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. Continental Casualty
Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-03013 (C.D. Cal., May 5, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Breach of Contract.

Continental Casualty Company -- https://www.cna.com/ -- offers a
broad portfolio of property and casualty business insurance
solutions that allow you to better manage your risks and grow
profitably.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Hamilton Crosner, Esq.
          PASICH LLP
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue Suite 690
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Phone: (424) 313-7860
          Fax: (424) 313-7890
          Email: scrosner@pasichllp.com


CREATIVE PLANNING: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Creative Planning,
LLC. The case is styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Creative Planning, LLC,
Case No. 1:22-cv-03716 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022).

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

Creative Planning -- https://creativeplanning.com/ -- is a wealth
management firm that offers comprehensive and personalized
financial planning and investment management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dana Lauren Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (917) 796-7437
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: danalgottlieb@aol.com


CRESCA CORP: Vargas Sues Over Deceptive Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ORTIZ VARGAS, Plaintiff v. CRESCA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 3:22-cv-01196 (D.P.R., April 26, 2022) is brought by the
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and, pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, all others similarly situated,
seeking redress for the unlawful and deceptive collection practices
engaged by the Defendant in connection with its efforts to collect
on a consumer debt, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practice Act.

On July 26, 2021, the Defendant sent Plaintiff a collection letter
for his consumer debt which was used for personal, household, or
family purposes; meaning, that the alleged debt was incurred for
the benefit of Plaintiff as well as his family and his household.

According to the complaint, before seeking to collect the consumer
debt under the auspices of a legal division, no attorney at the
Defendant actually reviews the statement of Plaintiff's account in
a manner which allows Defendant to make certain legal judgments,
which in the exercise of ordinary due diligence, an attorney would
make in attempting to collect a debt associated with a consumer
debt and prior to making threats like filing a legal action based
on fraud such as: (1) the date the consumer's account was opened;
(2) the date of each charge that was applied to the consumer's
account; (3) the amount and date of each payment applied to the
consumer's account; and (4) the method, rate, and means of
computing interest on the consumer's account.    

Cresco Corporation is a collection agency that utilizes the
instrumentalities of interstate commerce to conduct the business of
collecting debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesus E. Batista Sanchez, Esq.
          William Rivera Velez, Esq.
          THE BATISTA LAW GROUP, PSC
          P.O. Box 191059
          San Juan, PR 00919
          Telephone: (787) 620-2856
          Facsimile: (787) 777-1589
          E-mail: jeb@batistasanchez.com
                  wrv@batistasanchez.com

CUSIP GLOBAL: May 18 Response for Summary Judgment Bid OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dinosaur Financial Group
LLC et al. v. CUSIP Global Services, et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-01929-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon Judge Katherine polk Gailla
entered an order granting the Defendant S&P Global Inc. motion for
extending the deadline to respond to the Plaintiffs' April 20, 2022
letter requesting a pre-motion conference on their proposed motion
for summary judgment, to May 18, 2022.

The additional time is needed to allow the Defendants adequate time
to address the complexity, unusual nature and timing of
Plaintiffs’ request. In particular, the Plaintiffs' request
raises important issues of process and sequencing given the early
stage of this case, the fact that no interim class counsel has yet
been designated in this class action, and because summary judgment
rulings in class actions generally must wait until the Court has
determined whether to certify the class, in order to avoid
violating the rule against "one-way intervention."

S&P is an American publicly traded corporation headquartered in
Manhattan, New York City. Its primary areas of business are
financial information and analytics.

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

CYTODYN INC: Files Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit in Wash.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CytoDyn Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended February 28, 2022, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 11, 2022, that on February 25, 2022,
it filed a motion to dismiss an amended class action complaint
filed against it and certain of its current and former officers,
which alleges, among other things, that they made false or
misleading statements concerning the safety and efficacy of
leronlimab as a potential treatment for COVID-19.  

On March 17, 2021, a stockholder filed this putative class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington against the Company and certain current and former
officers. The complaint generally alleges the defendants made false
and misleading statements regarding the viability of leronlimab as
a potential treatment for COVID-19.

On April 9, 2021, a second stockholder filed a similar putative
class action lawsuit in the same court, which the plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on July 23, 2021. On August
9, 2021, the court appointed lead plaintiffs for the March 17, 2021
lawsuit.

On December 21, 2021, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which is brought on behalf of an alleged class of those who
purchased the Company’s common stock between March 27, 2020 and
May 17, 2021.  The amended complaint generally alleges that the
Company and certain current and former officers violated Sections
10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making purportedly false or
misleading statements concerning, among other things, the safety
and efficacy of leronlimab as a potential treatment for COVID-19,
the Company’s CD10 and CD12 clinical trials, and its HIV BLA.  

The amended complaint also alleges that the individual defendants
violated Section 20A of the Exchange Act by selling shares of the
Company’s common stock purportedly while in possession of
material nonpublic information.  The amended complaint seeks, among
other relief, a ruling that the case may proceed as a class action
and unspecified damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.

On February 25, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. The Company and the individual defendants deny
all allegations of wrongdoing in the complaint and intend to
vigorously defend the matter. Since this case is in an early stage
where the number of plaintiffs is not known, and the claims do not
specify an amount of damages, the Company is unable to predict the
ultimate outcome of the lawsuit and cannot reasonably estimate the
potential loss or range of loss the Company may incur.

CytoDyn, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company, which
engages in the development of innovative treatments for multiple
therapeutic indications based on leronlimab. Its product include
HIV, Cancer, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), and COVID-19. The
company was founded by Allen D. Allen on May 2, 2002 and is
headquartered in Vancouver, WA.

DHI MORTGAGE: Case Management Order Entered in Ahlstrom Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT W. AHLSTROM v. DHI
MORTGAGE COMPANY, LTD., L.P., Case No. 5:19-cv-03435-BLF (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered a case management
order as follows:

   1. The presumptive limits on discovery set forth in the
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to this case
      unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

   2. The deadline for joinder of any additional parties, or
      other amendments to the pleadings, is 60 days after entry
      of this order unless stated otherwise below.

   3. The deadline for the parties to meet, confer, and submit a
      stipulation and order setting all deadlines not set by the
      Court below, including discovery cut-offs and expert
      disclosure deadlines, is May 6, 2022.

   4. All disputes with respect to disclosures or discovery are
      referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge.

   5. Unless previously ordered or stipulated, the parties shall
      meet and confer further in order to reach an agreement on
      an ADR process within 10 days of the date of this Order.
      Within that same time frame, the parties shall either (1)
      file the form entitled "Stipulation and (Proposed) order
      Selecting ADR Process" if an agreement is reached, or (2)
      file the form entitled "Notice of Need of ADR Phone
      Conference".

   6. The parties shall comply with the Court's standing orders,
      which are available on the Court's website and in the
      Clerk's Office.

   7. The Parties are to meet and confer regarding Early Private
      Mediation.

   8. the following schedule and deadlines shall apply to this
      case:

                    Event                  Date or Deadline

    -- Last Day to Request Leave to        60 Days from
       Amend the Pleadings per             Date of this Order
       F.R.Civ.P 15

    -- Last Day File Motion Class          March 31, 2023
       Certification:

    -- Last Day to Hear Dispositive        March 28, 2024
       Motions:

    -- Final Pretrial Conference           June 20, 2024

    -- Trial                               July 22, 2024

DHI is a residential mortgage lender.

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


DIRECT ENERGY: Dickson Appeals TCPA Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Matthew Dickson filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled MATTHEW DICKSON, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. DIRECT ENERGY, LP, et
al., Case No. 5:18-cv-00182-JRA, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Akron.

According to the complaint, at issue in this litigation is a
massive campaign of pre-recorded telemarketing conducted by Direct
Energy's agents, TMC and Silverman, and carried out via a
technology known as Ringless Voice Mail ("RVM"). RVM is a type of
technology that allows a telemarketer to leave a pre-recorded voice
message on a consumer's cell phone without causing the phone to
ring or giving a call recipient a chance to reject the call.

The basic facts as to the telemarketing scheme at issue are not in
dispute. Direct Energy hired TMC to telemarket on its behalf. With
Direct Energy's explicit approval, TMC worked with its vendor,
Silverman, to make RVM pre-recorded telemarketing calls to the cell
phones of millions of class members promoting Direct Energy goods
or services using Direct Energy's trade name.

In other words, recipients of the RVM pre-recorded calls at issue
were told that it was Direct Energy itself that was calling. The
scope of the illegal telemarketing campaign is also not in dispute.
As detailed infra, the call records evidencing the Direct Energy
pre-recorded RVM campaign ("Call Records") have been obtained by
counsel for Mr. Dickson and analyzed by his data expert. In total,
the Defendants made 3,295,028 RVM telemarketing calls to the
cellular phone numbers owned or used by 2,867,388 class members.

On December 14, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
lack of standing which the Court granted on March 25, 2022 through
a Memorandum of Opinion and Order entered by Judge John R. Adams.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of the case dismissal order.

The appellate case is captioned as Matthew Dickson v. Direct
Energy, LP, et al., Case No. 22-3394, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on April 27, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MATTHEW DICKSON, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
          MURRAY, MURPHY, MOUL & BASIL
          1114 Dublin Road, Suite 150
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 488-0400
          E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com

Defendants-Appellees DIRECT ENERGY, LP and SILVERMAN ENTERPRISES,
LLC are represented by:

          David L. Villarreal, Esq.
          1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2700
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 337-5580

               - and -

          Neil David Schor, Esq.
          HARRINGTON, HOPPE & MITCHELL
          P.O. Box 6077
          Youngstown, OH 44501
          Telephone: (330) 744-1111

DIRECT SPORTS: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Direct Sports, Inc.
The case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Direct Sports, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03632 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2022).

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

Direct Sports -- https://www.directsports.com/ -- carries a large
inventory of baseball and softball bats, baseball gloves and mitts,
baseball apparel and clothing, batting gloves, and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Maldonado Appeals Case Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Elsa Maldonado, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ELSA MALDONADO, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:10-cv-01511-RJL, in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia.

The Plaintiffs bring this case on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated to challenge the District of Columbia's systemic
failure to provide individualized written notice to persons whose
prescriptions are denied Medicaid coverage at a District of
Columbia pharmacy. The Named Plaintiffs are four individuals, who
are eligible for Medicaid and presented a Medicaid-participating
pharmacy with a prescription for a medically-necessary medication
and did not receive individualized written notice when the
prescription was denied coverage or otherwise not filled as
written.

On March 29, 2022, the Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss
the case as moot and denied Plaintiffs' cross-motion to lift the
stay on discovery.

The Plaintiffs seek a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Elsa Maldonado, et al. v.
District of Columbia, Case No. 22-7060, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on April 29,
2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- APPELLANT docketing statement is due on June 1, 2022;

   -- APPELLANT certificate as to parties is due on June 1, 2022;

   -- APPELLANT statement of issues is due on June 1, 2022;

   -- APPELLANT underlying decision is due on June 1, 2022;

   -- APPELLANT deferred appendix statement is due on June 1,
2022;

   -- APPELLANT entry of appearance is due on June 1, 2022;

   -- APPELLANT transcript status report is due on June 1, 2022;

   -- APPELLANT procedural motions are due on June 1, 2022;

   -- APPELLANT dispositive motions are due on June 16, 2022;

   -- APPELLEE certificate as to parties is due on June 1, 2022;

   -- APPELLEE entry of appearance is due on June 1, 2022;

   -- APPELLEE procedural motions are due on June 1, 2022; and

   -- APPELLEE dispositive motions are due on June 16, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Elsa Maldonado; Ann Robertson, behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals; and BR, by her parent and
next friend, Ann Robertson, are represented by:

          Kathleen L. Millian, Esq.
          TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, LLP
          1816 12th Street, NW, Suite 303
          Washington, DC 20009-4422
          Telephone: (202) 682-2100

Defendant-Appellee District of Columbia, a municipal corporation,
is represented by:

          Caroline S. Van Zile, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
           THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
          400 6th Street, NW, Suite 8100
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 727-3400

EAST LANSING, MI: Appeals Ruling in Heos Franchise Fee Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
City of East Lansing filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit entitled JAMES HEOS vs. CITY OF EAST LANSING, Case No.
20-199-CZ, in the Michigan Circuit Court, 30th Judicial, Ingham
County.

According to the complaint, East Lansing resident James Heos filed
a class action complaint against the city on April 13, 2020,
challenging franchise fees imposed on residents whose properties
receive electric service from the BWL, according to an East Lansing
litigation status report from 2020.

On April 12, 2022, Ingham County Judge Wanda Stokes ruled that a
fee collected by the Lansing Board of Water and Light, or BWL, on
behalf of East Lansing is illegal.

The Defendant is seeking a review of this ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as JAMES HEOS vs. CITY OF EAST
LANSING, Case No. 361138, in the Michigan Court of Appeals, filed
on April 21, 2022.[BN]

EPIC GAMES: Lawyers Give Up Challenge to $26.5 Million Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien at Legal Newsline reports that the end has come for
class action lawyers who filed a competing lawsuit against the
maker of the video game Fortnite.

San Francisco federal judge Charles Breyer on May 2 dismissed the
proposed class action that was doomed by a settlement of similar
claims in North Carolina state court.

Lawyers at Bay Advocacy and One LLP tried to argue Epic Games
picked the North Carolina attorneys to negotiate with, and those
attorneys in turned never intended to vigorously pursue the case.
They'd rather take their chunk of an easy $26.5 million settlement,
Bay Advocacy and One LLP argued.

But ultimately, all parties in the San Francisco case agreed the
settlement in North Carolina releases the claims the plaintiffs
made. Epic Games had recently motioned to dismiss the San Francisco
case.

"The Zanca settlement approved by the state court system in North
Carolina, where Epic Games is headquartered, is entitled by law to
full faith and credit in this court," Epic Games wrote.

"Here, Plaintiffs' claims were released under the terms of the
Zanca settlement. Accordingly, just as a North Carolina state court
would treat Plaintiffs' claims as released, this court must do the
same. Because Plaintiffs have released their claims by operation of
the Zanca settlement, the case is moot."

The issue in the litigation is with V-Bucks, which can be earned or
purchased while playing Fortnite. Bay Advocacy says allowing a
minor to use parents' credit cards to buy them is a violation of
the law.

A minor can't enter into a contract relating to any personal
property not in his or her immediate possession, the California
suit says. Those contracts are void and amounts paid pursuant to
them are refundable, it adds.

The North Carolina settlement provides up to $26.5 million in cash
for the class and 1,000 V-Bucks for each member.

Firms involved in that settlement include Whitfield Bryson, McGuire
Law, Devlin Law Firm and McMorrow Law. Their fee request was $11.3
million.[GN]

EVERISE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Berzati Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
ATHENA BERZATI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EVERISE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
0:22-cv-60865-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 6, 2022) seeks to recover from
the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Berzati was employed by the Defendant as customer service
representative.

EVERISE, INC. provides information technology services. The Company
offers customer and technical support services with AI, robotic
process automation, analytics, and secure cloud-based technology
solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave. Suite 15
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Tel: (407) 420-1414

FANEUIL INC: Failed to Protect Customers' Personal Info, Pagan Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JESSE JAMES PAGAN and LILYANN DAVILA, on behalf of themselves and
all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. FANEUIL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00297 (E.D. Va., April 26, 2022) arises
out of the recent ransomware attack and data breach at Faneuil that
targeted the information of past and present employees, including
Plaintiffs, who worked at Faneuil.

According to the complaint, thousands of Class Members' suffered
ascertainable losses inclusive of out-of-pocket expenses and the
value of their time incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of
the attack because of the data breach. In addition, Plaintiffs and
Class Members are now faced with the present and substantial risk
of imminent harm caused by the compromise of their sensitive
personal information, including their names, addresses at the time
of employment, Social Security numbers, phone numbers, and email
addresses.

As such, Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendant seeking
redress for its alleged unlawful conduct, asserting claims for
negligence and breach of implied contract.

The Plaintiffs are residents and citizens of the state of Florida
and were notified of the data breach and their personal information
being compromised by way of a data breach notification letter
disseminated by Defendant on February 1, 2022.

Faneuil, Inc. is a logistics and business solutions company based
in Hampton, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lee A. Floyd, Esq.
          Justin M. Sheldon, Esq.
          BREIT BINIAZAN, PC
          7130 Glen Forest Drive, Suite 400
          Richmond, VA 23226
          Telephone: (757) 622-6000
          Facsimile: (757) 670-3939
          E-mail: Lee@bbtrial.com
                  Justin@bbtrial.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey A. Breit, Esq.
          Kevin Biniazan, Esq.
          BREIT BINIAZAN, P.C.
          Towne Pavilion Center II
          600 22nd Street, Suite 402
          Virginia Beach, VA 23451
          Telephone: (757) 622-6000
          Facsimile: (757) 670-3939
          E-mail: Jeffrey@bbtrial.com
                  Kevin@bbtrial.com

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com

               - and -

          David K. Lietz, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW Suite 440
          Washington, D.C. 20015-2052
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
          E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com

               - and -
  
          M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 239-4778
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com

FASHION NOVA: Massa Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fashion Nova, LLC.
The case is styled as Lucy Massa, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Fashion Nova, LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-01609-CMR (E.D. Pa., April 26, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Fashion Nova -- https://www.fashionnova.com/ -- is the world's
leading quick-to-market apparel and lifestyle brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          429 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1300
          Law & Finance Bldg.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: (412) 281-8400
          Fax: (412) 281-1007
          Email: jkravec@fdpklaw.com


FX LABS: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FX Labs Inc. The case
is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FX Labs Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03602
(S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2022).

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

FX Labs Inc. is a software company in San Francisco,
California.[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


G-UNIT BRANDS: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against G-Unit Brands, Inc.
The case is styled as Kevin Davis, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. G-Unit Brands, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03628 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2022).

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

The G-Unit Clothing Company -- https://www.gunitbrands.com/ -- is
American clothing retailer established in 2003 when 50 Cent teamed
up with Marc Ecko, the founder of Ecko Unltd.[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


GLM INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages Under FLSA, Easton Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
EALISE EASTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GLM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-01101-BPG (D. Md., May 5, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for its failure to pay proper wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the
Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a dancer, bartender and
promoter from August of 2010 until November of 2019.

GLM, Inc. is an owner and operator of an adult-oriented
entertainment facility under the name Excape Nightclub, located at
10025 Pulaski Highway, Baltimore, Maryland. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Thomas Teodori, Esq.
         CHASENBOSCOLO INJURY LAWYERS
         7852 Walker Drive, Suite 300
         Greenbelt, MD 20770
         Telephone: (855) 409-8158
         E-mail: tteodori@chasenboscolo.com

                - and –

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

GLOBAL TELLINK: Albert Appeals Ruling in RICO Suit to 4th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Ashley Albert, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ASHLEY ALBERT, ASHLEY
BAXTER, KARINA JAKEWAY, and MELINDA JABBIE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GLOBAL
TEL*LINK CORP.; SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; and 3CINTERACTIVE CORP.,
Defendants, Case No. 8:20-cv-01936-PWG, in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland at Greenbelt.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this class
action was brought against the Defendants for violations of Section
1 of Sherman Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

According to the complaint, beginning on January 1, 2013, and
continuing through the present, the Defendants and their
co-conspirators entered into a continuing agreement, understanding,
and conspiracy to do the following acts: (1) restrain trade in
inmate calling services (ICS) market to prevent and eliminate price
competition over single calls between Securus and Global Tel*Link
(GTL); (2) fix, inflate, maintain, and stabilize the prices of
single call options for inmates such as PayNow, Text2Connect,
Collect2Card and Collect2Phone calls charged to consumers by the
Defendants in the United States; and (3) delay, diminish and
deprioritize the introduction of a lower-priced alternative to
3CI-operated single calls that had been developed by GTL. As a
result of the Defendants' anticompetitive scheme, the Plaintiffs
and Class members have been injured and will continue to be injured
in their businesses and property by paying more for PayNow,
Text2Connect, Collect2Card and/or Collect2Phone calls than they
would have paid and will pay in the absence of the illegal
agreements and conspiracy.

On April 13, 2022, Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby entered an Order
denying Plaintiffs' motion to amend/correct complaint; granting
Plaintiffs' motion for entry of partial final judgment; entering
Final Judgment as to Plaintiffs' RICO claims; staying case pending
the resolution of Plaintiffs' appeal; and directing parties to file
a joint status report within 14 days after the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issues the mandate on Plaintiffs'
appeal.

The appellate case is captioned as Ashley Albert v. Global TelLink
Corp., Case No. 22-1472, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit, filed on April 29, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants ASHLEY ALBERT, ASHLEY BAXTER, KARINA JAKEWAY,
and MELINDA JABBIE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Benjamin Doyle Brown, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20005-3965
          Telephone: (202) 589-2288

               - and -                

          Matthew Keith Handley, Esq.
          Rachel Nadas, Esq.
          HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
          200 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 559-2411

               - and -

          Hannah E.M. Lieberman, Esq.
          WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE
          700 14th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 319-1000 x130

Defendants-Appellees GLOBAL TELLINK CORP., SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES,
LLC, and 3CINTERACTIVE CORP. are represented by:

          Jonathan Ian Gleklen, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001-3743
          Telephone: (202) 942-5454

               - and -

          C. Scott Lent, Esq.
          Javier Ortega, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          250 West 55th Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 836-8000

               - and -

          R. Brendan Fee, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-5136

               - and -

          Elizabeth B. Herrington, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
          110 North Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 324-1000

               - and -

          Jason Robert Scherr, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
          1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004-2541
          Telephone: (202) 373-6709

               - and -

          Colette T. Connor, Esq.
          Jonathan Bradley Pitt, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          725 12th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434-5170

GOLDEN MARGARITA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alexander Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHAUNCEY ALEXANDER; and MEGAN KRAJEWSKI, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOLDEN
MARGARITA LLC; ARDOR CONCEPTS LLC; SARAJ GEM RAY; and JANE DOE RAY,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00781-DWL (D. Ariz., May 6, 2022) is
an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages
and overtime compensation.

Plaintiff Alexander was employed by the Defendants as bar manager
and human resource administrator. Plaintiff Krajewski was employed
as server.

GOLDEN MARGARITA LLC owns and operates a restaurant. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clifford P. Bendau,II, Esq.
          Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
          BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
          Phoenix, AZ 85060
          Telephone: (480) 382-5176
          Facsimile: (480) 304-3805
          Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
                 chris@bendaulaw.com

GOLFBALLS.COM INC: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Golfballs.com, Inc.
The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Golfballs.com, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03657 (S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2022).

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

Golfballs.com -- https://www.golfballs.com/ -- offers the newest
golf balls, golf clubs, apparel and more from the top brands in
golf.[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


GPO FEDERAL: Tilbe Sues over Improper Charge of Overdraft Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
SONDRA TILBE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GPO FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case
No. 6:22-cv-00472-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022) is an action
rising from the Defendant's routine practice of assessing an
overdraft fee ("OD Fee") on transactions that did not actually
overdraw checking accounts.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class have been
injured by the Defendant's improper practices to the tune of
millions of dollars bilked from their accounts in violation of the
Defendant's clear contractual commitments.

The Plaintiff and the Class seeks to end the Defendant's abusive
and predatory practices and force it to refund all of these
improper charges. The Plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of
contract, including breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief.

GPO FCU is engaged in the business of providing retail banking
services to consumers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

GRADY-WHITE BOATS: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grady-White Boats,
Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Grady-White Boats, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-03643 (S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2022).

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

Grady-White Boats -- https://www.gradywhite.com/ -- has a legendary
reputation for designing and producing outstanding fiberglass boats
with exceptional attention to detail.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
          155 East 55th St., Ste. 6a
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: brad@markslawpc.com


GREAT HUDSON: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Great Hudson Sailing Center,
Inc. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated v. Great Hudson Sailing
Center, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03644 (S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2022).

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

Great Hudson -- http://www.greathudsonsailing.com/-- is the Tri
State area's premier dealer for Beneteau sailboat and outboard
models.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
          155 East 55th St., Ste. 6a
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (646) 770-3775
          Fax: (646) 867-2639
          Email: brad@markslawpc.com


H&J LIQUIDATORS: Zinnamon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against H&J Liquidators and
Closeouts, Inc. The case is styled as Warren Zinnamon, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. H&J Liquidators and
Closeouts, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03731 (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2022).

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

H&J Liquidators and Closeouts, Inc. -- https://www.hjcloseouts.com/
-- specializes in selling quality closeout merchandise at the best
prices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HALFTIME BAR: Zepeda Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
DELMY JUDITH LOPEZ ZEPEDA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HALFTIME BAR & GRILL CORP. d/b/a
TRYSEAFOOD BAR & GRILL and REGINA MENDEZ, as an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02355 (E.D.N.Y., April 26, 2022) seeks
to recover damages for Defendants' egregious violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor laws and redress for the
injuries Plaintiff suffered as a result of being sexually harassed,
sexually assaulted and discriminated against by Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
proper minimum and overtime wages, failed to pay spread of hours
compensation, and failed to provide with a written notice and wage
statements. She also experienced being discriminated by the
Defendants by subjecting her to a hostile work environment, in the
form of sexual harassment and sexual assault due to her sex.

The Plaintiff was employed by Halftime Bar & Grill Corp. d/b/a
TrySeafood Bar & Grill, as a cook and food preparer while
performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants, from
April 2021 until December 2021.

Halftime Bar & Grill Corp. is a New York domestic business
corporation, organized under the laws of the State of New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

HAROLD CLARKE: Court Tosses Lumumba's Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASKARI DANSA LUMUMBA, et
al., v. HAROLD CLARKE, et al., Case No. 7:22-cv-00080-MFU-JCH (W.D.
Va.), the Hon. Judge Michael F. Urbanski entered an order:

   1. denying Lumumba's motion for class certification;

   2. granting Rose's motion to be removed from the case;

   3. directing the Clerk to update the docket to reflect that
      Lumumba is the only plaintiff in this case; and

   4. directing the Clerk to send a copy of the order to Lumumba
      and the other four inmates.

Askari Dansa Lumumba, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed
this civil action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 on behalf of himself
and four other inmates at River North Correctional Center,
including Thomas Rose.

The case is presently before the court on Lumumba's motion for
class certification, and Rose's motion to be removed from
the case As an initial matter, the court notes that the complaint
is only signed by Lumumba. There is no indication that any of the
other named plaintiffs authorized Lumumba to include them in the
case. To the contrary, Rose's motion indicates that he "was not
made aware that he was a party."

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


HAWAII SEA SPIRITS: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hawaii Sea Spirits
LLC. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Hawaii Sea Spirits LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-03673 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022).

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

Hawaii Sea Spirits LLC -- https://hawaiiseaspirits.com/ -- is
located in Kula, Hawaii and is part of the Beer, Wine, and Liquor
Stores 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


HEALTH WARRIOR: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Health Warrior, Inc.
The case is styled as Roberta Feliz, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Health Warrior, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03690 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022).

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

Health Warrior -- https://www.healthwarrior.com/ -- is a natural
food company selling nutrition bars and other healthy snacks.[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


HIGH BREW COFFEE: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against High Brew Coffee,
Inc. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. High Brew Coffee, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-03667 (S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2022).

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

High Brew Coffee -- https://www.highbrewcoffee.com/ -- is a direct
trade, ready-to-drink, cold brew coffee for those who do. 100% All
Natural ready-to-drink Cold-Brewed coffee born in Austin,
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



HONEYWELL ASBESTOS: N.J. Federal Court Approves Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
harrismartin.com reports that a New Jersey federal court has
granted final approval of a $10 million settlement of a securities
class action accusing Honeywell International of understating its
asbestos liabilities, finding the settlement and allocation plan
are "fair, reasonable and adequate."

In a May 3 order, the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey further found the certification of a class for settlement
purposes is appropriate.

In 1999, Honeywell acquired Bendix friction materials and as a
result faced substantial liabilities due to Bendix's use of
asbestos in its automobile brakes.

Honeywell shareholders filed the instant securities fraud.[GN]

HOOVESTOL INC: Court Sets Class Certification Briefing Schedule
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS HARDWICK, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. HOOVESTOL, INC., a
Minnesota corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-07505-DMG-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Dolly M. Gee Judge
entered an order approving stipulation setting briefing schedule on
plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Court further approves the modifications in the briefing
schedule on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification as follows:

                 Matter            Current           New
                                   Date              Date

-- Class Certification         April 15, 2022    July 11, 2022
   Motion:

-- Opposition to Class         May 6, 2022       August 2, 2022
   Certification Motion

-- Reply in Support of Class   May 20, 2022      August 15, 2022
   Certification Motion

-- Hearing on Class            June 3, 2022      Sept. 2, 2022
   Certification Motion

Hoovestol offers postal service contracting services.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yrIkW5 at no extra charge.[CC]

HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Torrano Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
GREG TORRANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HORIZON ACTUARIAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01674-ELR (N.D. Ga., April 28, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard sensitive personally identifiable information provided by
and belonging to its customers, including, without limitation,
names, dates of birth, health plan information, and Social Security
numbers.

On November 12, 2021, Horizon received an email from a group
"claiming to have stolen data from its computer servers" on
November 10, 2021 and November 11, 2021. On January 9, 2022 Horizon
determined the information contained the sensitive information of
individuals and preliminary list of individuals affected by the
said data breach including Plaintiff. Despite learning of the data
breach in November 2021, Horizon waited to begin informing Class
Members until roughly January 13, 2022, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons whose
personal information was compromised as a result of the Defendant's
failure to: (i) adequately protect the personal information of
Defendant's customers; (ii) warn Defendant's customers of
Defendant's inadequate information security practices; and (iii)
effectively secure hardware containing protected personal
information using reasonable and effective security procedures free
of vulnerabilities. The Defendant's alleged conduct amounts to
negligence and violates federal and state statutes, says the
complaint.

Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC provides technical and actuarial
consulting services for benefit plans in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory J. Bosseler, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          191 Peachtree St. NE Suite 4200
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 496-7318
          E-mail: GBosseler@ForThePeople.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.  
          Kenya Reddy, Esq.
          Patrick Barthle, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
                  kreddy@ForThePeople.com
                  pbarthle@ForThePeople.com

HV GLOBAL: Case Management Order Entered in Ramirez Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NELSON RAMIREZ v. HV
GLOBAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-09955-BLF
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered a case
management order as follows:

   1. The presumptive limits on discovery set forth in the
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to this case
      unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

   2. The deadline for joinder of any additional parties, or
      other amendments to the pleadings, is 60 days after entry
      of this order unless stated otherwise below.

   3. The deadline for the parties to meet, confer, and submit a
      stipulation and order setting all deadlines not set by the
      Court below, including discovery cut-offs and expert
      disclosure deadlines, is May 6, 2022.

   4. All disputes with respect to disclosures or discovery are
      referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge.

   5. Unless previously ordered or stipulated, the parties shall
      meet and confer further in order to reach an agreement on
      an ADR process within 10 days of the date of this Order.
      Within that same time frame, the parties shall either (1)
      file the form entitled "Stipulation and (Proposed) order
      Selecting ADR Process" if an agreement is reached, or (2)
      file the form entitled "Notice of Need of ADR Phone
      Conference".

   6. The parties shall comply with the Court's standing orders,
      which are available on the Court’s website and in the
      Clerk’s Office.

   7. The Parties are to meet and confer regarding Early Private
      Mediation.

   8. the following schedule and deadlines shall apply to this
      case:

                    Event                  Date or Deadline

    -- Last Day to Request Leave to        60 Days from
       Amend the Pleadings per             Date of this Order
       F.R.Civ.P 15

    -- Last Day File Motion Class          April 7, 2023
       Certification:

    -- Last Day to Hear Dispositive        May 23, 2024
       Motions:

    -- Final Pretrial Conference           Aug. 29, 2024

    -- Trial                               Sept. 30, 2024

A copy of the Court's order dated April 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3P5qFJG at no extra charge.[CC]

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Hit With Class Lawsuit for Oil-Burning Engines
-------------------------------------------------------------
Some owners of Hyundai/Kia products are up in arms about oil - and
not the price of it on the world's markets. A cadre of eight people
in America, ranging in location from California to Texas to
Massachusetts, have brought forth a class-action lawsuit earlier
this year alleging the engines in certain Hyundai and Kia vehicles
consume inordinate amounts of oil. At issue is the apparent need to
add engine oil more frequently than the owner's manual suggests,
plus the allegation that some of the wayward oil finds its way into
other parts of the vehicle's gubbins to cause extra damage.

As per the suit, filed by Nye Stirling Hale And Miller; Sauder
Schelkopf LLC and Walsh PLLC, plaintiffs contend the defendants
"concealed and failed to address" a known manufacturing defect that
results in excessive engine oil consumption and can lead to engine
stalling and failure. Plaintiffs say that overfilling the engine
with oil isn't a good solution since the chance exists of
submerging the crankshaft, a situation which could foam the oil and
reduce lubrication. There's also the issue of extra oil potentially
putting undue strain on gaskets and the like.

Elsewhere in this neck of the woods, Hyundai recently expanded an
existing recall by over 150,000 vehicles in Canada due to potential
problems which could pose a fire risk or lead to the engine
suddenly losing power. That defect could be linked to worn
connecting rod bearings.

If you're seeking for a text of the new class-action suit in its
entirety, it can be found by searching Cho et al v. Hyundai Motor
Company, Ltd. et al. or the clinically impersonal file name of
8:22-cv-00448.

There are a wide variety of Hyundai and Kia models named in the
suit, some going back so far as 2009. According to the suit, cars
with the allegedly faulty engines include:

2012-2020 Hyundai Elantra
2009-2018 Hyundai Genesis Coupe
2019-2021 Hyundai Kona
2020-2021 Hyundai Palisade
2010-2012 Hyundai Santa Fe
2015-2021 Hyundai Santa Fe
2009-2010 Hyundai Sonata
2015-2021 Hyundai Sonata
2011-2021 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid
2010-2013 Hyundai Tucson
2015-2021 Hyundai Tucson
2011-2021 Hyundai Veloster
2020-2021 Hyundai Venue
2010-2021 Kia Forte
2017-2020 Kia Niro
2011-2020 Kia Optima and Optima Hybrid
2012-2021 Kia Rio
2011-2020 Kia Sorento
2012-2021 Kia Soul
2011-2020 Kia Sportage
2018-2021 Kia Stinger
2022 Kia K5

To find out if your car is affected or covered by a recall
campaign, you can check online at Transport Canada, using your VIN.
[GN]

ILLINOIS INSTITUTE: Hernandez Appeals Case Dismissal to 7th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Omar Hernandez filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled OMAR HERNANDEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ILLINOIS
INSTITUTE of TECHNOLOGY, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-3010, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.

Plaintiff Hernandez, a student at Illinois Institute of Technology
(IIT), brought a complaint, individually and as a class action,
against IIT following IIT's decision to transition to remote
instruction in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

IIT is a nonprofit higher education institution with a campus in
Chicago, Illinois. In Spring 2020, Hernandez was enrolled as a
full-time student at IIT, and had paid his Spring 2020 tuition and
mandatory fees for the semester.

On March 9, 2020, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, in response to
the COVID-19 pandemic, issued a disaster proclamation for the State
of Illinois. On March 20, 2020, Governor Pritzker issued Executive
Order 2020-10. The March 20 Executive Order, among other things,
ordered citizens to stay at home, prohibited public gatherings, and
closed public schools.

In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, on March 12, 2020, IIT, along
with most universities and colleges across the United States, moved
from in-person to online instruction. Specifically, IIT told its
students that all classes would be moving to an on-line only format
following spring break and strongly encouraged all students to
"make plans not to return to campus until further notice and finish
the semester from home, if at all possible." That same week, IIT
closed all its libraries and the SportsCenter.

On March 20, 2020, students were prohibited from returning to
campus absent extraordinary circumstances, and those who had
returned to campus were restricted to their dorms, dining halls,
and travel for essential services only. During the campus closure,
Hernandez and other IIT students continued to receive academic
instruction online, but did not have access to campus facilities or
other in-person campus events and opprotunities.

On May 20, 2020, Hernandez, individually and on behalf of others,
brought a five-count complaint against IIT. Hernandez subsequently
filed a first amended complaint (FAC). IIT moved to dismiss the FAC
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (R. 35), which the Court granted in a
Memorandum Opinion and Order (FAC Order). The Court allowed
Hernandez leave to file a second amended complaint (SAC).

Hernandez filed a SAC, once again asserting five counts against IIT
in an individual and class action lawsuit. Count I alleges breach
of contract (Tuition Class); Count II asserts an unjust enrichment
claim in the alternative (Tuition Class); Count III asserts a
breach of implied contract in the alternative (Tuition Class);
Count IV alleges a breach of contract (Fees Class): and Count V
asserts unjust enrichment in the alternative (Fees Class). IIT
moved to dismiss the SAC pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 20, 2022, Judge
Franklin U. Valderrama of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, dismissed the Plaintiff's
Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.

The Plaintiff is seeking a review of this ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as Omar Hernandez v. Illinois
Institute of Technology, Case No. 22-1741, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on April 29, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Transcript information sheet was due last May 13, 2022;

   -- Docketing Statement was due for Appellant Omar Hernandez last
May 6, 2022; and

   -- Appellant's brief due on or before June 8, 2022 for Omar
Hernandez.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant OMAR HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLC
          1301 Second Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292

               - and -

          Daniel John Kurowski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP
          455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (708) 628-4949

               - and -

          Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
          POULIN, WILLEY & ANASTOPOULO, LLC
          32 Ann Street
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Telephone: (843) 614-8888  

Defendant-Appellee ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY is represented
by:

          Hal R. Morris, Esq.
          SAUL EWING ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP
          161 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 876-7100

INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of June 24 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming June 24, 2022 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired "Properties, Inc. (""Properties" or the
"Company") (NYSE: IIPR) securities between May 7, 2020 and April
13, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you suffered a loss on your "Properties investments or would
like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your
loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
www.glancylaw.com/cases/innovative-industrial-properties-inc/. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On April 14, 2022, before market hours, Blue Orca Capital released
a report alleging, among other things, that "Properties is "a
marijuana bank masquerading as a [real estate investment trust
("REIT")]," and that the Company's model is "to conduct
sale-leaseback transactions with cannabis producers who are
otherwise prohibited from borrowing money because of federal
regulations."

On this news, the Company's stock fell $13.76, or 7.5%, to close at
$169.68 per share on April 14, 2022, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company's focus is to be a cannabis company
lender rather than a real estate investment trust; (2) that the
true values of the Company's properties are significantly lower
than "Properties represents; (3) existential issues in its top
customers; (4) that as a result, its top customers may not be able
to continue making payments to the Company, which would face
significant issues replacing these customers; and (5) as a result,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired "Properties securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than June
24, 2022 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]

INTERSTATE-RIM MANAGEMENT: Underpays Hotel Staff, Yurevich Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID YUREVICH JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERSTATE-RIM MANAGEMENT COMPANY,
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company operating at: DOUBLETREE
SAN PEDRO; INTERSTATE HOTELS & RESORTS, INC.; AIMBRIDGE
HOSPITALITY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV15046 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., May 5, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General
Act including failure to pay wages including overtime, failure to
pay all wages earned and owed upon separation from employment,
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to
accurately record and pay sick leave, and failure to reimburse
expenses.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a concierge in
approximately February 2016 and then front desk until in
approximately June 2021.

Interstate-Rim Management Company, LLC is a hotel management
company based in Texas.

Interstate Hotels & Resorts, Inc. is a hotel management company
based in Texas.

Aimbridge Hospitality, LLC is a hotel management company based in
Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         James R. Hawkins, Esq.
         Gregory Mauro, Esq.
         Michael Calvo, Esq.
         Lauren Falk, Esq.
         Ava Issary, Esq.
         JAMES HAWKINS APLC
         9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
         Irvine, CA 92618
         Telephone: (949) 387-7200
         Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
         E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                 Ava@jameshawkinsaplc.com

INTUIT INC: To Settle Texans' Suit Over Cash Over 'Free' TurboTax
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ksat.com reports that nearly a half-million Texans will be getting
a check from Intuit, the company behind TurboTax, after it settled
a multi-million dollar lawsuit centered on its "free" tax-filing
program.

Nationwide, nearly 4.4 million taxpayers will receive a piece of
the $141 million settlement. Texans will divvy up a $14 million
chunk.

Eligible Texas consumers should begin receiving their restitution
payments within the next few months,

Under the agreement, Intuit will make restitution to those who used
the commercial TurboTax Free Edition for tax years 2016 through
2018 and were told they had to pay to file even though they were
eligible for the version of TurboTax offered as part of the IRS
Free File program.

The multi-state investigation was sparked by a 2019 ProPublica
report that found the company was using deceptive practices to
steer low-income filers away from federally-supported free services
that they qualified for and toward the company's commercial program
instead.

"As part of the agreement, Intuit admitted no wrongdoing, agreed to
pay $141 million to put this matter behind it, and made certain
commitments regarding its advertising practices," Intuit posted.
"Intuit already adheres to most of these advertising practices and
expects minimal impact to its business from implementing the
remaining changes going forward."

People who bought certain Neutrogena and Aveeno sunscreens may be
able to claim a piece of a class action lawsuit settlement.[GN]


IQ DATA: Stewart Sues Over Illegal Recording of Phone Conversation
------------------------------------------------------------------
GIOVANNI STEWART, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. IQ Data International, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-00714 (C.D. Cal., April 26, 2022) is a
class action brought by the Plaintiff for damages, injunctive
relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies,
resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in causing to
be employed certain recording equipment in order to record the
telephone conversations of Plaintiff and the putative class members
without the knowledge or consent of Plaintiff and the putative
class, in violation of California Penal Code.

Between February 4, 2020 and April 14, 2020, Defendant placed three
phone calls to Plaintiff. The Plaintiff did not become aware the
beginning of the three calls were being recorded until Plaintiff
received the recordings in relation to another unrelated lawsuit on
March 9, 2022. He is informed and believes that Defendant was
attempting to collect a debt from him at the time of these phone
calls. The Plaintiff had allegedly fallen behind on Plaintiff's
rental payments and the purpose of Defendant's phone calls was to
collect payment from Plaintiff.

Allegedly, the Defendant violated Plaintiff's constitutionally
protected privacy rights by failing to advise or otherwise provide
notice at the beginning of the recorded conversations with
Plaintiff that the call would be recorded and Defendant did not try
to obtain the Plaintiff's consent before such recording.

IQ Data International, Inc. is a Washington based collection
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  ryan@kazlg.com

IRONNET INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of June 21 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against IronNet, Inc. ("IronNet" or the "Company") (NYSE:
IRNT) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired IronNet securities between September 15, 2021
and December 15, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors have until June 21, 2022 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On August 27, 2021, IronNet became a publicly traded company via a
merger with LGL Systems Acquisition Corp. ("LGL"), a blank check
company otherwise known as a special purpose acquisition vehicle
("SPAC"). Like other SPACs, LGL did not initially have any
operations or business of its own. Rather, it raised money from
investors in an initial public offering and then later used the
proceeds from the offering to acquire IronNet, which had been a
private company.

The complaint charges 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.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired IronNet 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]

IRONNET INC: Gross Law Reminds Investors of June 21 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders who purchased shares of IRNT during the class period
listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead
plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not
required to partake in any recovery.

ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose 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.

DEADLINE: June 21, 2022 Shareholders should not delay in
registering for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/ironnet-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=26377&from=4


NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of IRNT during the timeframe listed above, you
will be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you
with status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The
deadline to seek to be a lead plaintiff is June 21, 2022. There is
no cost or obligation to you to participate in this case.

WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is nationally recognized
class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of
all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and
illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to
ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices
and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery
on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or
misleading statements or the omission of material information by a
company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes. [GN]


ISOLA IMPORTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Valderrama Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RALPH VALDERRAMA, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ISOLA IMPORTS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02417 (N.D., Ill., May 6, 2022) seeks to recover
from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Valderrama was employed by the Defendant as warehouse
worker.

ISOLA IMPORTS, INC. owns and operates an Italian grocery store.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Ireland, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
          636 Spruce Street
          South Elgin, IL 60177
          Telephone: (630) 464-9675
          Facsimile: (630) 206-0889
          Email: attorneyireland@gmail.com

JACK ERWIN: Feliz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jack Erwin, Inc. The
case is styled as Roberta Feliz, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Jack Erwin, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03689 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022).

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

Jack Erwin -- https://www.jackerwin.com/ -- is a men's shoe crafter
operating in the retail 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


JACK WOLFSKIN: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jack Wolfskin North
America, Inc. The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jack Wolfskin North
America, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03655 (S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2022).

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

Jack Wolfskin North America -- https://us.jackwolfskin.com/ --
offers outdoor clothing, gear, and footwear.[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


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Seeks to Deny Certification of Claims in Hall
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK HALL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-01833-GC-TJB (D.N.J.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order considering the
Oppenheimer and Meadows Declarations, denying certification of
claims based on the February 5, 2018, and February 7, 2018, alleged
corrective disclosures in light of those Declarations, and denying
Plaintiff's motion for class certification in full for the
additional reasons stated in Defendants' prior class certification
briefing.

On April 15, 2022, the Defendants received the attached Declaration
of Terri Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer was the head writer of the
Mesothelioma.net blog and wrote the February 5, 2018, blog post
titled "Johnson & Johnson Mesothelioma Trial Likely to Expose
Company Documents.

On April 22, 2022, the Defendants received the attached Declaration
of Ted G. Meadows. Meadows is a principal at the law firm of
Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis, and Miles, P.C., and has
represented plaintiffs in product liability litigation against
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. and Johnson & Johnson regarding
talcum powder products, including Johnson's Baby Powder.

Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational corporation founded
in 1886 that develops medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and
consumer packaged goods.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38YtDPp at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN,
          BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Arthur C. Leahy, Esq.
          Robert R. Henssler Jr., Esq.
          Nathan R. Lindell, Esq.
          Hillary B. Stakem, Esq.
          Matthew J. Balotta, Esq.
          Laura Andracchio, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  artl@rgrdlaw.com
                  bhenssler@rgrdlaw.com
                  nlindell@rgrdlaw.com
                  hstakem@rgrdlaw.com
                  mbalotta@rgrdlaw.com
                  landracchio@rgrdlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jack N. Frost, Jr., Esq.
          FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          600 Campus Drive
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 549-7338
          E-mail: jack.frost@faegredrinker.com

               - and -

          Walter C. Carlson, Esq.
          Kristen R. Seeger, Esq.
          John M. Skakun III, Esq.
          Christopher Y. Lee, Esq.
          Neil H. Conrad, Esq.
          Abigail B. Molitor, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          E-mail: wcarlson@sidley.com
                  kseeger@sidley.com
                  jskakun@sidley.com
                  chris.lee@sidley.com
                  nconrad@sidley.com
                  amolitor@sidley.com

               - and -

          Robert M. Stern, Esq.
          ORRICK HERRINGTON &
          SUTCLIFF LLP
          Columbia Center
          1152 15th Street, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 339-1706
          E-mail: rstern@orrick.com

JUST COFFEE: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Just Coffee
Cooperative. The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Just Coffee Cooperative,
Case No. 1:22-cv-03676 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022).

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

Just Coffee Co-op -- https://justcoffee.coop/ -- is a worker-owned
coffee roaster dedicated to creating and expanding trade based on
transparency, human dignity and sustainability.[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


JUUL LABS: Clarksville-Montgomery Sues Over E-Cigarette Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------------
CLARKSVILLE-MONTGOMERY COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.
F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02707-WHO (N.D. Cal., May
5, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of the Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Clarksville-Montgomery County School System is a unified school
district with its offices located at 621 Gracey Avenue in
Clarksville, Tennessee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

KEURIG DR PEPPER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Kraemer Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CANDICE KRAEMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. KEURIG DR PEPPER, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-10685 (D. Mass., May 5, 2022) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Kraemer was employed by the Defendant as staff.

KEURIG DR PEPPER INC. manufactures and distributes non-alcoholic
beverages. The Company offers soft drinks, juices, teas, mixers,
water, and other beverages. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelsey Raycroft Rose
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          12 Ericsson St., Ste. 2F
          Boston, MA 02122
          Telephone: (857) 383-4903
          Facsimile: (857) 383-4928
          Email: kraycroftrose@forthepeople.com

               -and-

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          8151 Peters Rd., Ste. 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) WORKERS
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
          Email: afrisch@forthepeople.com

               -and-

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

L.L. BEAN: Dawkins Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against L.L. Bean, Inc. The
case is styled as Elbert Dawkins, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. L.L. Bean, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02626 (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022).

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

L.L.Bean -- https://www.llbean.com/ -- is an American, privately
held retail company founded in 1912 by Leon Leonwood Bean
specializing in clothing and outdoor recreation equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Martine Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sandy Martine, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals v. Laboratory Corporation of America
doing business as: Labcorp, a Delaware corporation, Case No.
ECU002318 was removed from the Superior Court of California,
Imperial County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on May 4, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00631-BEN-WVG to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for the Consumer Leasing
Act.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, more commonly known as
Labcorp -- https://www.labcorp.com/ -- operates one of the largest
clinical laboratory networks in the world, with a United States
network of 36 primary laboratories.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael M. Maddigan, Esq.
          Poopak Nourafchan, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 785-4600
          Fax: (310) 785-4601
          Email: michael.maddigan@hoganlovells.com
                 poopak.nourafchan@hoganlovells.com


LAKEVIEW LOAN: Villanueva Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Villanueva, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:22-cv-02607 (N.D. Cal., April 28, 2022) is
brought against the Defendant for negligence, breach of contract,
breach of implied contract, and violations of the California
Consumer Privacy Act, California Customer Records Act, California
Constitution's Right to Privacy, and the Unfair Competition Law.

On October 27, 2021, an unauthorized party began unlawfully
accessing Defendant's files on Defendant's file storage servers.
The files that were accessed contained sensitive personal
information (PI) of Plaintiff and putative class members, causing
their sensitive and confidential personal information to be
illegally exposed including their first and last names, mailing
addresses, loan numbers, and Social Security numbers, and other
information in connection with loan services.

According to the complaint, in addition to the glaring delay in
providing notice, the Defendant's notice is not legally compliant
in that it does not detail whether the information was exfiltrated,
unlawfully disclosed, or accessed as a result of the breach, says
the suit. As a result of Defendant's alleged failure to provide
reasonable and adequate data security, Plaintiff's and putative
class members' personal information has been exposed to those who
should not have access to it.

The Plaintiff is customer of Defendant, who in turn, services
Plaintiff's rights to her mortgage loan.

Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC is an American mortgage loan
servicer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
          Nicolas W. Tomas, Esq.
          LEBE LAW, APLC
          777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90021
          Telephone: (213) 444-1973
          E-mail: jon@lebelaw.com
                  nicolas@lebelaw.com

LIBERTY POWER: Court Tosses Sapan Bid for Sub-Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL SAPAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY POWER
CORP, LLC, LIBERTY POWER SUPER HOLDINGS, LLC, LIBERTY POWER
HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 8:21-cv-01749-MEMF-KES (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong entered an order denying
motion for sub-class certification.

On October 21, 2021, the Plaintiff Sapan, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, filed the instant suit against
the Defendants. Mr. Sapan alleges one cause of action 6 against the
Liberty Power Defendants for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA).

On October 28, 2021, Sapan effectuated service of process. On
November 16, 2021, Sapan filed proofs of service with the Court as
to all Liberty Power Defendants.

On December 2, 2021, the clerk entered default. On December 3,
2021, the Court ordered Sapan to file a Motion for Default Judgment
no later than January 3, 2022. On January 3, 2022 Sapan filed a
Motion to Certify Class Action. On January 24, 2022, Liberty Power
Holdings filed a Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default.

On February 10, 2022, pursuant to an Order of the Chief Judge, this
case was reassigned to this Court. On February 14, 2022, the Court
issued a Reassignment Order vacating all pending law and motion
hearing dates. On March 1, 2022, pursuant to the Court's
Reassignment Order, the parties submitted a joint case management
statement.

Liberty Power offers utility services. The Company retails
electricity to residential and commercial sectors.

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


MAHA INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Pay, Kim Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
HYUN JIN KIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAHA, INC. d/b/a MIDORI JAPANESE RESTAURANT;
and BONG HEE MA, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02375 (N.D., Ill.,
May 5, 2022) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay
the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Kim was employed by the Defendants as server.

MAHA, INC. d/b/a MIDORI JAPANESE RESTAURANT operates a restaurant
offering Bento boxes, nigiri, maki, soup, and other Japanese
dishes. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MALLINCKRODT PLC: Barrack Rodos Reminds of June 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND SETTLEMENT HEARING

TO: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Mallinckrodt plc ("Mallinckrodt") common stock during the period
from October 6, 2015 through November 6, 2017, inclusive, and
allegedly suffered damages as a result.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, MALLINCKRODT,
ANY OTHER DEFENDANTS OR THEIR COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

ALL QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS NOTICE, THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, OR YOUR
ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO
LEAD COUNSEL OR THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR, WHOSE CONTACT INFORMATION
IS PROVIDED BELOW.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia, that the above-captioned litigation
(the "Action") has been preliminarily certified as a class action
for the purposes of settlement only on behalf of the Class, except
for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Class by
definition as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated May 18, 2021, as amended on July 22, 2021 (the
"Stipulation").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Lead Plaintiff, on behalf of itself
and all members of the Class, and Mallinckrodt, Mark C. Trudeau,
and Matthew K. Harbaugh (collectively, "Defendants") have reached a
proposed settlement of the Action for $65,750,000.00 in cash (the
"Settlement") payable from the proceeds of certain D&O Policies, as
defined in the Stipulation, that, if approved, will resolve all
claims asserted against the Released Defendant Parties (identified
in the Notice referred to below).

A hearing will be held on July 28, 2022 at 10 a.m. before the
Honorable Dabney L. Friedrich at the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia, 333 Constitution Avenue, Courtroom
14, Washington D.C. 20001, or as may be undertaken via a remote
proceeding such as Zoom or by telephone, for the following
purposes: (a) to determine whether the proposed Settlement, on the
terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation, is fair,
reasonable and adequate, and should be approved by the Court; (b)
to determine whether a Judgment substantially in the form attached
as Exhibit 5 to the Preliminary Approval Order should be entered
dismissing the Action and all claims asserted against the
Defendants therein, with prejudice, and releasing all Released
Claims as against the Released Parties (as defined in the
Stipulation); (c) to determine whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation for the proceeds of the Settlement is fair and
reasonable and should be approved; (d) to determine whether the
motion by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be approved; and (e) to
consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the
Court in connection with the Settlement ("Settlement Hearing"). The
Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing without
providing another notice. Class Members should check the Settlement
Class website in advance of the Settlement Hearing to determine
whether that hearing will occur in person at the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia or via a remote link or
teleconference. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to
receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.

If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the full
Notice of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Expenses, and Settlement Hearing (the "Notice"), and the
Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Mallinckrodt
PLC Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 170707,
Milwaukee, WI 53217. Copies of the Notice and Proof of Claim and
Release Form can also be downloaded from the websites maintained by
the Claims Administrator, www.MallinckrodtSecuritiesLitigation.com,
and by Lead Counsel, www.barrack.com.

If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to
receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a
valid Proof of Claim and Release Form to the Claims Administrator
either online at www.MallinckrodtSecuritiesLitigation.com no later
than October 27, 2022 or via mail, postmarked no later than October
27, 2022. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper
Proof of Claim and Release Form, you will not be eligible to share
in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you
will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by
the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is
received no later than June 28, 2022, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude
yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be
eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement.

Any objections to (a) the Settlement, (b) the proposed Judgment,
(c) the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or (d) Lead Counsel's
request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
litigation expenses, including any request for reimbursement of
costs and expenses for Lead Plaintiff, must be filed with the Court
and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' counsel such that
they are received no later than June 28, 2022, in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the Notice. Objections may not be
submitted by persons who exclude themselves from the Class.[GN]

MARRIOTT INTERNATIOAL: Data Breach Suit May Proceed, Judge Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
bakersfield.com reports that a federal judge in Maryland has
granted class certification in a data breach impacting over 133
million American consumers against hotel chain Marriott (NASDAQ:
MAR) and its data security vendor Accenture (NYSE: ACN), clearing
the way for the litigation to move forward. The Court will allow
the case to proceed as a class action on behalf of the first group
of claimants the parties selected - an initial group of
approximately 45 million consumers in California, Connecticut,
Florida, Georgia, Maryland, and New York. The lawsuit stems from a
data breach Marriott discovered in 2018 after it acquired Starwood,
in which, by its own admission, 133.7 million guest records of
Starwood customers were compromised. Marriott acknowledged in 2019
that the records included approximately 5.25 million unencrypted
passport numbers and 20.3 million encrypted passport numbers, among
other sensitive personal information regarding hotel stays.

In granting class certification, Judge Paul Grimm of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Maryland issued a
70-plus page opinion that made clear he was certifying the case for
potential trial, rather than for a pending settlement (as occurs in
most other data breach cases). The opinion allows the plaintiffs to
seek damages related to overpayment for hotel rooms, as well as
statutory and nominal damages. The Court also found that consumers
might be able to recover damages for the inherent value of their
personal information stolen during the breach based upon Marriott's
own valuation of that same data.

DiCello Levitt Gutzler partner Amy Keller, Hausfeld partner James
Pizzirusso, and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll partner Andrew N.
Friedman are Co-Lead Plaintiffs' counsel in the case. They issued
the following joint statement:

"After three years of hard-fought litigation, the Court issued a
well-reasoned opinion which provides a path forward to hold
Marriott accountable for its egregious, four-year data breach.
While many companies do the right thing and work to help their
customers after a data breach, Marriott and Accenture chose to deny
responsibility, vigorously attempting to convince the Court that
they cannot be held liable to anyone impacted by the breach. We
look forward to presenting our evidence to a jury.

The valuation of personal information is still fairly new territory
for many Courts, and this is the first case to reach class
certification on the issue. While the Court precluded our expert on
this point, it also recognized that we might have the ability to
introduce the value that Marriott itself derived from its
customers' data at trial as a component of damages the class
sustained. The Court also accepted our experts' damages methodology
that Marriott and Starwood guests overpaid when making hotel
reservations because of substandard security. Finally, the Court
found that we could seek to recover nominal damages and statutory
damages in some states. Marriott and Accenture are facing
significant liability here, and we look forward to holding them to
their legal and moral responsibilities."

Filed in January 2018, the lawsuit alleges that Starwood, and later
Marriott, took more than four years to discover the long-running
data breach. Marriott became the world's largest hotel chain when
it acquired Starwood that same year.

Beginning in 2014 or earlier, and continuing through November 2018,
hackers exploited vulnerabilities in Starwood's network to access
the guest reservation system and steal customer data. Marriott
discovered the breach on September 8, 2018 but failed to publicly
disclose it until nearly three months later, on November 30, 2018,
when it admitted that there had been unauthorized access to the
Starwood guest reservation database. This database contained
personal customer information, including names, mailing addresses,
phone numbers, email addresses, passport numbers, Starwood
Preferred Guest account information, date of birth, gender, arrival
and departure information, reservation dates, and communication
preferences. For some customers, the information also included
payment card numbers and payment card expiration dates.

The case is In re:Marriott International, Inc. Customer Data
Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 19-md-2879 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Maryland. The Court's opinion
may be found here.

                 About DiCello Levitt

At DiCello Levitt Gutzler, we're dedicated to achieving justice for
our clients through class action, business-to-business, public
client, whistleblower, personal injury, and mass tort litigation.
Our lawyers are highly respected for their ability to litigate and
win cases - whether by trial, settlement, or otherwise-for people
who have suffered harm, global corporations that have sustained
significant economic losses, and public clients seeking to protect
their citizens' rights and interests. Every day, we put our
reputations-and our capital-on the line for our clients.

                        About Hausfeld

Hausfeld is a leading litigation law firm with offices in Boston,
New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., as
well as in the UK and continental Europe. In the last decade,
Hausfeld has won landmark trials, negotiated complex settlements,
and recovered billions of dollars for clients both in and out of
court. Hausfeld lawyers consistently apply forward-thinking ideas
and creative solutions to the most vexing global legal challenges
faced by clients. As a result, the firm's litigators have developed
numerous innovative legal theories that have expanded the quality
and availability of legal recourse for claimants around the globe.

                   About Cohen Milstein

Cohen Milstein is a premier, nationally renowned plaintiff-side law
firm. With over 100 attorneys in six offices in Washington, D.C.,
Chicago, Ill., New York, N.Y., Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.,
Philadelphia, Pa. and Raleigh, N.C., the firm engages in
groundbreaking and high-stakes class action litigation concerning
social and economic justice. Through the courts, we have helped our
clients hold bad-actors accountable, while establishing legal
precedent that may have a lasting and positive impact for future
generations. These efforts have led us to be recognized by the
industry as: "The most effective law firm in the United States for
lawsuits with a strong social and political component" by Inside
Counsel Magazine and a "Class-Action. [GN]

MERRILL GARDENS: Ramirez Suit Moved From C.D. to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARIA BUSTOS RAMIREZ, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. MERRILL GARDENS, LLC and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:22-cv-02584, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on
May 5, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-00542-DAD-SAB to the proceeding.

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

Merrill Gardens, LLC is an owner and operator of senior living
communities, headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [BN]

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

META PLATFORMS: Over 1.4M Illinois Users Could Receive Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Enji Erdenekhuyag at nbcchicago.com reports that more than 1.42
million Illinois residents who filed claims in the class-action
biometric privacy settlement against Facebook may soon receive a
share of $650 million.

Checks ranging from $200 to $400 will be mailed out in May
following the seven-year-long lawsuit.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
settlement in full March 17, upholding its approval from February
2021. The lawsuit alleged that Facebook broke the state's strict
privacy law by collecting and storing biometric data of users
without their consent through features including facial recognition
technology.

To be eligible for the payout, claimants must have been a Facebook
user for whom the website created and stored a facial recognition
template for after June 7, 2011. They also were required to have
lived in the state for at least six months over the previous nine
years.

The law firm of Jay Edelson, a Chicago attorney, first sued
Facebook for allegedly breaking Illinois' law in 2015. Two other
firms joined Edelson in accusing the website of failing to meet the
state's standard.

The three firms fronting the lawsuits said the social network never
told users that its photo tagging system used facial recognition
technology to analyze photos and create and store "face
templates."

A federal judge later grouped the cases together as a class-action
lawsuit on behalf of Illinois Facebook users who were stored among
the face templates.

Facebook changed its technology in 2019, replacing the tool with a
broader facial recognition setting, which was turned off by
default. The website announced it would shut down its recognition
software entirely in 2021.

Lawmakers passed the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act in
2008, requiring companies to obtain consent before collecting
biometric information. The policy requires companies to specify how
the information will be retained, and when it will be destroyed.
[GN]

METRO COMMUNICATION: Rios Sues Over Sales Staff's Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PABLO RIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. METRO COMMUNICATION USA LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02212 (N.D. Ill., April 28, 2022) is a civil action
brought under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, seeking damages
for Defendant's failure to pay plaintiff and similarly situated
employees time and one half the regular rate of pay for all hours
worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek.

Mr. Rios is a cellular telephone sales employee of Defendant, who
worked for Defendant in Illinois. He began working for Defendant on
June 10, 2020, to present.

Metro Communication USA LLC is a company engaged in the sale of
consumer electronics as a franchise of Metro by T-Mobile.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 W. Washington St., Ste. 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          Facsimile: (312 419-1025
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  msalas@flsalaw.com

               - and -

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621-2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
                  marbuckle@eeoc.net

MHC HERITAGE: Noel, Wiksten Seek to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL NOEL, KATHLEEN
WIKSTEN, and CLAIRE LADOUCEUR, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. MHC HERITAGE PLANTATION, LLC, and
EQUITY LIFESTYLE PROPERTIES, INC. f/k/a MANUFACTURED HOME , INC.,
Case No. 2:21-cv-14492-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the proposed Class;

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and
      their counsel as Class Counsel;

   3. directing notice of certification of the Class pursuant to
      Rule 23;, and

   4. granting such other and further relief as this Court deems
      appropriate.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have breached their duties to
the Class by failing to have an adequate stormwater drainage system
to serve the Heritage Plantation Mobile Home Park.

MHC and ELS are the owners and operators of the "Park" in Vero
Beach, Florida since 2003.

The Defendants "are a fully integrated owner of lifestyle-oriented
properties consisting of property operations and home sales and
rental operations primarily within manufactured home (MH)
communities." The Defendants own the land which they "lease to
customers who own manufactured homes," generally on an annual
basis.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert C. Gilbert, Esq.
          Daniel E. Tropin, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON
          WEISELBERG GILBERT
          2800 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Ste. 1100
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 384-7269
          E-mail: gilbert@kolawyers.com
                  tropin@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          FEGAN SCOTT LLC
          beth@feganscott.com
          150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 741-1019

               - and -

          Lynn A. Ellenberger, Esq.
          FEGAN SCOTT LLC
          500 Grant St., Suite 2900
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 346-4104
          E-mail: lynn@feganscott.com

MIDDLESEX WATER: Class Action Over Water Contamination Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
njbiz.com reports that in April, a New Jersey Superior Court
certified a class action lawsuit against Middlesex Water Co. -
Tomas Vera et al. v. Middlesex Water Co. - regarding contamination
of Middlesex County's water supply.

On May 4, Middlesex Water impleaded 3M Co. as a third-party
defendant in that case, claiming the corporation should be held
accountable, not the utility company, "for 3M's introduction of
PFAS into Middlesex Water's water supply at its Park Avenue
wellfield facility in South Plainfield."

In the announcement, the company stated, "the plaintiffs in Vera v.
Middlesex Water Co. have sued the wrong party, and failed to sue
the correct party responsible for the perfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS) placed into Middlesex Water Co.'s water supply - the 3M
Co."

"Middlesex Water Co. did not pollute its own water supply. The Vera
lawsuit is misguided, unnecessary, and even detrimental to the
interests of the very people whom these class action attorneys
represent," Jay Kooper, Middlesex Water's vice president, general
counsel & secretary, said in a statement. "Every dollar Middlesex
Water directs to this lawsuit is one less dollar realized from the
litigation with 3M that could spare the very Middlesex Water
customers the Vera attorneys claim to represent from having to pay
the cost to remediate the PFAS pollution for the long-term."

3M manufactures a vast array of products such as cookware,
cosmetics and carpet treatments-and has a plant in Flemington.

"3M acted responsibly in connection with products containing PFAS
and will vigorously defend its record of environmental
stewardship," Grant Hatcher Thompson, 3M's community engagement and
public relations specialist, responded to NJBIZ in an email.

Middlesex Water said it "took immediate action and initiated plans
to upgrade treatment at its Park Avenue facility in 2018, several
years before the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP) established and implemented a maximum contaminant level
regulation for PFAS. Also in 2018, Middlesex Water's thorough
investigation identified the polluter responsible for placing PFAS
into the Park Avenue facility - the 3M Co. - and immediately filed
a lawsuit to hold 3M accountable."

Legal website Lexology weighed in on the Vera case, stating,
"Middlesex previously brought suit against 3M alleging it is
responsible for the PFOA in the groundwater supply, and Middlesex
may eventually be able to recoup from 3M any damages stemming from
the Vera lawsuit. While there are numerous cases pending in New
Jersey against makers of PFAS chemicals including suits filed by
the State of New Jersey, this will be an interesting test case
involving PFAS related claims brought directly by consumers against
their water utility company."

Middlesex Water also noted it has made major capital improvements
to its plant and water transmission system in recent years. These
upgrades allowed it to take its Park Avenue facility offline to
ensure none of the water provided to customers exceeds the state's
maximum contaminant levels for PFAS.

"Since November, water continues to be supplied to customers from
this alternate source. In addition, Middlesex Water is in the
process of engineering an expanded temporary solution intended to
keep the water supply below New Jersey's maximum contaminant levels
while the Company completes construction of a water treatment
facility to ensure the regulatory standard can be met for the
long-term," the company added.

"At every step, Middlesex Water Co. has proactively acted to
protect the interests of its customers and to ensure the continued
provision of safe and reliable water service," Kooper added. "Part
of these actions has been to ensure that the party that caused the
exceedance of PFAS in Middlesex's water supply - 3M Co. - is the
party held responsible for the remediation of the water supply. We
call upon these class action attorneys in the Vera matter to do the
same." [GN]

MONTEREY FINANCIAL: May 26 Continuance of Class Cert Hearing Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFANY BRINKLEY v.
MONTEREY FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-01103-LL-WVG
(S.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order
continuing the hearing date on Plaintiff's motion for class
certification from May 12, 2022 to May 26, 2022, or a date
thereafter that is convenient to the Court, and that the Court
issue an order adopting the following briefing schedule on said
motion:

   1. Defendant's opposition is due on:         May 12, 2022

   2. Plaintiff's reply is due on:              May 19, 2022

Monterey Financial Services a full service receivables management
and finance company that tailors to the specific needs of your
business.

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Richard M. Scherer, Jr.
          LIPPES MATHIAS LLP
          50 Fountain Plaza, Suite 1700
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 853-5100
          Facsimile: (716) 853-5199
          E-mail: rscherer@lippes.com

               - and -

          Jeff Poole, Esq.
          HAMRICK & EVANS, LLP
          2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 1020
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (818) 763-5292
          Facsimile: (818) 763-2308
          E-mail: jpoole@hamricklaw.com

MUGHAL GENERAL: Sultan Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------
CHOUDHRY SULTAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MUGHAL GENERAL CONSTRUCTION INC. and
MOHAMMED RAMZAN, as an individual, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-02373 (E.D.N.Y., April 26, 2022) seeks to recover damages
for Defendants' egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor laws arising out of Plaintiff's
employment with the Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
at a wage rate of time and a half for his hours regularly worked
over 40 in a work week, failed to post notices of the minimum wage
and overtime wage requirements, failed to keep payroll records, and
failed to provide Plaintiff with a written notice and wage
statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a driver and roofer
while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants,
from February 1991 until December 2020 and from October 2021 until
March 2022.

Mughal General Construction Inc. is a building restoration service
in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Bragar Eagel Reminds of July 5 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Mullen Automotive, Inc. ("Mullen" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: MULN) in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Mullen securities between June 15,
2020 and April 6, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors have until July 5, 2022 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On April 6, 2022, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") published a
report addressing Mullen, entitled "Mullen Automotive: Yet Another
Fast Talking EV Hustle", calling the Company among the worst
electric vehicle ("EV") hustles that Hindenburg has seen in a
crowded field of contenders such as Nikola Corporation and
Lordstown Motors Corp. Among other things, Hindenburg observed that
"[d]espite only spending ~$3 million in R&D in 2021, Mullen claims
its solid-state battery technology is on track for
commercialization in 18 to 24 months, putting it [a]head of every
major technology and automaker in the industry who have
collectively invested billions on solving the problem." The
Hindenburg report also alleged that the Chief Executive Officer of
EV Grid, Inc. ("EV Grid"), which makes batteries and battery
management systems for vehicles, refuted a press release issued by
Mullen regarding test results for its battery, stating "[w]e never
would have said that" and "[w]e never did say it and certainly
wouldn't have said it based on the results of testing that
battery." Additionally, the Hindenburg report alleged that Mullen's
claims to be in a joint venture with NextMetals Ltd. ("NextMetals")
to create a solid-state battery were refuted by a NextMetals senior
executive who said it "'was a nonstarter' and 'didn't exist.'"

On this news, Mullen's stock price fell $0.07 per share, or 2.57%,
to close at $2.65 per share on April 6, 2022.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) Mullen overstates its ability and timeline regarding
production; (2) Mullen overstates its deals with business partners,
including Qiantu Motors; (3) Mullen overstates its battery
technology and capabilities; (4) Mullen overstates its ability to
sell its branded products; (5) Net Element did not conduct proper
due diligence into Mullen Technologies; (6) the Dragonfly K50 was
not (solely) delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic; and (7) as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Mullen 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]

MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Mullen Automotive, Inc. f/k/a Net Element, Inc.
(NASDAQ: MULN, NETE) between June 15, 2020 and April 6, 2022, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Mullen investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Mullen class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case-id=5459 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.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) Mullen overstates its ability and timeline regarding
production; (2) Mullen overstates its deals with business partners,
including Qiantu Motors; (3) Mullen overstates its battery
technology and capabilities; (4) Mullen overstates its ability to
sell its branded products; (5) Net Element did not conduct proper
due diligence into Mullen Technologies; (6) the Dragonfly K50 was
not (solely) delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic; and (7) as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 5,
2022. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case-id=5459 or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or
via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. 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. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.

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

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Burnett Wins Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT AND RHONDA BURNETT,
RYAN HENDRICKSON, JEROD BREIT, SCOTT TRUPIANO, AND JEREMY KEEL, on
behalf themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, REALOGY HOLDINGS CORP., OF
AMERICA, INC., BHH AFFILIATES, LLC, HSF AFFILIATES, LLC, RE/MAX
LLC, and KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., Case No. 19-CV-00332-SRB
(W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Stephen R. Bough entered an order
granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Court hereby certifies the following classes in accordance with
Rule 23:

   (1) the "Subject MLS Class," asserting Count I, defined as:

       All persons who, from April 29, 2015 through the present,
       used a listing broker affiliated with Home Services of
       America, Inc., Keller Williams Realty, Inc., Realogy
       Holdings Corp., RE/MAX, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, or BHH
       Affiliates, LLC, in the sale of a home listed on the
       Heartland MLS, Columbia Board of Realtors, Mid America
       Regional Information System, or the Southern Missouri
       Regional MLS, and who paid a commission to the buyer's
       broker in connection with the sale of the home;

   (2) the "Missouri Antitrust Law-Subject MLS Class," asserting
       Count III, defined as:

       All persons who, from April 29, 2015 through the present,
       used a listing broker affiliated with Home Services of
       America, Inc., Keller Williams Realty, Inc., Realogy
       Holdings Corp., RE/MAX, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, or BHH
       Affiliates, LLC, in the sale of a home in Missouri listed
       on the Heartland MLS, Columbia Board of Realtors, Mid
       America Regional Information System, or the Southern
       Missouri Regional MLS, and who paid a commission to the
       buyer's broker in connection with the sale of the home;
       and

   (3) the "MMPA Class," asserting Count II, defined as"

       All persons who, from April 29, 2014 through the present,
       used a listing broker affiliated with Home Services of
       America, Inc., Keller Williams Realty, Inc., Realogy
       Holdings Corp., RE/MAX, LLC, HSF Affiliates, LLC, or BHH
       Affiliates, LLC, in the sale of a residential home in
       Missouri listed on the Heartland MLS, Columbia Board of
       Realtors, Mid America Regional Information System, or the
       Southern Missouri Regional MLS, and who paid a commission
       to the buyer's broker in connection with the sale of the
       home.

Additionally, the Court further ordered that:

   (1) The Plaintiffs shall have up to an, including 14 calendar
       days from the filing of this Order to file a Third
       Amended Complaint for the purpose of adding as named
       plaintiffs individuals who sold their home using the CBOR
       and Southern Missouri Regional MLS;

   (2) the parties shall meet and confer to agree on the
       proposed notice to potential class members pursuant to
       Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B). The
       proposed notice shall be filed within fourteen (14)
       calendar days of the filing of this Order.

The Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit alleging anticompetitive trade
practices within the residential real estate market.

The Plaintiffs allege that NAR, created and implemented
anticompetitive rules which require home sellers to pay commission
to the broker representing the home buyer. The Plaintiffs also
allege that Defendants Home Services of America, Inc., Keller
Williams Realty, Inc., Realogy Holdings Corp., and RE/MAX, LLC's
enforce those rules through anticompetitive practices.

The Plaintiffs represent putative classes of home sellers who
listed their homes for sale on one of several regional real estate
listing marketplaces subject to NAR's and Corporate
Defendants'anticompetitive rules and practices.

A vast majority of residential real estate sales and purchases in
the United States are facilitated through a Multiple Listing
Service (MLS). An MLS is a centralized database of properties which
allows real estate brokers and agents to identify homes for sale
within a defined geographic region. In a typical real estate
transaction, the home seller retains a seller broker, and the home
buyer retains a buyer broker.

NAR is a national trade association of real estate brokers and
agents. NAR members consist of over 1,200 local realtor
associations or boards and fifty-four state and territorial realtor
associations.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kVp76Q at no extra charge.[CC]

NETFLIX INC: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Financial Statements
------------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Rella at entrepreneur.com reports that looks like it's more
bad news for Netflix as the company attempts to recover from a
brutal Q1 2022 earnings report and a record loss of about 200,000
subscribers.

Investors of the streaming giant have filed a class-action lawsuit
claiming that they have suffered "significant losses and damages"
on account of Netflix making "false and/or misleading" statements
about its business, prospects and financial results.

The complaint, which was filed in federal court in California,
involves shareholders that purchased stock between Oct. 19, 2021,
and April 19, 2022 (between Q4 2021 and Q1 2022).

Related: What's Going on With Netflix? Everything You Need to Know
About the Company's Massive Fall

In Netflix's Q3 2021 letter to shareholders, the company stated
that it was "excited to finish the year with what we expect to be
our strongest Q4 content offering yet, which shows up as bigger
content expense and lower operating margins sequentially," while
also claiming that the company was seeing the "positive effects of
a stronger slate in the second half of the year."

At the end of Q4, a similar letter to shareholders was released,
which stated that "even in a world of uncertainty and increasing
competition, we're optimistic about our long-term growth prospects
as streaming supplants linear entertainment around the world."

The company, however, did not go into detail about the dwindling
number of subscribers and subscriber growth, and shareholders
allege that Netflix's stock value was inflated as a result.

Related: Brutal Month for Netflix Ends With Anger: 'Netflix
Recruited Me Seven Months Ago Only to Lay Me Off'

The loss of 200,000 subscribers as announced during the company's
Q1 2022 earnings call (which is being blamed on an increase in
password sharing between accounts, a stronger streaming competition
subset and a price hike for members) was the company's biggest
dropoff in over a decade, sending its stock price down a whopping
26% during premarket trading hours that same day.

The investors involved with lawsuit are not the only shareholders
that are up in arms with Netflix as of late.

Billionaire investor Bill Ackman (head of Pershing Square Capital
Management) pulled his $1.1 billion investment into the streaming
giant (in the form of 3.1 million shares) after Q1 2022 earnings
were reported, just three months after his initial investment.

"While Netflix's business is fundamentally simple to understand, in
light of recent events, we have lost confidence in our ability to
predict the company's future prospects with a sufficient degree of
certainty," Ackman said in a letter to Pershing shareholders at the
time.

The streaming company was most recently under fire for laying off
around 25 employees at Tudum (Netflix's fandom site launched by the
company's marketing division) just last week.

Netflix was down another 6% in a 24-hour period. [GN]

NEW YORK: Lee Appeals Summary Judgment Bid Denial in Knight Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Chung Lee and Albert Acrish filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled HUGH KNIGHT, WAYNE STEWART,
and SHANNON DICKINSON, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-CV-7172, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (White
Plains).

Plaintiffs Knight, Stewart, and Dickinson are inmates in the
custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and
Community Supervision ("DOCCS") who require intermittent
catheterization.  

The Plaintiffs bring the Action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
1983, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
against DOCCS and several DOCCS medical officials: current Chief
Medical Officer ("CMO") John Morley; former Chief Medical Officer
Carl Koenigsmann; Shawangunk Correctional Facility Health Services
Director ("FHSD") Chung Lee; Nurse Practitioner ("NP") Albert
Acrish; and numerous John and Jane Doe medical professionals and
administrators.

Knight, Stewart, and Dickinson are all paraplegics and largely
wheelchair-bound, who do not have control over their bladder
function and thus require "intermittent catherization," that is,
the insertion and removal of a catheter several times a day to
empty the bladder. The Plaintiffs require a "steady supply" of
catheters -- at least 4 to 6 catheters per day -- and must also be
able to clean their hands and body parts in order to avoid
bacterial transfer that can develop into urinary tract infections.


On August 20, 2021, Defendants Chung Lee and Albert Acrish filed a
motion for summary judgment which the Court denied on March 30,
2022 through an Opinion and Order entered by Judge Kenneth M.
Karas.

The Defendants now seek a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Knight v. New York State
Department of Corrections, Case No. 22-964, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 29,
2022.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants Chung Lee, MD, and Albert Acrish, NP are
represented by:

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees Hugh Knight, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated; Wayne Stewart, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated; Shannon Dickinson, on behalf of
themselves and all otehrs similarly situated, are represented by:

          Amy Jane Agnew, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF AMY JANE AGNEW, P.C.
          24 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (973) 600-1724

NIELSEN HOLDINGS: Labaton Sucharow Discloses Settlement of Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
To: All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Nielsen Holdings plc publicly traded common stock during the period
from February 11, 2016 through July 25, 2018, inclusive, and were
damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class")

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that Lead Plaintiff Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi and additionally named
Plaintiff Monroe County Employees' Retirement System
("Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and all members of the
Settlement Class, and defendants Nielsen Holdings plc ("Nielsen"),
Dwight Mitchell Barns, Kelly Abcarian, and Jamere Jackson
(collectively, with Nielsen, "Defendants" and, together with
Plaintiffs, the "Parties"), have reached a proposed settlement of
the claims in the above-captioned class action (the "Action") and
related claims in the amount of $73,000,000 (the "Settlement").

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Jesse M. Furman, either
in person or remotely in the Court's discretion, on July 20, 2022,
at 4:00 p.m. in Courtroom 1105 of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall United
States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York, 10007 (the
"Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the Court should: (i)
approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated March 15, 2022;
(iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of
the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Net Settlement Fund") to
Settlement Class Members; and (iv) approve Lead Counsel's Fee and
Expense Application. The Court may change the date of the
Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely, without providing another
notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive
a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a full Notice and
Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting
the website for the Settlement, www.NielsenSecuritiesSettlement.com
or by contacting the Claims Administrator at:

Nielsen Securities Litigation
c/o Epiq
PO Box 5890
Portland, OR 97228-5890
www.NielsenSecuritiesSettlement.com
855-662-0033

Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of
a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel:

LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
Christine M. Fox, Esq.
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
settlementquestions@labaton.com
888-219-6877

If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than July 15,
2022. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit
a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless
be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court, whether
favorable or unfavorable.

If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice so that it is received no later than June 29, 2022. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court, whether
favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and
Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be
filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to
counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the
Notice, such that they are received no later than June 29, 2022.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL
REGARDING THIS NOTICE [GN]


NORTHEASTERN FINE: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northeastern Fine
Jewelry, Inc. The case is styled as Yelitza Picon, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Northeastern
Fine Jewelry, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03581 (S.D.N.Y., May 3,
2022).

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

Northeastern Fine Jewelry -- https://www.nefj.com/ -- is dedicated
to providing the finest quality jewelry for a great value with
unconditional devotion to customer satisfaction.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Fax: (212) 982-6284
          Email: nyjg@aol.com
                 michael@gottlieb.legal


NOVEX BIOTECH: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Novex Biotech, L.L.C.
The case is styled as Jose Mejia, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Novex Biotech, L.L.C., Case No.
1:22-cv-03668-ALC (S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2022).

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

Novex Biotech -- https://www.novexbiotech.com/ -- distributes,
markets, and sells Growth Factor-9, an over-the-counter amino acid
supplement marketed to boost human growth hormone.[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


OIL PRICE INFORMATION: Bogard Suit Transferred to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuits entitled BOGARD CONSTRUCTION INC., ET AL., Movants
v. OIL PRICE INFORMATION SERVICE, LLC, Respondent. SK ENERGY
AMERICAS, INC., ET AL., Movants v. OIL PRICE INFORMATION SERVICE,
LLC., Respondent, Case Nos. 8:21-cv-03005-PX, 8:21-cv-03193-PX (D.
Md.), Judge Paula Xinis of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland grants OPIS' motion to transfer the matter to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The consolidated matter is before the Court on a contested subpoena
issued by the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California related to In re California Gasoline Spot
Market Antitrust Litigation, 3:20-cv-03131-JSC (N.D. Cal.). Bogard
Construction, Inc., Asante Cleveland, Fricke-Parks Press, Inc.,
Justin Lardinois, Pacific Wine Distributors, Inc., Ritual Coffee
Roasters, Inc. (collectively, "Gasoline Plaintiffs") and SK Energy
Americas, Inc., and Vitol, Inc. (collectively, "Gasoline
Defendants") ask the Court to compel nonparty Oil Price Information
Service, LLC ("OPIS") to comply with the issued subpoenas.

OPIS moves to transfer the case to the federal district court that
issued the subpoena pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
45(f).

Background

The Gasoline Plaintiffs are purchasers of gasoline, who have filed
a price setting and market manipulation class action in the
Northern District of California ("California Action"), alleging
that the Gasoline Defendants have conspired to inflate artificially
prices for gasoline traded on wholesale "spot markets." The
Gasoline Plaintiffs more particularly contend that the Defendants
used an accidental explosion at a refinery in Torrance, California,
as an artifice to negotiating large gasoline supply contracts at
inflated rates. The Gasoline Defendants purportedly entered into
agreements with each other to manipulate prices, share the profits,
and disguise each other's wrongdoing.

OPIS is a private oil and gas price-reporting service headquartered
in Rockville, Maryland. OPIS "holds itself out as 'the most widely
accepted price benchmark' for supply contracts." OPIS obtains
pricing information "directly from market participants," from which
OPIS extracts "spot prices" through aggregating data reported on a
daily basis. The daily price reports are the industry pricing
benchmarks used by both buyers and sellers in California when
contracting for the sale of gasoline. The Gasoline Plaintiffs
maintain that the Gasoline Defendants manipulated OPIS' daily price
publication by conducting internal "trades" between
Defendant-companies to drive up the published prices in California
from 2015 through 2017. This alleged scheme has spawned much
litigation, all of which has been consolidated into the action
presently pending in the Northern District of California.

During the California Action, the Gasoline Plaintiffs subpoenaed
from OPIS documents, which reflect sales data on gasoline trades in
California, as well as OPIS and the Gasoline Defendants'
communications during the relevant period. Likewise, the Gasoline
Defendants issued a similar document subpoena to OPIS. After much
wrangling, OPIS has made clear that it would not produce records
under either subpoena.

OPIS' refusal prompted the Gasoline Plaintiffs to file a motion to
compel OPIS' compliance pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. The Gasoline Plaintiffs maintain the issue should
be resolved here because it is "OPIS' home district." The Gasoline
Defendants filed a separate Rule 45 motion to compel, and the Court
has consolidated both actions. In response, OPIS asks the Court to
transfer the matter to the Northern District of California.

Analysis

OPIS principally contends that because it consents to the transfer,
the Court should grant the motion. Although the parties try
mightily to complicate the analysis, it is straightforward, Judge
Xinis holds. Judge Xinis explains that Rule 45(f) states that this
Court may transfer a motion under this rule to the issuing court
upon consent of the nonparty. Given that that the prime concern
animating this rule is to avoid burdening local nonparties subject
to subpoenas, consent seems to obviate the need for such
protections.

In response, both the Gasoline Plaintiffs and Defendants argue that
although the focus of Rule 45 is to protect the subpoenaed party
from having to litigate any related dispute in a distant district,
the rule should not be read to afford the subpoenaed party a
"choice" of forum. But the rule plainly affords the nonparty a
modicum of choice; the nonparty may either litigate the motion in
the compliance district or consent to litigation in the issuing
district and seek transfer, Judge Xinis opines. OPIS has consented
to transfer, and the Court sees no impediment to granting that
request.

Alternatively, the Court finds that extraordinary circumstances
support the transfer request. For one, the issuing court has
presided over this especially complex matter for two years and so
is far better suited to address the propriety of the subpoena,
Judge Xinis opines. Second, OPIS seeks to quash the subpoena
because, in its view, the issuing court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the California Action. This contention cuts to
the heart of the issuing court's power to hear the case--a question
best suited for the court whose jurisdiction is being challenged.

OPIS' motion is granted. A separate Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated April 25,
2022, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s3c8f37 from
Leagle.com.


ON SPEC LLC: Mejia Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against On Spec LLC. The case
is styled as Richard Mejia, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. On Spec LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-03677
(S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022).

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

On Spec -- https://builtonspec.com/ -- is a NYC based studio that
develops and accelerates innovative consumer products and larger
then life brands.[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


OPACHS LLC: Faces Smith Suit Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
KADRYN SMITH and JOSEPH DABNEY, Individually, and on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated current and former
employees, Plaintiff v. OPACHS LLC, a Tennessee Limited Liability
Company, OSCAR PRUITT, Individually, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-02263-MSN-atc (W.D. Tenn., April 28, 2022) is brought
against the Defendants as a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other
damages owed to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and
former employees, and for retaliation because Defendants wrongfully
terminated Smith's employment.

Plaintiffs Smith and Dabney were employed by the Defendants as a
full time, hourly paid, non-exempt installation technician from
January 22, 2022 to April 20, 2022 and from February/March 2022 to
April 2022, respectively.

Opachs LLC owns and operates a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning services company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
          JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com

ORGANIC BY NATURE: Abreu Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Organic By Nature,
Inc. The case is styled as Luigi Abreu, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Organic By Nature, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-03653 (S.D.N.Y., May 5, 2022).

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

Organic By Nature, Inc. -- https://www.obncorp.net/ -- is a health,
wellness and fitness company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OZ MANAGEMENT: Prelim Pretrial Conference Order Entered in Wallis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH WALLIS, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OZ
MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., d/b/a CUSTOMER CONTACT SERVICE, INC., et
al., Case No. 3:21-cv-00290-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge
Stephen L. Crocker entered a preliminary pretrial conference
order:

  1. Motions & Briefs To Certify/            Sept. 2, 2022
     Decertify Classes:

     This is the deadline for
     plaintiffs to seek certification
     of a Rule 23 class or for
     Defendant to seek decertification
     of a conditional FLSA class

                       Responses:            Sept. 23, 2022

                       Replies:              Oct. 3, 2022

  2. Disclosure of experts:

                   Plaintiff:                Nov. 18, 2022

                   Defendants:               Dec. 1, 2022

  3. Deadline for filing dispositive         Jan. 13, 2023
     motions:

  4. Discovery Cutoff:                       April 21, 2023

  5. Settlement Letters:                     June 2, 2023

  6. Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and           June 9, 2023
     all motions in limine:  

                     Objections:             June 23, 2023

  7. Final Pretrial Conference:              July 5, 2023

  8. Trial:                                  July 17, 2023

OZ is a family-owned trucking and hauling business, aggregate
material supplier and project management consultants.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39ORaD3 at no extra charge.[CC]

PARKER JEWISH: Pezolano Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
KAYLA G. PEZOLANO, Plaintiff v. PARKER JEWISH INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH
CARE AND REHABILITATION, Defendant, Case No. 708907/2022 (N.Y.
Sup., Queens Cty., April 26, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, for
violations of General Business Law, arising from the Defendant's
vile and deceptive business practices.

According to the complaint, when Defendant admits consumers to its
facility, they utilize a form contract setting out the rights and
obligations of the facility, the resident and the resident's
representative. Although this adhesion contract drafted by the
Defendant's team of lawyers expressly states that the resident
representative is not personally liable for the cost of the
resident's care, the Defendant ignores the very language used in
its own form contract. Allegedly, the Defendant ruthlessly
endeavors to foist personal financial responsibility on folks who
are mourning the recent loss of a close friend or relative. During
this time, the Defendant ensures that the resident representatives
are bombarded with harassing collection letters and lawsuits that
name the resident representatives personally.

The complaint further asserts that the Defendant creates a
purported debt and then seeks to impose personal financial
liability upon Plaintiff and all others similarly situated through
the use of its deceptive admissions agreement to its facility.

Parker Jewish Institute for Health Care and Rehabilitation operates
a rehabilitation facility located in the City of New Hyde Park in
New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
          Ryan McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, A.P.C.
          48 Wall Street Suite 1100  
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          E-mail: ross@kazlg.com
                  ryan@kazlg.com

PECO FOODS: Carson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Poultry Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALLAN CARSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PECO FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-00113-KGB (E.D. Ark., May 5, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to compensate the Plaintiff and
similarly situated poultry workers overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid poultry
worker in Pocahontas, Arkansas from September of 2016 until April
of 2021.

Peco Foods, Inc. is an owner and operator of chicken processing
plants throughout Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Sean Short, Esq.
         Josh Sanford, Esq.
         SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
         Kirkpatrick Plaza
         10800 Financial Centre Pkwy., Suite 510
         Little Rock, AR 72211
         Telephone: (501) 221-0088
         Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
         E-mail: sean@sanfordlawfirm.com
                 josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

PERMANENT GENERAL: Connor, Pugh Seek Approval of Class Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DORINE L. CONNOR, and
MYRTLE E. PUGH, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, v. PERMANENT GENERAL ASSURANCE CORP., Case No.
9:20-cv-81979-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order approving proposed class notice.

By Order dated April 8, 2022, this Court certified a Rule 23(b)(3)
class and directed the parties to jointly file a motion seeking
approval of the proposed notice to Class Members by April 22, 2022.
The Plaintiffs propose the form and content of the Short Form and
Long Form notices.

The Plaintiffs initially moved for class certification on December
13, 2021. The Defendant responded in opposition on January 7, 2022.
The Court entered its order granting Plaintiffs' motion on April
11, 2022. The Court certified the following class:

   "All citizens residing in the State of Florida, who, within
   five years of the filing of this action, were (1) insured
   under an auto policy sold or issued by Permanent General
   containing the same or similar "Refund of Premium" provision
   under the policy's "Cancellation and Non-Renewal" section as
   found in Plaintiffs Connor's and Pugh's policies, and who (2)
   had their policies cancelled at the insured's request, and
   who (3) had paid a premium that was held by Permanent General
   and still unearned on the effective date of cancellation."

Permanent General operates as an insurance company.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Matthew Stephens, Esq.
          Robert G. Methvin, Jr., Esq.
          James M. Terrell, Esq.
          Courtney C. Gipson, Esq.
          METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY,
          STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C.
          2201 Arlington Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 939-0199
          Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
          E-mail: mstephens@mtattorneys.com
                  rgm@mtattorneys.com
                  jterrell@mtattorneys.com
                  cgipson@mtattorneys.com

               - and

          Jordan A. Shaw, Esq.
          Zachary D. Ludens, Esq.
          Zebersky Payne Shaw Lewenz
          110 Southeast 6th Street, Suite 2900
          Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
          Telephone: (954) 361-3134
          Facsimile: (954) 989-7781
          E-mail: Jshaw@zpllp.com
                  zludenz@zpllp.com

               - and

          R. Brent Irby, Esq.
          IRBY LAW, LLC
          2201 Arlington Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 936-8281
          E-mail: brent@irbylaw.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Reginald J. Clyne, Esq.
          Kimare S. Dyar, Esq.
          QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, P.A.
          9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., 4th Floor
          Miami, FL 33156


PHILLIPS & COHEN: Haston Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY HASTON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PHILLIPS & COHEN ASSOCIATES LTD., Case No. 2:20-cv-01069-WSS (W.D.
Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
class for settlement purposes and granting final approval of class
action settlement.

Phillips & Cohen is an international collections agency.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
          Kevin Tucker, Esq.
          Chandler Steiger, Esq.
          Stephanie Moore, Esq.
          EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC
          6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
          Pittsburgh, PA 15208
          Telephone: (412) 223-5740
          Facsimile: (412) 626-7101
          E-mail: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
                  ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
                  csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com
                  smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com

               - and -

          Eugene D. Frank, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE D. FRANK, P.C.
          3202 McKnight East Drive
          Pittsburgh, PA 15237
          Telephone: (412) 366-4276
          Facsimile: (412) 366-4305
          E-mail: efrank@edf-law.com

PILLPACK LLC: Williams Seeks to Certify Proposed Narrowed Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON WILLIAMS, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. PILLPACK LLC, Case
No. 3:19-cv-05282-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying a proposed narrowed class of:

      "All persons or entities within the United States who
      between March 13, 2018 and June 16, 2019, received a non‐
      emergency telephone call promoting goods and services on
      behalf of PillPack, LLC as part of the PillPack
      Performance Media campaign:

     (i) to a cellular telephone number through the use of an
         artificial or prerecorded voice; and

    (ii) Performance Media or its agents live transferred the
         call to a PillPack call center on the DNIS 866‐298‐
         0058; and

   (iii) Performance Media or its agents did not obtain the
         cellular telephone number through Rewardzoneusa.com,
         Nationalconsumercenter.com, or Surveyvoices.com between
         June 19, 2017 and May 3, 2019 before the date(s) of the
         call(s); and

    (iv) Performance Media or its agents did not obtain the
         cellular telephone number through the website
         Financedoneright.com before the date(s) of the call;"

   2. appointing Aaron Williams to serve as the class
      representative;

   3. appointing the Terrell Marshall Law Group, Smith &
      Dietrich Law Offices, and Paronich Law to serve as class
      counsel; and

   4. directing Mr. Williams to submit a proposed notice plan
      and form of notice within a reasonable time.

After the case was transferred, Judge Bryan denied without
prejudice Mr. Williams's motion to modify the class definition and
decertified the class because both parties agreed that discovery
revealed Mr. Williams did not fit within the class definition
written by Judge Zilly. Judge Bryan ruled that Mr. Williams's
proposed modified class definition, which encompassed hundreds of
thousands of class members, "attempts to bring in too many people"
2 but found that Mr. Williams "may be able to define a much
narrower class." Mr. Williams now seeks to certify a much narrower
class of 26,500 people who were called on their cell phones and
transferred to PillPack during the Performance Media campaign.

PillPack's success was fueled in large part by telemarketing. This
case is about PillPack's decision to hire Performance Media, a
telemarketer that didn't play by the rules. PillPack contracted
with Performance Media to run the prerecorded voice campaign at
issue from March 2018 through June 2019, the lawsuit says.

This case has been litigated extensively. Judge Zilly initially
certified a class much larger than the one Mr. Williams now seeks
to certify. The Court's description of the telemarketing campaign
that PillPack hired Performance Media to run remains accurate.

The Court's summary demonstrates how the common question regarding
PillPack's vicarious liability for the calls placed as part of the
Performance Media campaign will be resolved with common evidence --
PillPack's contract with Performance Media and the testimony and
documents of PillPack, its employees, and third parties.

PillPack LLC is an online pharmacy that sells a distinctive service
called multipacking. PillPack delivers multiple medications in a
single package labeled with the time and day the medications are to
be taken.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 22,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3shi7Wk
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq.
          Blythe H. Chandler, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103‐8869
          Telephone: (206) 816‐6603
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                  jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
                  amcentee@terrellmarshall.com
                  bchandler@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Walter M. Smith, Esq.
          Steve E. Dietrich, Esq.
          SMITH & DIETRICH LAW OFFICES PLLC
          3905 Martin Way East, Suite F
          Olympia, WA 98506
          Telephone: (360) 915‐6952
          E-mail: walter@smithdietrich.com
                  steved@smithdietrich.com

               - and -

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (617) 485‐0018
          Facsimile: (508) 318‐8100
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

PLAID INC: Settles Data Privacy Class Action Lawsuit for $58-M
--------------------------------------------------------------
topclassactions.com reports that Plaid Inc. has agreed to pay $58
million to end class action lawsuit claims that it violated data
privacy laws.

The settlement benefits any U.S. resident who owns or owned one or
more "financial accounts" accessed by Plaid, or for which Plaid
obtained their login credentials, between Jan. 1. 2013, and Nov.
19, 2021, and the Class Member was a U.S. resident at the time.

For purposes of this settlement, "financial accounts" refers to any
checking, savings, loan, or other account at a financial
institution that Plaid accessed using the user's login credentials
and connected to a mobile or web application enabling payments or
other money transfers, or for which a user provided financial
account login credentials to Plaid via Plaid Link.

Plaintiffs in the Plaid data privacy class action lawsuit alleged
the company acted improperly when it obtained users' financial
account login information.

Plaid Inc. works with more than 5,500 fintech partners, according
to its website, powering consumer-facing apps and other services.
Some of the more popular apps that use Plaid include Chime, Venmo,
and Stripe, among others.

While the exact amount of each Class Member's payment has not yet
been determined, each Class Member filing a valid claim will
receive an equal proportionate share of the $58 million settlement
fund after attorneys' fees and other expenses have been deducted.

Each Class Member may file one claim.

In addition, Plaid must also delete certain data from its systems,
inform Class Members of the ability to use Plaid Portal to manage
connections and delete data, minimize the data the company stores,
and take other measures.

A final approval hearing in the Plaid data privacy settlement will
take place May 12, 2022.

The deadline for Class Members to object to or exclude themselves
from the settlement is March 4, 2022.

Claim forms must be submitted no later than April 28, 2022.

Who's Eligible
Any U.S. resident who owns or owned one or more "financial
accounts" accessed by Plaid, or for which Plaid obtained their
login credentials, between Jan. 1. 2013, and Nov. 19, 2021, and the
Class Member was a U.S. resident at the time.

Potential Award
TBD.

Proof of Purchase
No proof of purchase required.

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

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

Claim Form Deadline
04/28/2022

Case Name
In re: Plaid, Inc. Privacy Litigation, Case No. 4:20-cv-03056-DMR
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Final Hearing
05/12/2022

Settlement Website
PlaidSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
In re: Plaid, Inc. Privacy Litigation
c/o Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
855-645-1115
Questions@PlaidSettlement.com

Class Counsel
Rachel Geman
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP

Shawn M. Kennedy
HERRERA KENNEDY LLP

Christopher J. Cormier
BURNS CHAREST LLP

Defense Counsel
Michael G. Rhodes
Whitty Somvichian
Kyle C. Wong
Lauren J. Pomeroy
Ellie Barczak
COOLEY LLP [GN]

POCHA POCHA: Park Sues Over Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
JIN YOUNG PARK and MI YOUNG PARK on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. POCHA POCHA INC. I, OH
SOON UM and YOUNGSIK UM, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02416-BMC
(E.D.N.Y., April 28, 2022) is brought against the Defendants to
recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, unpaid spread of hours
pay, liquidated damages, compensatory damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs worked as servers throughout their time employed by
the Defendants under the category of "non-exempt" employees
pursuant to the FLSA.

Pocha Pocha Inc. I owns and operates a restaurant in Flushing, New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan Kim, Esq.
          RYAN KIM LAW, P.C
          222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd. Suite 490
          Fort Lee, NJ 07024
          Telephone: (718) 573-1111
          E-mail: ryan@ryankimlaw.com

PREMIUM COMPOUNDING: Oak Park Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Premium Compounding,
Inc. The case is styled as Oak Park Animal Hospital, Ltd,
individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. Premium Compounding, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-02322 (N.D. Ill., May 4, 2022).

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

Premium Compounding -- https://www.premiumcompoundingrx.com/ -- is
a full-service independent pharmacy in Decatur, Alabama providing a
wide variety of services including conventional prescription
filling, compounding and much more.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Rhodes Files Suit in D. Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Progressive Advanced
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Laura Rhodes, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Progressive Advanced
Insurance Company, Case No. 4:22-cv-00213-DTF (D. Ariz., May 5,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated Insurance Contract for Breach of
Contract.

Progressive Advanced Insurance Company --
http://www.progressive.com/-- operates as an insurance firm. The
Company underwrites motor vehicle insurance policies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


QUALI-TEX BALL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Byrne Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
GARY BYRNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. QUALI-TEX BALL & SEAT CO.; JERRY F.
ANDERSON JR.; AND JERRY D. ANDERSON, Defendants, Case No.
7:22-cv-00112 (W.D. Tex., May 6, 2022) is an action against the
Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Byrne was employed by the Defendants as production
worker.

QUALI-TEX BALL & SEAT CO. operates in the oil field machinery and
equipment business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fernando M. Bustos, Esq.
          Matthew N. Zimmerman, Esq.
          Brandon C. Callahan, Esq.
          BUSTOS LAW FIRM, P.C.
          Lubbock, TX 79408-1980
          Telephone: (806) 780-3976
          Facsimile: (806) 780-3800
          Email: bcallahan@bustoslawfirm.com
                 mzimmerman@butsoslawfirm.com
                 fbustos@bustoslawfirm.com

RALEY'S: E.D. California Remands Dempsey Suits to State Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuits captioned Joyce Dempsey, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Raley's, a California corporation, and Does 1 through
100, Defendants. Joyce Dempsey and Sylvia Redding individually, and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Raley's, a California Corporation, et al.,
Defendants, Case Nos. 2:21-cv-02300-KJM-DB, 2:21-cv-02354-KJM-DB
(E.D. Cal.), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California grants the Plaintiffs' motion to remand both matters to
state court.

Plaintiffs Joyce Dempsey and Sylvia Redding bring these related
employment class actions. The Plaintiffs move to remand both
matters to state court. The Defendant opposes.

Background

Plaintiffs Joyce Dempsey and Sylvia Redding were employees of
Defendant Raley's.

In August 2021, Dempsey filed her class action complaint in Yolo
County Superior Court, alleging 10 claims: (1) violation of
California Labor Code sections 510 and 1198; (2) violation of
California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512(a); (3) violation of
California Labor Code section 226.7; (4) violation of California
Labor Code sections 1194, 1197, and 1197.1; (5) violation of
California Labor Code sections 201 and 202; (6) violation of
California Labor Code section 204; (7) violation of California
Labor Code section 226(a); (8) violation of California Labor Code
section 1174(d); (9) violation of California Labor Code sections
2800 and 2802; (10) violation of California Business & Professions
Code sections 17200, et seq.

About a month later, Redding and Dempsey jointly filed a separate
class action in Sacramento County Superior Court, alleging the same
violations of the California Labor Code.

Raley's was personally served Dempsey's first complaint on Oct. 7,
2021. It was then served with the second complaint on Oct. 29,
2021. After receiving the complaints, counsel for Raley's conducted
an investigation and requested that Raley's provide him with copies
of any Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) between Raley's and
its employees.

On Nov. 18, 2021, counsel received and then reviewed copies of
multiple CBAs between Raley's and various labor unions. Each of the
four agreements covers potential class members and went into effect
at least two years before the Plaintiffs filed the lawsuits.

The Defendant removed the Dempsey action to this Court on Dec. 13,
2021, and the Redding action three days later. It asserts federal
question jurisdiction exists based on Labor Management Relations
Act (LMRA) Section 301 preemption.

Plaintiffs Dempsey and Redding move to remand. The Defendant
opposes, and the Plaintiffs did not file a reply in either case.
The Court submitted the matter on the papers.

Analysis

Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller notes that although the
pending motions are filed in two different cases, the arguments in
the briefing papers are nearly identical. To resolve each motion,
the Court need only address the parties' arguments related to the
timeliness of removal.

A defendant must file a notice of removal within 30 days of
learning the matter is removable, Judge Mueller says, citing Durham
v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1250 (9th Cir. 2006).

Here, Judge Mueller finds, the Defendant removed well after the
30-day window closed following its receipt of the complaints.
However, the Defendant argues federal jurisdiction was not evident
from the face of the complaints because this Court's jurisdiction
over both cases is premised on the preemptive power of the LMRA,
and the complaints made no mention of a CBA or that potential class
members were unionized.

While the face of the complaints does not necessarily signal
federal jurisdiction, the Defendant had in its possession documents
that did: the relevant CBAs it had entered into with its unionized
employees, Judge Mueller opines. Counsel obtained the CBAs from the
Defendant as his client, and removal was based on those documents
alone. The Defendant had a chance to promptly investigate to
determine whether the cases were removable within 30 days of
receiving the complaints but did not do so. And nothing indicates
the CBAs were generated through the state court litigation.

Rather, Judge Mueller points out, the CBAs were prepared years
before the Plaintiffs filed their complaints, meaning these
agreements do not fall into the category of "other paper," which
does not include any document received prior to receipt of the
initial pleading. As the Ninth Circuit has concluded that any
document received prior to receipt of the initial pleading cannot
trigger the second 30-day removal period, the Court finds the CBAs
created prior to the initial pleading cannot trigger a second
30-day period.

Because the Defendant did not remove within 30 days of receiving
the complaints and did not receive any "other paper" that provided
a previously unascertainable basis for federal jurisdiction, the
Court finds the removal was untimely. The Court will remand both
matters to state court, which has concurrent jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The Court grants the motion to remand in Dempsey v. Raley's, et
al., 2:21-cv-02300-KJM-DB. The Court also grants the motion to
remand in Dempsey, et al. v. Raley's, 2:21-cv-02354-KJM-DB. The
Court remands both matters to state court.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close both cases.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated April 25, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y38fr3au from Leagle.com.


RAVALLI COUNTY, MT: Seeks to Extend Class Cert. Response to May 6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERI LEA EVENSON-CHILDS
and DANIEL O'TOOLE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. RAVALLI COUNTY; STEPHEN HOLTON, in his
official capacity as RAVALLI COUNTY SHERIFF; JENNIFER RAY, in her
official capacity as RAVALLI COUNTY JUSTICE OF THE PEACE; JIM
BAILEY, in his official capacity as RAVALLI COUNTY JUSTICE OF THE
PEACE; HOWARD RECHT in his official capacity as DISTRICT ST JUDGE
FOR THE 21 JUDICIAL DISTRICT and JENNIFER LINT, in her official
capacity as DISTRICT ST JUDGE FOR THE 21 JUDICIAL DISTRICT, Case
No. 9:21-cv-00089-DLC-KLD (D. Mont.), the Defendants ask the Court
to enter an order extending the time in which to answer Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification to May 6, 2022.

The response is currently due April 22, 2022. The Plaintiffs'
counsel has been contacted concerning this Motion and does not
object. This extension of time will not impact the Court's
Scheduling Order in any way.

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mitchell A. Young, Esq.
          MACO DEFENSE SERVICES
          2717 Skyway Drive, Suite F
          Helena, MT 59602-1213
          Telephone: (406) 441-5471
          Facsimile: (406) 441-5497
          E-mail: myoung@mtcounties.org

REBECCA MINKOFF: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rebecca Minkoff, LLC.
The case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Rebecca Minkoff, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-02610 (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022).

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

Rebecca Minkoff -- https://www.rebeccaminkoff.com/ -- is a global
fashion brand that was founded by brother and sister duo Rebecca
Minkoff and Uri Minkoff in 2005 in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


REDWIRE CORPORATION: Securities Class Suit in Florida Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Redwire Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 8, 2022, that a securities class
action lawsuit filed against the company in Florida is underway.

On December 17, 2021, the company, its CEO, Peter Cannito, and its
CFO, William Read, were named as defendants in the putative class
action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.

In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the company and
certain of its directors and officers made misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose material facts about the company's
business, operations, and prospects, allegedly in violation of
Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

As relief, the plaintiffs are seeking, among other things,
compensatory damages. The defendants believe the allegations are
without merit and intend to defend the suit vigorously. However,
given the early stage of the proceedings, a reasonable estimate of
the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at
this time.

Redwire Corporation is an American aerospace manufacturer and space
infrastructure technology company headquartered in Jacksonville,
Florida. The company was formed on June 1, 2020 by the private
equity firm AE Industrial Partners.

RESURGENT CAPITAL: Porter Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resurgent Capital
Services, LP, et al. The case is styled as Michael Porter,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Resurgent Capital Services, LP, LVNV Funding LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-01801-SEG-CCB (N.D. Ga., May 5, 2022).

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

Resurgent Capital Services -- https://www.resurgent.com/ -- is a
manager and servicer of domestic and international consumer debt
portfolios for credit grantors and debt buyers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq.
          THE OAKS FIRM
          3895 Brookgreen Pt.
          Decatur, GA 30034
          Phone: (404) 500-7861
          Email: attyoaks@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Tamir Saland, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza. Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: tsaland@steinsakslegal.com


RISKIFIED LTD: Claimsfiler Reminds Investors of July 1 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors that they have until July 1, 2022 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Riskified
Ltd. (the "Company") (NYSE: RSKD), if they purchased or acquired
the Company's Class A common stock in or traceable to the Company's
July 2021 initial public offering (the "IPO"). This action is
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

                          Get Help

Riskified investors should visit us at
https://claimsfiler.com/cases/nyse-rskd/ or call toll-free (844)
367-9658. Lawyers at Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC are available to
discuss your legal options.

                     About the Lawsuit

Riskified and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information in its IPO Registration Statement,
violating federal securities laws.

The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions include,
but are not limited to, that: (i) as the Company expanded its user
base, the quality of the Company's machine learning platform had
deteriorated (rather than improved as represented in the
Registration Statement); (ii) the Company had expanded its customer
base into industries with relatively high rates of fraud -
including partnerships with cryptocurrency and remittance business
- in which the Company had limited experience, and that this
expansion had negatively impacted the effectiveness of the
Company's machine learning platform; (iii) the Company suffered
from materially higher chargebacks and cost of revenue and
depressed gross profits and gross profit margins during its third
fiscal quarter of 2021; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's representations in its Registration Statement were
materially false and misleading, and lacked a factual basis.

The case is Thomas v. Riskified Ltd., et al., No. 22-cv-03545.

                      About ClaimsFiler

ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]

RISKIFIED LTD: Kessler Topaz Reminds of July 1 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com)
informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed against Riskified Ltd. ("Riskified") (NYSE: RSKD). The action
charges Riskified with violations of the federal securities laws,
including omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations relating to
the company's business, operations, and prospects. As a result of
Riskified's materially misleading statements and omissions to the
public, Riskified investors have suffered significant losses.

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


TO VIEW OUR VIDEO, PLEASE CLICK HERE

LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: JULY 1, 2022

CLASS PERIOD: JULY 29, 2021 through MAY 2, 2022

CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS:

James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Toll Free (844) 887-9500 or
Email at info@ktmc.com  

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

RISKIFIED'S ALLEGED MISCONDUCT

On July 29, 2021, Riskified conducted its IPO, selling 20.125
million Class A ordinary shares at $21 per share, and generating
over $422 million in gross proceeds. Included in these sales are
those of Defendant Assaf Feldman, Riskified's co-founder, Chief
Technology Officer and a director at the time of the IPO, who sold
200,000 shares and generated $4.2 million in gross proceeds for
himself.

On September 9, 2021, during a conference call to discuss
Riskified's financial results for the second quarter ended June 30,
2021, Riskified's CFO, Defendant Aglika Dotcheva, stated that
Riskified tended "to experience higher chargebacks when we enter a
new industry."

Then, on November 16, 2021, Riskified announced its third quarter
ended September 30, 2021 results. The results revealed significant
declines in many year-over-year financial metrics including gross
profit margins which had plummeted to just 46% during the quarter
and gross profit fell to $24.3 million. Further, Riskified's cost
of revenue had jumped to $28.3 million in the third quarter of
2021, primarily as a result of a sharp increase in chargeback
expenses. During the earnings call, Defendant Dotcheva blamed
Riskified's growing merchant base as a primary cause of increased
chargebacks.

Finally, on February 23, 2022, Riskified issued a press release
announcing its financial results for the fourth quarter and year
ended December 31, 2021. Among other things, the release disclosed
that Riskified's revenue growth and Gross Merchandise Value growth
had continued to decelerate during the quarter to just 22% and 23%,
respectively, year-over-year. Additionally, Riskified's gross
profit growth remained muted, at just 10.7% year-over-year. During
the earnings call the same day, Defendant Dotcheva stated that the
year-over-year decline in gross profit margin was purportedly
"driven primarily by [Riskified's] expansion into new industries
and regions, increase of the tickets in travel industry as a
percentage of total billings as well as the onboarding of new
merchants."

At the time of the filing of the complaint, Riskified Class A
shares traded below $6.00 per share, more than 70% below the IPO
price.

WHAT CAN I DO?

Riskified investors may, no later than July 1, 2022 seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages Riskified investors who have
suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire
more information.

WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?

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

                      About Kessler Topaz

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

RISKIFIED LTD: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 1 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that it
has filed a class action lawsuit seeking to represent purchasers of
Riskified Ltd. (NYSE: RSKD) Class A ordinary shares in or traceable
to Riskified's July 2021 initial public offering (the "IPO"),
charging Riskified, certain of its top executives and directors, as
well as the IPO's underwriters with violations of the Securities
Act of 1933. The Riskified class action lawsuit was filed on May 2,
2022 in the Southern District of New York and is captioned Thomas
v. Riskified Ltd., No. 22-cv-03545.

The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by
clicking here.

If you suffered significant losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Riskified class action lawsuit, please provide
your information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney
J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via
e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the
Riskified class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no
later than July 1, 2022.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Riskified operates a risk management platform
that utilizes machine learning to protect its merchant-clients from
fraud. On July 1, 2021, Riskified filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission ("SEC") a registration statement on Form
F-1 for the IPO, which, after several amendments, was declared
effective on July 28, 2021 (the "Registration Statement"). The
Registration Statement was used to sell to the investing public
20.125 million Riskified Class A ordinary shares at $21 per share,
generating over $422 million in gross proceeds.

The Riskified class action lawsuit alleges that the IPO's
Registration Statement made inaccurate statements of material fact
because they failed to disclose the following adverse facts that
existed at the time of the IPO: (i) as Riskified expanded its user
base, the quality of Riskified's machine learning platform had
deteriorated (rather than improved as represented in the
Registration Statement), because of, among other things,
inaccuracies in the algorithms associated with onboarding new
merchants and entering new geographies and industries; (ii)
Riskified had expanded its customer base into industries with
relatively high rates of fraud - including partnerships with
cryptocurrency and remittance businesses - in which Riskified had
limited experience and that this expansion has negatively impacted
the effectiveness of Riskified's machine learning platform; (iii)
as a result, Riskified was suffering from materially higher
chargebacks and cost of revenue and depressed gross profits and
gross profit margins during its third fiscal quarter of 2021; and
(iv) thus, the Registration Statement's representations regarding
Riskified's historical financial and operational metrics and
purported market opportunities did not accurately reflect the
actual business, operations, and financial results and trajectory
of Riskified prior to and at the time of the IPO, and were
materially false and misleading, and lacked a factual basis.

On September 9, 2021, during a conference call to discuss
Riskified's financial results for the second quarter ended June 30,
2021, Riskified's CFO, defendant Aglika Dotcheva, stated that
Riskified tended "to experience higher chargebacks when we enter a
new industry."

Then, on November 16, 2021, Riskified announced its third quarter
ended September 30, 2021 results, revealing that Riskified's
revenue growth had declined to 26% year-over-year, Riskified's
Gross Merchandise Value ("GMV") growth had declined to 28%
year-over-year, Riskified's gross profits had increased only 10%
year-over-year, Riskified's gross profit margins had plummeted to
just 46% during the quarter, and Riskified's gross profit fell
sequentially to $24.3 million. Further, Riskified's cost of revenue
had jumped to $28.3 million in the third quarter of 2021, primarily
as a result of a sharp increase in chargeback expenses. During the
earnings call, defendant Dotcheva blamed Riskified's growing
merchant base as a primary cause of increased chargebacks.

Finally, on February 23, 2022, Riskified announced its fourth
quarter and year ended December 31, 2021 results, disclosing that
Riskified's revenue growth and GMV growth had continued to
decelerate, Riskified's gross profit growth remained muted, and
Riskified's cost of revenue had continued to climb. Riskified also
revealed that it expected to generate only between $254 million and
$257 million in 2022 revenues (which would represent only 11.5%
year-over-year growth) and an adjusted 2022 earnings before
interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization of between negative
$69 million and $66 million (which would more than triple the
losses suffered by Riskified in 2021), indicating that the adverse
business trends being suffered by Riskified were in fact
accelerating. During the earnings call the same day, defendant
Dotcheva stated that the year-over-year decline in gross profit
margin experienced "was driven primarily by [Riskified's] expansion
into new industries and regions, increase of the tickets in travel
industry as a percentage of total billings as well as the
onboarding of new merchants."

At the time of the filing of this complaint, Riskified Class A
shares traded below $6 per share, more than 70% below the IPO
price.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Riskified
Class A ordinary shares in or traceable to Riskified's IPO to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff in the Riskified class action
lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest
financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who
is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the Riskified class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the Riskified class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the Riskified class action lawsuit is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff.

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9
offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest
U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.
Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest
shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities
class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp.
Sec. Litig. The 2021 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50
Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering nearly $1.9
billion for investors last year, more than triple the amount
recovered by any other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit
http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.[GN]

RIVIANA FOODS: Kutzback Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL KUTZBACK,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. RIVIANA
FOODS, INC., a foreign profit corporation, Case No.
2:22-cv-02025-JPM-atc (W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. granting conditional certification of collective action,
      and permitting notice be disseminated to a putative class
      comprised of:

      "All Current and Former Hourly-Paid employees who worked
      for Defendant, Riviana Foods, Inc. in Tennessee and
      subject to Defendant's rounding policy at any time between
      August 24, 2018 to the present."

   2. Directing Defendant to produce a list of all members of
      the Putative Class by providing a list of their names,
      last known addresses, social security numbers if
      necessary, dates of employment, cell phone numbers, and
      email addresses in electronic and importable format (e.g.,
      Microsoft Excel) within days of entry of this Order;

   3. Authorizing Plaintiff's counsel to send the Court-approved
      notice and reminder notice of this action to the putative
      class members via U.S. Mail, e-mail and text message, and
      requiring Defendant to post the notice in a conspicuous
      location in its Tennessee facilities; and

   4. Approving a 60 day Opt-in period during which the putative
      class members may join the Collective Action.

Riviana is America's processor, marketer, and distributor of
branded and private label rice products.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 22,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3MXmAp0
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael N. Hanna, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          2000 Town Center, Suite 1900
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: (313) 739-1953
          E-mail: mhanna@forthepeople.com

RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Faherty Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN S. FAHERTY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RUBIN & ROTHMAN, LLC and JOHN DOES
1-25, Defendants, Case No. FST-CV22-6056524-S (Conn. Sup. Ct., May
5, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant conducted no meaningful
attorney involvement on the Plaintiff's file notes prior to sending
a debt collection letter for an alleged financial obligation to
Bank of America, N.A. on April 12, 2021. If the Defendant had
waited until after receiving and/or reviewing the file notes,
before sending the letter to the Plaintiff, it would have known
that the said obligation was disputed and verification was
requested in writing. The Plaintiff and others similarly situated
have suffered harm as a direct result of the Defendant's abusive,
deceptive and unfair collection practices.

Rubin & Rothman, LLC is a debt collector with a principal place of
business at 1787 Veterans Highway, Suite 32, Islandia, New York.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
         JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
         One Grand Central Place
         60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (646) 459-7971
         Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
         E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com

SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Pierce, et al., Seek to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jillian Pierce, Nicole
Wade, Fantasy Decuir, Damena Page, and Vincent Keith Bell on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. CITY AND COUNTY
OF SAN FRANCISCO, San Francisco Sheriff's Department Sheriff VICKI
HENNESSY, San Francisco Sheriff’s Department Chief Deputy MICHELE
FISHER, and County of San Francisco employees DOES 1-50, Case No.
4:19-cv-07659-JSW (N.D. Cal.), 1. the Plaintiffs Jillian Pierce,
Nicole Wade, Fantasy Decuir, Damena Page, and Vincent Keith Bell
ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the proceeding as a class action pursuant to
      Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

      -- "a damages class for all asserted claims related to
          outdoor recreation of all past, present, and future
          pretrial detainees housed in CJ2 who have been, are
          now, or will be denied opportunities for meaningful
          recreation;" and

   2. appointing their counsel to represent the certified
      classes and subclasses pursuant to Rule 23(g).

On November 5, 2021, the Court certified an injunctive relief class
pursuant to Rule  23(b)(2) as to all past, current, and future
pretrial detainees housed in CJ2 with respect to plaintiffs'
outdoor recreation claim only.

CJ2 is located at 425 7th Street in San Francisco, California.
Declaration of Andrew Chan  Kim in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification. CCSF completed construction of CJ2 in
1994.

CJ2 houses both pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners. Kim
Dec., Between December 12, 2009 and February 11, 2022, at least
89,171 pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners were housed at
CJ2. The jail houses all women in San Francisco Sheriff's Office's
(SFSO) custody; all detainees that require daily medical attention;
and some men. It is undisputed that CJ2 was constructed without
outdoor recreation space, and as a result, all pretrial detainees
housed there are denied outdoor recreation opportunities.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dan Siegel, Esq.
          Emilyrose Johns, Esq.
          Andrew Chan Kim, Esq.
          SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA
          475 14th Street, Suite 500
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 839-1200
          Facsimile: (510) 444-6698
          E-mail: danmsiegel@gmail.com
                  emilyrose@siegelyee.com
                  chankim@siegelyee.com

SHOPIFY INC: Fails to Secure Consumers' Info After Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shopify has been named in a putative class action, with a number of
named plaintiffs alleging that the e-commerce hosting platform,
along with content moderation provider TaskUs, failed to exercise
"reasonable care in securing and safeguarding consumer information
in connection with a massive 2020 data breach impacting Ledger SAS
hardware wallets," which are used to store individuals'
cryptocurrency holdings and other digital tokens. The sweeping
breach was caused by "rogue members" of Shopify's support team,
"including employees of TaskUs, Inc.," the plaintiffs assert, and
ultimately, resulted in "the unauthorized public release of
approximately 272,000 pieces of detailed personally identifiable
information."

In the complaint that they filed with a federal court in Delaware
on April 1, Plaintiffs Gregory Forsberg, Christopher Gunter, Scott
Sipprell, and Samuel Kissinger allege that Shopify, which hosts
Ledger's e-commerce site, and TaskUs "repeatedly and profoundly
failed to protect [Ledger] customers' identities," resulting in the
[their] personally identifiable information - from full names and
telephone numbers to email and post addresses - being accessed in
the July 2020 breach and subsequently shared across the dark web.

(Ledger - which recently partnered with LVMH-owned brands Fendi and
Hublot for luxury crypto hardware collabs - is not named as a
defendant in the lawsuit, although it and Shopify were both named
as defendants in a previously-filed class action related to the
breach. That case, which was lodged in the Northern District of
California, was dismissed on personal jurisdiction grounds.)

Aside from making such information available to "every hacker who
wanted access to [it]," the plaintiffs assert that such alleged
failures by Shopify and TaskUs to safeguard consumers' information
is particularly problematic because it means that they are "no
longer in possession of a secure cryptocurrency portfolio."
Specifically, Forsberg and the other named plaintiffs, who had
their personal information stolen after hackers accessed Shopify's
list of Ledger customers, claim that while "cryptocurrency
transactions are publicly visible through a transaction's
underlying blockchain," they "cannot be traced back to their
particular owner without more information."

"When hackers know the identity of a cryptocurrency owner and know
what platform that consumer is storing their crypto-assets on, the
hacker can work backwards to create a targeted attack aimed at
luring hardware wallet owners into mounting their hardware device
to a computer and entering their passphrase, allowing unfettered
access and transfer authority over their crypto-assets," the
plaintiffs assert. And that is precisely what happened here, they
claim, stating that in the wake of the Shopify breach, hackers
engaged in "targeted attacks on thousands of customers'
crypto-assets and causing [the plaintiffs and proposed class]
members to receive far less security than they thought they had
purchased with their Ledger Wallets."

The plaintiffs allege that Shopify and TaskUs's "misconduct,"
including but not limited to "their failure to (a) prevent the data
breach and (b) take action in response thereto for approximately
six months - if not longer - has made [them and other class
members] targets." Such alleged misconduct was only made worse,
according to the plaintiffs, by Shopify and TaskUs's "deficient
response," including their "failure to notify every affected
customer or admit to the full scope of the data breach," which
resulted in "many Ledger customers falling victim to hackers'
phishing emails and resulting fraud."

With the foregoing in mind, the named plaintiffs set out claims of
negligence, unjust enrichment, and violations of various states'
consumer fraud and deceptive and unfair trade practices laws, and
contend that they have suffered damages as a result of the
defendants' negligence, including "the fraudulent removal of
cryptocurrency from [their] portfolios due to sophisticated scam
attacks on [their] Ledger wallets." Beyond that, they argue that
they "remain at a significant risk of additional attacks now that
[their] personally identifiable information has been leaked
online." In total, they claim that damages in this case exceed $5
million and that the number of class members exceeds 100 people.

Reflecting on the potential damages at play in such a case,
Covington & Burling lawyers Samuel Greeley, Ashley Simonsen, Mike
Nonaka, and Kathryn Cahoy state that "due to the nature of
cryptocurrency valuations, the individual damages claims in these
cases have the potential to far exceed the more nominal individual
amounts in a typical data breach case where the primary payout is
identity theft protection services." However, these cases are
hardly expected to be straightforward matters given that
"cryptocurrency transactions often are non-reversible, [and] so,
unlike thefts from traditional online banking services, it may be
difficult or impossible to claw back stolen crypto funds" - which
is presumably why more easily-identifiable and accountable parties
like Shopify and co. are named as defendants in these largely
negligence-centric lawsuits.

Other cases have been filed recently involving similar theories
relating to data breaches that allegedly resulted in the theft of
cryptocurrency, including in the Northern and Central Districts of
California, the Covington & Burling lawyers state, which they say,
"suggests that this area will continue to face increasing
litigation activity." In addition to suits centering on the theft
of cryptocurrencies, the number of suits being filed against
marketplaces like OpenSea in connection with the theft of
non-fungible tokens ("NFTs") from users' crypto wallets in
connection with phishing attacks that were allegedly caused by
platform owners' negligence is also growing.

"As cryptocurrency storage and related transactions," as well as
enduring purchases of digital tokens, such as NFTs, "increasingly
feature in companies' online presence," Greeley, Simonsen, Nonaka,
and Cahoy claim that "there is likely to be a growing risk posed by
threat actors motivated to target crypto-related assets and data,
and more litigation activity in this space." [GN]

SOUTHERN METHODIST: Hogan Appeals Tuition Fee Refund Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Luke Hogan filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit entitled LUKE HOGAN, on behalf of himself and other
individuals similarly situated v. SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY and
other affiliated entities and individuals, Case No.
3:20-cv-02899-X, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint is brought
on behalf of those who paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020
semester at the University and who did not receive the benefits and
services that they bargained for when they provided payment as a
result of the Defendant's response to the Novel Coronavirus Disease
2019.

The Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into a contract where the
Plaintiffs would provide payment in the form of tuition and fees
and Defendants would provide in-person educational services,
experiences, opportunities, and other related services. On March
12, 2020, Southern Methodist University canceled all in-person
education and in-person educational services, then, transitioned to
complete online education.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to uphold their
end of the contract to provide in-person educational services,
experiences, and opportunities. Despite the Defendants' failure to
provide the services and experiences as bargained for, they have
not offered any refund of the tuition and fees that the Plaintiff
and the Class paid.

The Plaintiff was a full-time graduate student in the management
program during the Spring 2020 semester.

On September 20, 2020, the lawsuit was removed from the Dallas
County District Court to the Northern District of Texas.

On August 25, 2021, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim.

Mr. Hogan now seeks a review of the district court's order granting
Defendant's motion to dismiss his breach of contract claim, which
is a part of the district court's Memorandum and Order entered on
March 29, 2022; all other findings, conclusions, orders, or other
rulings of the district court necessary to that order; as well as
any separately entered final judgment that may arise from that
order.

The appellate case is captioned as HOGAN v. SOUTHERN METHODIST
UNIVERSITY, Case No. 22-10433, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on April 29, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant LUKE HOGAN, on behalf of himself and other
individuals similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jeff Edwards, Esq.
          Michael Singley, Esq.
          David James, Esq.
          THE EDWARDS LAW GROUP
          603 W 17th Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 623-7727
          Facsimile: (512) 623-7729
          E-mail: jeff@edwards-law.com
                  mike@edwards-law.com
                  david@edwards-law.com

               - and -

          Kenneth P. Trosclair, Esq.
          LOVINS TROSCLAIR, P.L.L.C.
          12700 Park Central Dr. Suite 520
          Dallas, TX 75251
          Telephone: (214) 484-1930
          Facsimile: (214) 276-1475  
          E-mail: Pete@LTLegalTeam.com
      
               - and -

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          Mindy S. Dolgoff, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.  
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Telephone: (854) 705-9460  
          E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                  dolgoffm@thesultzerlawgroup.com

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Bombin, Rood Seek to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIAN BOMBIN, SAMANTHA
ROOD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Case No. 5:20-cv-01883-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "All passengers residing in the United States who:

      Held a "Wanna Get Away" ticket (i.e., a "non-refundable"
      ticket only refundable in the event of a Southwest-
      initiated Schedule Change 1 or Cancellation 2 ) for a
      Southwest flight that was not part of a group or corporate
      booking and that was purchased, at least in part, by
      check, cash, or credit card (or issued in exchange for a
      ticket that was purchased, at least in part, by check,
      cash, or credit card); and

      Received a "Residual Travel Fund" (RTF) for their flight
      after either: (a) Southwest Cancelled their flight between
      March 1, 2020 and July 9, 2020 (the "Cancellation
      Class Period"); or (b) Southwest initiated a Schedule
      Change between March 1, 2020 and June 29, 2020 (the
      "Schedule Change Class Period"); and

      Did not redeem any part of their RTF with Southwest (e.g.,
      for travel or loyalty points) as of the date of the
      Court’s Order Granting Class Certification;" and

   2. appointing them as Class Representatives and appointing
      their counsel -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP; Pearson, Simon &
      Warshaw, LLP; Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg
      Gilbert, and Miller Shah LLP—be appointed as Class
      Counsel.

Southwest Airlines is one of the major airlines of the United
States and the world's largest low-cost carrier.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 22,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3P4FMCS
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: jcshah@millershah.com

               - and -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
          One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  cardoso@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L St NW STE 1000,
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON &
          WARSHAW, LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2150
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 389-0600
          Facsimile: (612) 389-0610
          E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com

SPARTAN RACE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Mejia Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MEJIA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPARTAN RACE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-03674-PGG (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, shop.toughmudder.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.

SPARTAN RACE, INC. was founded in 2010. The company's line of
business includes operating and promoting professional and
semiprofessional athletic clubs and events. [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

ST. LOUIS, MO: Cody Bid to File Amended Complaint Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES CODY, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Case No. 4:17-cv-02707-AGF (E.D.
Mo.), the Hon. Judge Audrey G. Fleissig entered an order granting
in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to
file an amended complaint.

The Court further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall terminate
Plaintiffs John Doe and John Roe, and shall add Callion Barnes and
Eddie Williams as party Plaintiffs. Plaintiff Vincent Grover shall
remain terminated.

In this putative class action against the City of St. Louis, seven
named plaintiffs allege that they endured inhumane conditions while
detained at the City's Medium Security Institution. At the outset
of this case, two of the seven named plaintiffs filed under the
pseudonyms "John Doe" and "John Roe."

The unnamed plaintiffs explained in the complaint that they brought
their claims anonymously due to "fear of retaliation,
reputational harm, and social stigma," given that they still had
pending criminal cases in the City at that time.

However, neither sought permission from this Court to proceed under
a pseudonym. As part of their Rule 26 disclosures produced in
August 2018 (approximately nine months after the complaint was
filed), Plaintiffs Doe and Roe disclosed to the City their true
identities as Callion Barnes and Eddie Williams, respectively.

On December 27, 2021, the Court denied class certification but also
directed that any motion for leave to attempt to cure any pleading
defect regarding Plaintiffs Doe and Roe be filed within 14 days of
the Court's Order. In response, Plaintiffs have filed the instant
motion for leave to amend.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38e0obd at no extra charge.[CC]

STEWARD HEALTH: Amended Class Cert Docket Control Order Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BEVERLY WILLIAMS AND AMY
JOHNSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, v. STEWARD HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, LLC; AND MEDICAL
REIMBURSEMENTS OF AMERICA, Case No. 5:20-cv-00123-RWS-CMC (E.D.
Tex.), the Parties jointly move for the entry of their proposed
Amended Class Certification Docket Control Order:

  -- Deadline for Plaintiffs to file         July 13, 2022
     Motion for Class Certification
     and designate expert witnesses
     on which Plaintiffs rely in
     support of class certification:

  -- Deadline to complete depositions        August 15, 2022
     of Plaintiffs' class certification
     experts:

  -- Deadline for Defendants to file         September 14, 2022
     their opposition to Plaintiffs'
     Motion for Class Certification
     and designate expert witnesses
     on which Defendants rely in
     opposing class certification:

  -- Deadline to complete depositions        October 14, 2022
     of the Defendants' class
     certification experts:

  -- Deadline for Plaintiff to file          October 31, 2022
     reply in support of Motion
     for Class Certification:

  -- Deadline for Defendants to              December 1, 2022
     file surreply in opposition to
     Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
     Certification:

On January 18, 2022, the Court entered an order granting the
Parties' joint motion for entry of class certification docket
control order. Since the filing of the order, the Parties have
engaged in discovery; however, those efforts have been delayed by
scheduling conflicts, including trial settings for some of the
Parties' attorneys. Because a settlement conference will likely be
required by the Court, the Parties are also considering an early
settlement conference. To efficiently prepare the case for class
certification briefing and to afford the Parties time to evaluate
the possibility of an early settlement conference, the Parties
jointly request an extension of all pending deadlines.

Steward Health Care is a physician-owned private for-profit health
care network in the United States and attends to 2.2 million people
during more than twelve million physician and hospital visits
annually.

A copy of the Parties motion dated April 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vSM5C9 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Wyly, Esq.
          Sean F. Rommel, Esq.
          WYLY-ROMMEL, PLLC
          4004 Texas Boulevard
          Texarkana, TX 75503
          Telephone: (903) 334-8646
          Facsimile: (903) 334-8645
          E-mail: jwyly@wylyrommel.com
                  srommel@wylyrommel.com

               - and -

          F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
          Ryan Lutz, Esq.
          Brett Thompson, Esq.
          CORY WATSON, P.C.
          2131 Magnolia Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328-2200
          Facsimile: (205) 324-7896
          E-mail: jtapley@corywatson.com
                  rlutz@corywatson.com
                  bthompson@corywatson.com

The Defendant Steward Health Care System is represented by:

          Kelly Tidwell, Esq.
          Geoffrey Culbertson, Esq.
          PATTON, TIDWELL
          & CULBERTSON, LLP
          2800 Texas Boulevard
          Texarkana, TX 75503
          Telephone: (903) 792-7080
          Facsimile: (903) 792-8233
          E-mail: kbt@texarkanalaw.com
                  gpc@texarkanalaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas G. Yoxall, Esq.
          Matthew H. Davis, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800
          Dallas, TX 75201-6776
          Telephone: (214) 740-8000
          Facsimile: (214) 740-8800
          E-mail: tyoxall@lockelord.com
                  mdavis@lockelord.com

The Attorneys for Defendant Medical Reimbursement of America, are:

          Jonathan C. LaMendola, Esq.
          COBB MARTINEZ WOODWARD PLLC
          1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 3100
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 220-5204
          Facsimile: (214) 220-5254
          E-mail: jlamendola@cobbmartinez.com

               -and-

          R. Thaddeus Behrens, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
          2828 North Harwood Street, Suite 1800
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 271-5766
          E-mail: thad.behrens@shearman.com

STRIVECTIN OPERATING: First Case Management Sched Order Entered
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN LOCKLIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
STRIVECTIN OPERATING CO., INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-07967-VC (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered a first case
management scheduling order as follows:

                    Event                         Date

-- Deadline to file Plaintiffs Motion         Nov. 4, 2022
    for Class Certification, including
    any expert reports upon which
    the Plaintiff relies in its motion:

-- Deadline to complete depositions           Dec. 8, 2022
    and document productions for
    the Plaintiffs experts re: class
    certification:

-- Deadline to complete private               Dec. 15, 2022
    mediation:

-- Deadline to file Defendants'               Dec. 22, 2022
    Opposition to Class Certification,
    including any counter expert reports
    upon which Defendant relies in its
    motion:

-- Deadline to complete depositions and       Jan. 26, 2023
    document productions for Defendant's
     experts re: class certification:

-- Deadline to file Plaintiffs Reply in       Feb. 9, 2023
    Support of Class Certification,
    including any rebuttal expert reports
    upon which the Plaintiff relies in its
    motion:

-- Hearing on Class Certification Motion:     Feb. 23, 2023

-- Deadline to File Joint Status Report:      March 5, 2023

-- Further Case Management Conference:        March 15, 2023

StriVectin is a private company that has been in the industry for
20 years. The company currently specializes in the cosmetics.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/386iqfO at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brittany S. Scott, Esq.
          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com
                  bscott@bursor.com

               - and -

          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
          Katherine A. Bruce, Esq.
          Kelsey J. Elling, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          22525 Pacific Coast Highway
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Telephone: (213) 788-4050
          Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
          E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com
                  kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Ste. 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
          E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Steven Garff, Esq.
          Jason Kerr, Esq.
          PRICE PARKINSON & KERR, PLLC
          5742 West Harold Gatty Drive, Suite 101
          Salt Lake City, UT 84116
          Telephone: (801) 530-2900.
          E-mail: Steven.garff@ppktrial.com
          jasonkerr@ppktrial.com

               - and -

          Stephen Y. Ma, Esq.
          Lisa L. Boswell, Esq.
          EARLY SULLIVAN WRIGHT GIZER
          &McRAE LLP
          6420 Wilshire Boulevard, 17th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90048
          Telephone: (323) 301-4660
          E-mail: sma@earlysullivan.com
                  lboswell@earlysullivan.com

STUCKEY CONSTRUCTION: Perry Conditional Status Bid Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMORRIS PERRY v. STUCKEY
CONSTRUCTION, INC., and EARL STUCKEY, Case No. 5:21-cv-00162-AW-MJF
(N.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Allen Winsor entered an order denying
without prejudice Perry's motion for conditional certification.

The Court said, "Perry has not met his burden of showing that
employees in the classes he proposes desire to opt in. Perry's
motion to dismiss is granted. The Defendant Stuckey Construction's
counterclaims for "Breach of Employment Contract and Conversion"
(Count 1) and "Breach of Contract/Failure to Repay Loan" (Count 2)
are dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Perry sued Defendants, his former employers, alleging four Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) violations: (1) failure to compensate
for required travel time, (2) improper automatic meal-break
deductions, (3) improper uniform-laundering wage deductions, and
(4) retaliation.

Stuckey is a construction company.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39M4rfx at no extra charge.[CC]

SUNOCO INC: Appeals Ruling in Cline's Breach of Contract Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled PERRY CLINE, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. SUNOCO, INC. (R&M), and,
SUNOCO PARTNERS MARKETING & TERMINALS, L.P., Case No.
6:17-CV-00313-JAG, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Oklahoma, Muskogee.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Cline owns
a royalty interest in one or more oil wells in Oklahoma. Sunoco,
Inc. (R&M), and Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals, L.P.
("Sunoco"), purchase and resell oil from Cline's wells. Oklahoma
law requires Sunoco to pay proceeds from the oil to Mr. Cline. If
Sunoco pays the proceeds late, it must pay Cline interest on the
payment at a rate set forth in Oklahoma's Production Revenue
Standards Act. Mr. Cline has sued Sunoco for paying his production
proceeds late without paying the required interest.

On November 1, 2021, the Court entered an order dismissing
consolidated appeals because Sunoco did not meet its burden to
establish appellate jurisdiction.

On March 31, 2022, Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. granted in part
Defendants' motion to enjoin enforcement of the judgment and any
actions in support and stayed all enforcement actions for 60 days
after the date of this Order.

The Defendants now seek review of this order entered by Judge
Gibney.

The appellate case is captioned as Cline v. Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), et
al., Case No. 22-7017, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit, filed on April 29, 2022.[BN]

Defendants-Appellants SUNOCO, INC. (R&M) and SUNOCO PARTNERS
MARKETING & TERMINALS L.P. are represented by:

          Mark D. Christiansen, Esq.
          EDINGER LEONARD & BLAKLEY
          6301 North Western Avenue, Suite 250
          Oklahoma City, OK 73118
          Telephone: (405) 702-9900

               - and -

          Matthew Dekovich, Esq.
          Daniel Mead McClure, Esq.
          Erin E. Murphy, Esq.
          Kevin W. Yankowsky, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT
          1301 McKinney Street, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 651-5151

               - and -

          Mark Emery, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT
          799 9th Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20001-4501
          Telephone: (202) 662-0200

               - and -

          Robert D. Woods, Esq.
          R. Paul Yetter, Esq.
          YETTER COLEMAN
          811 Main Street, Suite 4100
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 632-8000

Plaintiff-Appellee PERRY CLINE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq.
          Lisa P. Baldwin, Esq.
          Bradley E. Beckworth, Esq.
          Brooke A. Churchman, Esq.
          Winn Cutler, Esq.
          Trey Duck, Esq.
          Ross Leonoudakis, Esq.
          Andrew G. Pate, Esq.
          NIX PATTERSON
          8701 Bee Cave Road, Building 1, Suite 500
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (903) 645-7333

               - and -

          Robert N. Barnes, Esq.
          Emily Nash Kitch, Esq.
          Patranell Britten Lewis, Esq.
          BARNES & LEWIS
          4501 North Cooper Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73118
          Telephone: (405) 843-0363

               - and -

          Michael Burrage, Esq.
          WHITTEN BURRAGE
          512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 516-7800

               - and -

          Paula Jantzen, Esq.
          Jason A. Ryan, Esq.
          Patrick M. Ryan, Esq.
          Phillip G. Whaley, Esq.  
          RYAN WHALEY COLDIRON JANTZEN PETERS & WEBBER
          400 North Walnut Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73104
          Telephone: (405) 239-6040

               - and -

          Lawrence R. Murphy, Jr., Esq.
          611 South Detroit
          Tulsa, OK 74120
          Telephone: (918) 777-4529

               - and -

          Susan R. Whatley, Esq.
          NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, LLP
          205 Linda Drive
          Daingerfield, TX 75638
          Telephone: (903) 645-7333

SUTTER HEALTH: Sidibe Appeals Summary Judgment Bid Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Djeneba Sidibe, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled DJENEBA SIDIBE, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. SUTTER HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 12-cv-04854-LB, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Magistrate
Judge Laurel Beller of the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, granted in part and denied in part Sutter's
motion for summary judgment in the case.

In this certified class action, the named Plaintiffs -- four
persons who paid for health insurance and two companies who paid
for health insurance for their employees -- challenge Sutter
Health's allegedly anticompetitive practices as (1) unlawful tying
and an unlawful course of conduct in violation of the Sherman
Antitrust Act Section 1 and California's Cartwright Act (counts I
and III), (2) monopolization and attempted monopolization in
violation of the Sherman Act Section 2 (counts IV and V), and (3) a
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") (count
VI).

The Plaintiffs allege that through its contracts with health plans,
Sutter uses its market power for inpatient services in seven
Northern California markets (the Tying Markets, where it is the
only or dominant hospital) to force health plans in four other
geographic markets (the Tied Markets, where it faces competition
from other providers) to include (in their networks) Sutter's
inpatient services at hospitals in the Tied Markets, resulting in
higher prices. The Plaintiffs challenge contract terms -- such as
high rates for out-of-network Sutter services in the Tied Markets
and the inability to change Sutter's status as a preferred provider
without Sutter's permission -- as anticompetitive because the terms
allegedly prevented health plans from steering their enrollees away
from high-cost Sutter hospitals to lower-priced providers. As a
result, they allege, health-plan enrollees (including the
Plaintiffs) pay higher premiums.

After the Court certified Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) classes,
the Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the "distinct
products" element of their tying claims under the Sherman Act and
Cartwright Act, and Sutter moved for summary judgment on the ground
that its contracts were not unlawful.

In its motion for summary judgment, Sutter contends that its
contracts with the health plans did not condition the purchase of
any service on the purchase of any other service and instead gave
discounted rates to the plans for including Sutter's tied hospitals
in the plans' networks. That in-network status, it contends,
justifies the lower rates because health plans incentivize members
to choose in-network hospitals by paying most or all in-network
expenses (and few or no out-of-network expenses). Volume
discounting, Sutter asserts, is not anticompetitive conduct, and
the contract terms protected the benefit of the bargain. Sutter
also contends that there is no evidence that it willfully
maintained monopoly power in the Tying Markets or that there is a
dangerous probability of monopolization in the Tied Markets.
Finally, it contends that it is entitled to summary judgment on
claims for 2008 to 2010 because the Plaintiffs did not show
class-wide damages.

The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the summary judgment order
entered by Judge Beller.

The appellate case is captioned as Djeneba Sidibe, et al v. Sutter
Health, Case No. 22-15634, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 28, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants Susan Hansen, David Herman, Jerry Jankowski,
Johnson Pool & Spa, Optimum Graphics, Inc. and Djeneba Sidibe
Mediation Questionnaire was due on April 5, 2022;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by May 26, 2022;

   -- Transcript is due on June 27, 2022;

   -- Appellants Susan Hansen, David Herman, Jerry Jankowski,
Johnson Pool & Spa, Optimum Graphics, Inc. and Djeneba Sidibe
opening brief is due on August 4, 2022;

   -- Appellee Sutter Health answering brief is due on September 6,
2022; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant DJENEBA SIDIBE, JERRY JANKOWSKI, SUSAN HANSEN,
DAVID HERMAN, OPTIMUM GRAPHICS, INC., and JOHNSON POOL & SPA, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          David C. Brownstein, Esq.
          Allan Steyer, Esq.
          FARMER BROWNSTEIN JAEGER GOLDSTEIN & KLEIN LLP
          235 Pine Street, Suite 835
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 962-2873

               - and -

          Mathew L. Cantor, Esq.
          Jean Kim, Esq.
          CONSTANTINE CANNON LLP
          335 Madison Avenue, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 350-2738

               - and -

          Jill M. Manning, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 680
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-9000

               - and -

          Azra Mehdi, Attorney
          THE MEHDI FIRM, PC
          201 Mission Street, Suite 1200
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 293-8039

Defendant-Appellee SUTTER HEALTH is represented by:

          David Craig Kiernan, Esq.
          Jeffrey Alan LeVee, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 626-3939

TIKTOK INC: Opt-Outs Fire Back in Request for Exclusion From Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Tabacco at lawstreetmedia.com reports that one opt-out on
behalf of several thousand others has urged the MDL court
overseeing privacy litigation against TikTok to honor her
"constitutionally and contractually protected rights" by allowing
her to exit the settlement class and proceed in private
arbitration. The reply brief comes after TikTok Inc. opposed what
it called the litigants' untimely and improper "mass motion."

The opt-out dispute is taking place while briefing for final
approval of the $92 million settlement is underway. Indeed, the
same day the opt-out hopefuls filed their reply asking the court to
overturn the settlement administrator's rejection of their
exclusion petitions, the plaintiffs replied in support of their bid
for final settlement and attorneys' fee award approval.

In its opposition to the opt-out request, TikTok urged the court
not to overturn the settlement administrator's decision for several
reasons. The company said that the agreement expressly bars
opt-outs such as these where they are submitted as a coordinated,
lawyer-driven campaign. In addition, it said individuals were
solicited using improper means in the way of unapproved
communication with class members.

The movants argued that TikTok's criticism of their counsel's
ethics was "unprofessional and baseless." The filing countered that
in order to impugn counsel's integrity, TikTok, in a "desperate
attempt . . . . presents this Court with an unauthenticated and
incomplete advertisement that appears to be from the Class
Administrator, shamefully and falsely claiming that it belongs to
one of the law firms."

In addition, the movants claimed that their opt-out requests were
timely and that they complied with court approved notice
requirements. As to the latter, the reply added that the notice
provided to prospective class members was inadequate, but even in
view of that, the submitted petitions "substantially complied" with
all requirements. The filing further noted that some contact
information may have been missing because individuals
understandably "felt reserved about providing some of their
personal information on the exclusion forms."

Lastly, the reply responded to individual opt-out petitions singled
out as examples by TikTok, with one, for instance bearing the name
"JaydenDropemOff." The movants' reply said that this was a user's
screen name, and reiterated that users have the right to be wary of
disclosing information, given the nature of the lawsuit itself.
"TikTok's attempt to shame or portray these individuals in an
offensive light through the use of their usernames or signatures is
simply inappropriate," the reply said in a footnote.

TikTok is represented by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and the
opt-out movants by Chicago Consumer Law Center P.C., Clarkson Law
Firm P.C., Kind Law, and Swigart Law Group APC. [GN]

TRI-COUNTY BEHAVIORAL: Fails to Provide Proper OT Pay, Pegues Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL PEGUES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRI-COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE, Defendant,
Case No. 4:22-cv-01360 (S.D. Tex., April 28, 2022) is a collective
action brought by Plaintiff against the Defendant for violations of
the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed as a routine assessment specialist from
November of 2021 until January of 2022, primarily responsible for
meeting with patients in person and over the phone. He was
allegedly deprived of sufficient overtime compensation for all of
the hours worked over 40 per week.

Tri-County Behavioral Healthcare is a unit of local government
sponsored by the Commissioners Courts of Liberty, Montgomery and
Walker Counties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800
          Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510  
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (800) 615-4946
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

T‐MOBILE USA: Faces Burnham FLSA Suit Over Unpaid OT in W.D. Wash.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BURNHAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. T‐MOBILE USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-05317 (W.D. Wash., May 5, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendant for its failure to compensate the Plaintiff and
similarly situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Washington Minimum Wage Act.

Mr. Burnham has worked for T-Mobile as a non-exempt worker since at
least December 2021.

T‐Mobile USA, Inc. is a provider of wireless voice, messaging,
and data services, headquartered in Washington. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
         Erika L. Nusser, Esq.
         TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
         936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
         Seattle, WA 98103
         Telephone: (206) 816‐6603
         Facsimile: (206) 319‐5450
         E-mail: tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com
                 enusser@terrellmarshall.com

                 - and –

         Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
         8151 Peters Road, 4th Floor
         Plantation, FL 33324
         Telephone: (954) 327‐5355
         Facsimile: (954) 327‐3013
         E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com

                 - and –

         Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
         PARMET PC
         3 Riverway
         Houston, TX 77056
         Telephone: (713) 999‐5228
         Facsimile: (713) 999‐1187
         E-mail: matt@parmet.law

UNCOMMONGOODS LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Mejia Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MEJIA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNCOMMONGOODS, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-03672 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, uncommongoods.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.

UNCOMMONGOODS, L.L.C. operates as an online and catalog retailer of
creatively designed products. The Company specializes in handmade
gifts and accessories, home and garden products, arts and crafts,
kitchen tools, jewelry, wallets, bags, watches, toys, books, games,
and personal care products. [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

UNITED SERVICES: Davidson Must File Class Cert. Bid by Oct. 24
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAROLD J. DAVIDSON, a
married man, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, a Texas
Corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00527-JWH-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge John W. Holcomb entered an order granting joint stipulation
to extend case schedule as follows:

  1. The Plaintiff shall file any class      October 24, 2022
     certification motion no later than:

  2. The Defendant shall file its response   Dec. 19, 2022
     to Plaintiff’s class certification
     motion:

  3. The Plaintiff shall file any reply      Jan. 16, 2023.
     in support of his Motion for Class
     Certification by:

  4. The hearing on Plaintiff's motion       Feb. 3, 2023
     for class certification is set for:

  5. All discovery, including discovery      Feb. 6, 2023
     motions shall be filed and have been
     heard by. Discovery motions must be
     filed and heard prior to that date:

  6. The Deadline for Dispositive Motion     April 19, 2023
     Hearing is:

The United Services Automobile Association is a San Antonio-based
Fortune 500 diversified financial services group of companies
including a Texas Department of Insurance-regulated reciprocal
inter-insurance exchange and subsidiaries offering banking,
investing, and insurance to people and families who serve, or
served, in the United States Armed Forces.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 22, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38aPT8I at no extra charge.[CC]

UNITED STATES: Vargas Appeals Denial of Bid to Intervene in Roman
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Intervenor MARTIN VARGAS filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Kelvin Hernandez Roman, et
al. v. Chad Wolf, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-00768-TJH-PVC, in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Riverside.

Chad F. Wolf was the former Secretary of Homeland Security and
Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Strategy, Policy, and
Plans. He was replaced by Alejandro Mayorkas, the seventh United
States Secretary of Homeland Security since February 2, 2021.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's
preliminary injunction order in part, vacated it in part, and
remanded so that the district court may immediately address current
circumstances at the Adelanto Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Processing Center.

The Plaintiffs brought the class action on behalf of noncitizens
detained at Adelanto. These noncitizens are being held in civil
detention in connection with various immigration proceedings, and
many of them have no criminal record. The Plaintiffs sought
declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as habeas relief. Their
Complaint alleges that, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic,
Adelanto's failure to implement necessary protective measures
violates detainees' due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.

On October 15, 2021, Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. entered an Order
denying Vargas' motion for limited intervention without prejudice.

On February 25, 2022, Judge Hatter also entered an Order denying
Intervenor's motion for reconsideration.

Mr. Vargas now seeks a review of both orders.

The appellate case is captioned as Kelvin Hernandez Roman, et al.
v. Alejandro Mayorkas, et al., Case No. 22-55430, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 28,
2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Martin Vargas opening brief is due on June 30,
2022;

   -- Appellees Miguel Aguilar Estrada, Beatriz Andrea Forero
Chavez, Kelvin Hernandez Roman, James Janecka, Tae Johnson,
Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Ernest M. Santacruz Jr. and U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement answering brief is due on August 1, 2022;
and

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

Movant-Appellant MARTIN VARGAS, Proposed Intervenor, is represented
by:

          Megan A. Brewer, Esq.
          Stacy Tolchin, Esq.  
          LAW OFFICES OF STACY TOLCHIN
          776 E Green Street, Suite 210
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 622-7450

               - and -

          Joseph Meyers, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF
           THE NATIONAL LAWYERS' GUILD
          2201 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (615) 714-1996  

Petitioners-Appellees KELVIN HERNANDEZ ROMAN, BEATRIZ ANDREA FORERO
CHAVEZ, and MIGUEL AGUILAR ESTRADA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Eva Lucia Bitran, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          225 W. Hospitality Lane, Suite 302
          San Bernardino, CA 92408
          Telephone: (909) 380-7510

               - and -

          Samir Deger-Sen, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP
          1271 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 906-1200

               - and -

          Michael Kaufman, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          1313 W 8th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977-5232

               - and -

          Margaret Allison Upshaw, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP
          555 11th Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20004-1304
          Telephone: (202) 637-2200

Respondents-Appellees ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; TAE JOHNSON, Acting Director, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; ERNEST M. SANTACRUZ, Jr.,
Acting Director of the Los Angeles Field Office, Enforcement and
Removal Operations; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; and
JAMES JANECKA, Warden, Adelanto ICE Processing Center, are
represented by:

          Hans Harris Chen, Esq.
          Victor Manuel Mercado-Santana, Esq.
          DOJ - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P.O. Box 868
          Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: PETA Appeals Injunction Order in Sullivan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Intevenor-Defendant PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS,
INC., a Virginia nonstock corporation, filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled JANE SULLIVAN and P. POES
1-75, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, a Washington public
corporation; ELIZA SAUNDERS, Director of Public Records and Open
Public Meetings at the University of Washington, in their official
capacity, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00204-RAJ, in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle.

Plaintiffs Jane Sullivan and P. Poes 1-75 bring this complaint on
February 22, 2022, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly
situated, against Defendant the University of Washington, and
against Defendant Eliza Saunders in their official capacity as
Director of Public Records and Open Public Meetings at the
University of Washington. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, Plaintiffs seek
a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction
restraining the University and Saunders from disclosing certain
unredacted records that would reveal Plaintiffs' identities as the
members, alternate members, and former members of the Institutional
Animal Care and Use Committee of the University of Washington
(IACUC).

Under the Constitution of the United States and the Washington
Constitution, Plaintiffs' constitutional rights to free association
and expression without harassment or threats, as expressed through
their affiliation with and service on the Committee, exempt
Plaintiffs' personally identifying information from disclosure
under the Public Records Act, and/or outweigh the interests of this
requester in revealing Plaintiffs' identities, says the complaint.


Plaintiffs seek, on their own behalf and on behalf of those
similarly situated, an order of the Court enjoining the release of
the Appointment Letters without the redaction of IACUC members'
names and any other personally identifying information. Plaintiffs
further seek to enjoin the unredacted release of any related
documents or communications that would reveal members' names and
other personally identifying information.

On April 26, 2022, Judge Richard A. Jones entered an order granting
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.

The Intervenor-Defendant seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Jane Sullivan, et al. v.
University of Washington, et al., Case No. 22-35338, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 28,
2022.[BN]

Intervenor-Defendant-Appellant PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF
ANIMALS, INC. is represented by:

          Peter D. Hawkes, Esq.
          ANGELI LAW GROUP LLC
          121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 400
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 954-2232

Plaintiff-Appellee JANE SULLIVAN; and P. POES, 1-75; Individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Darwin Paul Roberts, Esq.
          GOLDFARB & HUCK ROTH RIOJAS, PLLC
          925 4th Avenue, Suite 3950
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 794-7716

Defendants-Appellees UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, a Washington public
corporation; and ELIZA SAUNDERS, Director of Public Records and
Open Public Meetings, University of Washington, are represented
by:

          Nancy Sagor Garland, Esq.
          AGWA - OFFICE OF THE WASHINGTON
           ATTORNEY GENERAL (SEATTLE)
          UW Box 359475
          Seattle, WA 98195-9475

USPACK LOGISTICS: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Easterday Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
USPACK Logistics LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit entitled MICHAEL EASTERDAY, individually and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. USPACK LOGISTICS
LLC, Defendant, Civil No. 15-7559, in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

Plaintiff Michael Easterday is a former employee of the Defendant.
US Pack provides courier services throughout the Northeastern
United States for companies selling pharmacy-related services to
customers in the health care industry. The Plaintiff worked as a
courier for US Pack, delivering medicine and other pharmaceutical
products on behalf of the company.

The Plaintiff brought suit on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, namely other delivery drivers for US Pack. He
alleges that the Defendant misclassified him and other drivers as
independent contractors, thereby subjecting them to improper
deductions from pay and denial of overtime pay. He brings causes of
action for violation of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, the
Overtime Wage and Hour Law, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff signed an employment contract which contains a
binding arbitration agreement. The Arbitration Provision then sets
forth the process by which arbitration will take place.

The Defendant first moved to compel arbitration in November 2015.
In response, the Plaintiff argued that the Court could not compel
arbitration because he, as a transportation worker engaged in
interstate commerce, was subject to the FAA's "Section 1
Exemption."  

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 8, 2022, Judge
Robert B. Kugler of the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, Camden Vicinage, affirmed Judge Donio's June 30, 2021 order
denying the Defendant's renewed motion to compel arbitration.

The Defendant now seeks a review of the Court's Opinion and Order
dated December 4, 2020 denying Defendant's motions to stay and
strike; and Opinion and Order dated March 23, 2022, denying
Defendant's renewed motion to compel arbitration.

The appellate case is captioned as Michael Easterday v. USPACK
Logistics LLC, Case No. 22-1749, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on April 28, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee MICHAEL EASTERDAY, individually and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          Krysten L. Connon, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800

               - and -

          Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
          Camille F. Rodriguez, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000  

Defendant-Appellant USPACK LOGISTICS LLC is represented by:

          Alexandra Agnostak, Esq.
          James M. McDonnell, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS
          200 Connell Drive, Suite 2000
          Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922
          Telephone: (908) 795-5200

               - and -

          Susan B. Burns, Esq.
          VAUGHAN BAIO & PARTNERS
          317 George Street, Suite 320
          New Brunswick, NJ 08901
          Telephone: (732) 844-2300  

VANGUARD CHESTER: Mismanages Mutual Funds, Harvey Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN HARVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VANGUARD CHESTER FUNDS; MORTIMER J. BUCKLEY;
CHRISTINE M. BUCHANAN; JOHN E. SCHADL; EMERSON U. FULLWOOD; AMY
GUTMANN; F. JOSEPH LOUGHREY; MARK LOUGHRIDGE; SCOTT C. MALPASS;
DEANNA MULLIGAN; ANDRE F. PEROLD; SARAH BLOOM RASKIN; PETER F.
VOLANAKIS; and THE VANGUARD GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-01741-ER (E.D., Pa., May 5, 2022) is an action alleging
mismanagement of mutual fund investments.

According to the complaint, Vanguard offers two kinds of target
date funds. The first are "Retail Funds" which are for individuals
and retirement plans with less than $100 million. The second are
"Institutional Funds" which are for retirement plans with over $100
million. The Retail and Institutional Funds have the same strategy
and investments, but the Institutional Funds are charged lower
management fees than Retail Funds.

Target date funds do not usually sell many assets so capital gains
distributions are typically minimal. Starting in December of 2020,
however, Vanguard decided to permit access to its Institutional
Funds to all retirement plans with at least $5 million, rather than
the previous $100 million minimum. This decision caused an enormous
sell off from its Retail Funds. Retirement plans that were
previously invested in the Retail Funds could sell their shares and
transfer over to Institutional Funds that invested in the same
assets but charge lower management fees. This is exactly what
happened, says the suit.

Retail Funds had to sell a large portion of its assets so that it
would have the cash on hand to redeem so many shares. As a result,
the Retail Funds incurred a capital gains on the assets sold,
causing in unprecedented capital gain distributions. Those who had
their investments in taxable accounts were levied with tax
liabilities. Vanguard did not have to go this route in its quest to
provide cost-effective options for larger investors. Vanguard could
have implemented other changes which would not have harmed smaller
investors with taxable accounts. Instead at this time, in gross
violation of its fiduciary and other legal duties, Vanguard
allegedly did not contemplate other options which would have
avoided injuring smaller, taxable investors.

VANGUARD CHESTER FUNDS provides investment management and advisory
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Hockenberry, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LEON AUSSPRUNG, MD, LLC
          1800 John F Kennedy Blvd, Suite 1500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 717-0744
          Email: JH@AussprungLaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy Brown, Esq.
          THE BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          767 Third Avenue, Suite 2501
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (516) 922-5427
          Facsimile: (516) 344-6204
          Email: tbrown@thebrownlawfirm.net


VELASQUEZ CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Avila Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
GUSTAVO RIVERA AVILA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VELASQUEZ CONSTRUCTION CORP.; and
JAIRO VELASQUEZ JR., as an individual, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-02606 (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2022) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Avilla was employed by the Defendants as construction
worker.

VELASQUEZ CONSTRUCTION CORP. was founded in 2005. The Company line
of business includes providing a wide range of carpentry services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

VOLTA INC: Faces Alvarez Suit Over Alleged Drop in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR PAUL ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VOLTA INC.; SCOTT MERCER; and
FRANCOIS P. CHADWICK, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-02730 (N.D.
Cal., May 6, 2022) is a class action on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Volta securities
between August 2, 2021 and March 28, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursues claims against the Defendants under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and 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: (1) that Volta had
improperly accounted for restricted stock units issued in
connection with the Business Combination; (2) that, as a result,
the Company had understated its net loss for third quarter 2021;
(3) that there were material weaknesses in the Company's internal
control over financial reporting that resulted in a material error;
(4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company would restate
its financial statements; (5) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Legacy Volta's founders would imminently exit the Company; (6)
that, as a result, the Company's financial results would be
adversely impacted; and (7) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and lacked a
reasonable basis.

On March 28, 2022, Volta announced that its founders, Scott Mercer
and Christopher Wendel, had resigned from their positions as Chief
Executive Officer ("CEO") and President, respectively, and from the
Board of Directors of the Company. On this news, the Company's
share price fell $0.76, or 18%, to close at $3.37 per share on
March 28, 2022, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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

VOLTA INC. provides EV charging solutions. The Company offers EV
charging solutions to property owners, as well as power to the
electric vehicle communities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

VOYAGER DIGITAL: Faces Suit Over Unregistered Crypto Securities
---------------------------------------------------------------
blockworks.co reports that attorneys have made fresh allegations in
a class action lawsuit against Voyager Digital, claiming the
cryptocurrency company sold unregistered securities in the form of
interest-earning crypto accounts.

The complaint, filed in a Miami federal court by lawyers Adam
Moskowitz and Stuart Grossman, includes a report detailing why the
Voyager Earn Program - allowing users to earn rewards on bitcoin,
ether, USDC and other cryptoassets - should have been registered
with the SEC.

The document also refutes Voyager's claims that the Florida court
does not have jurisdiction over the company, as the defendants of
the class action complaint are vying for a jury trial.

Additionally, the document spotlights related actions taken by the
SEC and state officials in the months after the original complaint
was filed Dec. 24 on behalf of Florida resident Mark Cassidy.

Voyager competitor BlockFi said in February it would pay $100
million in fines to the SEC and state regulators over allegations
it illegally offered a high-interest yield product.

Voyager CEO Stephen Ehrlich said during an earnings call that month
that there are differences between Voyager's Loyalty Program, which
offers Voyager token holders rewards, and BlockFi interest
accounts.

The company said in a March 30 statement it had received cease and
desist orders from the state securities divisions of Indiana,
Kentucky, New Jersey and Oklahoma relating to Voyager accounts that
permit customers to earn rewards on their crypto balances.

"Voyager is in ongoing communications with these state regulators
to better understand the terms in their respective regulatory
orders and to clarify certain statements in the orders that Voyager
believes are inaccurate," the company said.

The original December complaint focused on allegations that Voyager
charged hidden fees and made false promises to platform users. It
claims that the firm's bid-ask spread - the difference between the
highest bid a buyer is willing to offer and the lowest bid a seller
is willing to accept - "is kept intentionally wide."

Cassidy's lawyers said in January that litigation could result in
more than $1 billion in compensation for Voyager users.

"This action is absolutely spurious and without any merit,
whatsoever," a Voyager spokesperson said in an email at the time.
"We look forward to dealing with this matter through the
appropriate legal channels."

According to the amended complaint, Voyager previously claimed that
the Florida court does not have jurisdiction over the company. But
Voyager, listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange, sells its stock
over-the-counter in the United States, including Florida, the
document states. Thousands of the interest-earning crypto accounts
are based in Florida, it adds.

Voyager also claimed they should not have to respond to the
original complaint because Cassidy signed an "arbitration
agreement," Moskowitz told Blockworks.

The complaint notes that Janice Barrilleaux, Voyager's chief
administrative officer, called the January 2021 version of the
company's user agreement - the one Cassidy had agreed to - "grossly
outdated." David Brosgol, Voyager's general counsel, later
suggested "a significant overhaul" of the agreement, the document
notes.

"We hope that after the court resolves Voyager's continued attempts
to simply walk away from our case, we can quickly seek
certification for all of Voyager's customers that all have the same
rewards accounts, and finally require Voyager to comply with the
state and federal rules," Moskowitz said.

A Voyager spokesperson did not return a request for comment.

The company reported completing roughly 36 million consumer crypto
transactions and reaching $5.5 billion in net new retail deposits
since inception, as of March 31. Voyager's next earnings call is
slated for May 16. [GN]

WARGAMING GROUP: Faces W.B. Suit Over Illegal Online Gambling
-------------------------------------------------------------
W.B., a minor, by and through his parents WILLIAM BURROWS and
CASSANDRA BURROWS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WARGAMING GROUP LIMITED a/k/a
WARGAMING.NET, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-05281 (W.D. Wash., April
26, 2022) seeks to enjoin Wargaming's operation of illegal online
gambling and to recover damages pursuant to the Revised Code of
Washington and the Washington Consumer Protect Act.

The Defendant owns and operates a video game development company in
the so-called "casual games" industry -- that is, computer games
designed to appeal to a mass audience of casual games. Amongst the
games the Defendant owns and operates is a popular online war game
under the name World of Warships.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's business model allows
players to use Doubloons or other real-world currency to purchase
crates, containers, or boxes. These are often referred to as "oot
crates," "loot boxes," or similar names. These loot crates provide
players with a chance to obtain alluring items, such as rare
warships, premium items, or rewards which help a player advance in
the game. These coveted and alluring items tend to be rare, such as
a premium ship that would otherwise be expensive to purchase
outright or otherwise difficult or impossible to obtain. Plaintiff
is informed, believes, and alleges that, Defendants purposefully
manipulate the in-game economy in order to incentivize the purchase
of loot crates.

What is known, however, is that advancement in the game requires,
in significant part, on the player's collection of resources which
can be obtained by playing or through premium purchases, such as
loot crates. Should a player choose to earn the resources by
playing, they're met with months, if not years, of frustration till
the requisite resources are obtained. On the other hand, this
process can be expedited significantly through loot crates, added
the suit.

W.B. is a minor under the age of 18, and is a natural person and
citizen of the State of Washington.

Wargaming Group Limited is a foreign global video game company
headquartered in Cyprus.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC  
          5608 17th Avenue NW, #891  
          Seattle, WA 98107
          Telephone: (800) 778-2065
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523

               - and -

          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          321 N Mall Drive, Suite R108
          St. George, UT 84790
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: jason@kazlg.com


WESTERN EXPRESS: Class Settlement in Rivera Suit Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Marc Rivera, et al., Plaintiff v. Western
Express Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. EDCV 18-1633 JGB (SHKx)
(C.D. Cal.), Judge Jesus G. Bernal of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Eastern Division, issued a
judgment granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement.

The Court grants final approval to the parties' Settlement
Agreement. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair,
adequate, and reasonable, appears to be the product of arm's-length
and informed negotiations, and treats all members of the class
fairly. Judge Bernal states that the parties will perform their
obligations pursuant to the terms of this Settlement Agreement and
this Order.

The Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs is granted.

The following class is certified under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(c) for settlement purposes:

     All current and former employee drivers of Western Express,
     Inc. who resided in California during October 26, 2016
     through December 31, 2020, whose jobs included, among other
     things, driving commercial motor vehicles and performing
     related services within the State of California, and who
     were paid on a 'piece rate' and/or rate-per-mile basis for
     compensation purposes.

Judge Bernal finds that the form, manner, and content of the Class
Notice meet the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
23(c)(2).

Plaintiff Marc Rivera will be paid a service award of $10,000 in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this
Order. Plaintiff Jacquelyn Hutton will be paid a service award of
$10,000 in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement
and this Order.

Class counsel will be paid $453,012 in attorneys' fees and
$9,530.65 in costs in accordance with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement. The Settlement Administrator, CPT Group, Inc., will be
paid for its litigation costs of $27,000 in accordance with the
terms of the Settlement Agreement.

All class members, who did not validly and timely request exclusion
from the Settlement have released their claims, as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement, against any of the released parties.

Except as to any class members, who have validly and timely
requested exclusion, this action is dismissed with prejudice, with
all parties to bear their own fees and costs except as set forth
here and in the prior orders of the Court.

Without affecting the finality of this Order, the Court retains
jurisdiction over the parties, including Class Members, for the
purposes of construing, enforcing, and administering the Order and
Judgment, as well as the Settlement Agreement itself.

A full-text copy of the Court's Judgment dated April 25, 2022, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4tn7v8y3 from Leagle.com.


WILLIAMS-SONOMA STORES: Souci Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE SOUCI, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved
Employees, Plaintiff v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA STORES, INC., a California
Corporation, WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING, INC., a Delaware Corporation, VICKI
LOPEZ, an individual, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 22SMCV00589 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 26,
2022) is a Private Attorney General Action Complaint, pursuant to
the California Labor Code, arising from the Defendants' unlawful
labor practices.

Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. is a retailer of home furnishings &
gourmet cookware. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with
the job title of design specialist from October 31, 2017 until the
termination of her employment on September 10, 2021.

The suit is brought over Defendants' failure to (i) provide
employment records, (ii) pay overtime and double time,(iii) provide
rest and meal periods, (iv) pay minimum wages, (v) keep accurate
payroll records and provide itemized wage statements, (vi) pay
reporting time wages, (vii) pay split shift wages, (viii) pay all
wages earned on time, (ix) pay all wages earned upon discharge or
resignation, (x) reimburse necessary, business-related expenses,
and (xi) provide notice of paid sick time and accrual.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Fails to Pay Wages on a Weekly Basis, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIEL RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:22-cv-02436 (E.D.N.Y., April 28, 2022) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff, pursuant to the New York Labor Law, on
behalf of all of Williams-Sonoma, Inc.'s employees that engage in
manual work in the course of their employment.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant at a West Elm store
located in Riverhead, New York, from approximately November 2019 to
May 2021. He alleges that the Defendant violated the law by paying
him and other manual workers every other week rather than on a
weekly basis.

Williams-Sonoma, Inc. is an American publicly traded consumer
retail company that sells kitchenware and home furnishings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

WINDOW SELECT: Customers File Class Action Suit Over Alleged Scam
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Groth at Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that lawsuits are
continuing to pile up at Window Select after customers say they've
been scammed out of thousands of dollars after they paid for
windows and doors that were never installed.

Four customers filed a class action lawsuit in Waukesha County
Circuit Court against the Menomonee Falls-based company, alleging
they made payments for projects that weren't finished. Named as
defendants in the suit are Window Select owner Justin Kiswardy,
sales manager Kristy Russel and former general manager Ray
Muldrew.

The suit alleges Window Select violated Wisconsin's home
improvement laws and did not pay its subcontractors and suppliers
for materials or services. The plaintiffs - from Germantown,
Cedarburg, Oconomowoc and Milwaukee - are seeking immediate return
of their down payments, cost of damages and attorneys' fees.

Numerous attempts by the Journal Sentinel to talk to Kiswardy about
complaints against his business have been unsuccessful. On May 3,
he asked for more time to answer questions sent to him in writing.


"I would love to sit down with you guys and have a conversation
about Window Select's side of what's going on," he said. "Our
attorney's advising us that we would really like to postpone
this."

Brown County Sheriff's Department Deputy Marc Shield said that he's
continuing to receive complaints from angry customers. Multiple
departments across Wisconsin are now involved in the ongoing
investigation, he said.

Meanwhile, several Window Select employees have quit, saying
they've been shortchanged out of commissions and other benefits.
Window Select confirmed four employees had quit. The Journal
Sentinel was able to contact three of those employees, who declined
to go on the record about their reasons for leaving the company.

                          Resources

Those interested can file a report on Window Select with their
local police. To specifically reach Brown County Deputy Marc
Shield, email marc.shield@browncountywi.gov.

As a consumer, you can request a lien waiver from Window Select, a
document acknowledging the manufacturer or contractor received
payment, as required by Wisconsin state law. For more information
on how to request a lien waiver, visit www.datcp.wi.gov.

Viewers can also visit the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture,
Trade and Consumer Protection's website for resources or to file a
complaint at www.datcp.wi.gov.

Additionally, to file a report with the Better Business Bureau or
to access additional information, visit www.bbb.org.

Employees with questions about their specific benefits should
contact the U.S. Department of Labor's Employee Benefits Security
Administration at 866-444-3272 or online at www.askebsa.dol.gov.
[GN]

WISCONSIN: Seeks Denial of Peshek Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DALE PESHEK, HUNG TRAN,
and BRIAN THRELKELD, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. KAREN TIMBERLAKE, in her official capacity as the
Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, Case No.
2:21-cv-01061-PP (E.D. Wisc.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification because they have failed to meet their burden as to
each requirement for certification under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.

The Plaintiffs Dale Peshek and Brian Threlkeld are sex offenders
civilly committed under chapter 980 of the Wisconsin Statutes. They
filed this lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of provisions
in Wis. Stat. Section 980.08 that impose conditions on where they
can live if they are granted supervised release from commitment.
The Plaintiffs now seek class certification.

The Plaintiffs propose the following class:

   "All persons who have been adjudicated as SVPs under Chapter
   980 of the Wisconsin Statutes who are involuntarily committed
   at a DHS facility and who have been approved for supervised
   release unde but who have not been released due to an
   inability to locate compliant housing."

But in their motion for class certification, the Plaintiffs make no
attempt to show that this proposed class is so numerous that
joinder of all members would be impractical. Instead, they
summarily assert that their class is "difficult to quantify because
membership in the class is fluid."

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 22, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39zrCcG at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joshua L. Kaul, Esq.
          Karla Z. Keckhaver, Esq.
          Michael D. Norris, Esq.
          WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          Post Office Box 7857
          Madison, WI 53707-7857
          Telephone: (608) 264-6365
          Facsimile: (608) 266-3936
          E-mail: keckhaverkz@doj.state.wi.us
                  morrismd@doj.state.wi.us

WYNNDALCO ENTERPRISES: Citizens Appeals Judgment in BIPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Citizens Insurance Company of America filed an appeal
from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled CITIZENS
INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Michigan corporation, Plaintiff v.
WYNNDALCO ENTERPRISES, LLC; an Illinois limited liability company;
DAVID ANDALCIO; JOSE FLORES; MELISSA THORNLEY; DEBORAH
BENJAMIN-KOLLER; and JOSUE HERRERA; individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; and MARIO CALDERON and JENNIFER
ROCIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03873, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Plaintiff Citizens sold a business liability insurance policy to
Defendant Wynndalco. While the policy was in effect, Wynndalco was
sued in two separate class action lawsuits (Thornley v. CDW-Gov't,
LLC, No. 2020 CH 04346 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cnty. May 27, 2020) and
Calderon v. Clearview AI, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-01296-CM (S.D.N.Y. July
22, 2020)) for allegedly selling biometric information in violation
of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), 740
Ill. Comp. Stat. 14/1 et seq.

The litigation that prompted the insurance coverage dispute
involves the secret collection of more than three billion facial
scans by Clearview AI, an artificial intelligence company that
specializes in facial recognition software. Clearview AI allegedly
extracted, or "scraped," photographs from social media and content
sharing platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, and
Venmo to create a database of facial scans ("Clearview Database").
Clearview AI also created a facial recognition application that
allows its customers to identify individuals by comparing facial
pictures they take to the Clearview Database. Wynndalco, an
information technology ("IT") services and consulting firm,
licensed and sold access to the Clearview Database and Clearview
App to customers in Illinois.

Melissa Thornley and Mario Calderon, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, each filed class action lawsuits (the
"Thornley Lawsuit" and the "Calderon Lawsuit;" together, the
"Lawsuits") against Wynndalco, alleging that Wynndalco had violated
BIPA, an Illinois statute that regulates the collection,
disclosure, retention, and destruction of biometric information, by
selling Clearview's products in Illinois.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 21, 2022, Judge
John Z. Lee of the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
(i) denied Citizens' motion for judgment on the pleadings; and (ii)
granted Wynndalco's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Citizens Insurance Company of
America v. Wynndalco Enterprises, LLC, et al., Case No. 22-1713, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed
on April 27, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Docketing Statement was due for Appellant Citizens Insurance
Company of America on May 3, 2022;

   -- Transcript information sheet was due on May 11, 2022; and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before June 6, 2022 for
Citizens Insurance Company of America.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a
Michigan Corporation, is represented by:

          Kelly M. Ognibene, Esq.
          LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
          550 W. Adams Street
          Chicago, IL 60661-0000
          Telephone: (312) 345-1718
          E-mail: kelly.ognibene@lewisbrisbois.com

Defendants-Appellees WYNNDALCO ENTERPRISES, LLC, an Illinois
limited liability company; MELISSA THORNLEY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; DEBORAH BENJAMIN-KOLLER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; JOSUE
HERRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; and DAVID ANDALCIO, are represented by:

          David S. Golub, Esq.
          SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
          One Landmark Square
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 325-4491
          E-mail: dgolub@sgtlaw.com

XP POWER: Seeks to File Portions of Sur-Reply Under Seal
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as COMET TECHNOLOGIES USA
INC., a Delaware corporation, COMET AG, a Swiss corporation, and
YXLON International, a German corporation, v. XP POWER LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company, Case No. 5:20-cv-06408-NC
(N.D. Cal.), the Defendant files an administrative motion to file
under seal under controlling authority and the Local Rules.

Specifically, XP moves to seal portions of its Sur-Reply to
Plaintiffs' motion for permanent injunction which contains
sensitive confidential business information designated as "Highly
Confidential -- Outside Attorneys' Eyes Only" under the Protective
Order.

XP Power designs and distributes power supply solutions.

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Thomas W. Yeh, Esq.
          Joseph B. Farrell, Esq.
          Patricia Young, Esq.
          Jeffrey G. Homrig, Esq.
          Blake R. Davis, Esq.
          Matthew W. Walch, Esq.
          Russell Mangas, Esq.
          Laura Zenzerovich, Esq.
          Stephen D. O'Donohue , Esq.
          Razi Safi, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 485-1234
          Facsimile: (213) 891-8763
          E-mail: joe.farrell@lw.com
                 thomas.yeh@lw.com
                 patricia.young@lw.com
                 jeff.homrig@lw.com
                 blake.davis@lw.com
                 matthew.walch@lw.com
                 russell.mangas@lw.com
                 laura.zenzerovich@lw.com
                 stephen.odonohue@lw.com
                 razi.safi@lw.com

[*] Canada's Courts Discuss Evolving COVID Suit Certifications
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aidan Macnab at canadianlawyermag.com reports that in Canadian
class actions, the last 12 months have seen inconsistent
certification approaches from the courts and the continued impact
of COVID, but cooperation among lawyers and judges to coordinate
multijurisdictional claims is ongoing, according to a new report
from Bennett Jones LLP.

"Class Actions: Looking Forward 2022" provides an update on COVID
in what Ranjan Agarwal says he hopes is the final chapter on
pandemic-related class actions.

Written by Gannon Beaulne and Rabita Sharfuddin, the chapter on
COVID predicts that in 2022, new claims may emerge as "losses
crystalize" and limitation periods near conclusion. The authors
also suggest the Ottawa Freedom Convoy and the new government
measures the protest produced will generate new disputes.
Class-action litigation underway, such as those alleging
long-term-care-home negligence and those aimed at airlines for
cancelled flights, will progress toward merits determination. As
variants continue to multiply, businesses may be looking at claims
related to outbreaks on their premises, write Beaulne and
Sharfuddin.

"We could not escape a discussion about COVID-19 class actions,"
says Agarwal, co-head of Bennett Jones' class actions practice. "We
obviously saw a major explosion in claims when COVID first started.
But many of those claims have now been settled, or legislation has
effectively done away with the cases. And the result, I think, is
that we're seeing the tail end of those kinds of cases."

Ontario's amendments to its Class Proceedings Act took effect in
October 2020. The amendments created a new, stricter certification
standard, gave defendants the right to bring a motion to narrow or
dismiss the class action prior to certification determination, and
set a timeline of one year before which plaintiffs must file a
"final and complete" certification motion record or have their case
dismissed. In the chapter on "Diverging Approaches to the
Certification of Class Actions," Emrys Davis, Mia Laity, and Peter
Douglas write that only 32 class actions were launched in Ontario
in 2021, down from 53 in 2020. The authors expect plaintiffs will
continue to opt for friendlier jurisdictions.

The chapter also details the "uneven interpretations" of the
some-basis-in-fact standard for certification. This standard has
been the evidentiary basis for certification since the beginning of
class actions and has not been subject to much legal debate, says
Agarwal.

The BC Supreme Court's McCorquodale v RBC Global Asset Management
Inc and Spring v Goodyear Canada Inc, from the Alberta Court of
Appeal, provided differing views of how courts should apply the
standard, he says. The former granted and the latter denied
certification on that basis.

"Ultimately, we see our courts recognizing that certification has
to be a meaningful screening mechanism," says Agarwal. "Judges are
pushing back at the idea that the some-basis-in-fact standard
allows you to just certify any class action. Ultimately, I think,
that's one aspect of the divergence."

In the competition class action, Jensen v Samsung Electronics Co
Ltd, the Federal Court struck the plaintiffs' claim at
certification. In denying their conspiracy allegations, Justice
Denis Gascon endorsed the two-step test for proving some basis in
fact for the common issues: showing some basis in fact that the
issue exists and that it is common among class members. The
plaintiffs failed to persuade Justice Gascon that there was an
agreement among the defendants, write Davis, Laity and Douglas.

After several Supreme Court of Canada decisions created a "strong
view" that the courts had "effectively greenlit the certification
of competition class actions," Jensen "evens the playing field,"
says Agarwal.

"That decision holds the plaintiffs to what, I would say on the
defence bar, we believe is a reasonable and rational standard for
pleading and proving a case in the competition area."

He says that the ruling also provides direction on which cases are
fit for certification and how lawyers can pursue or defend those
claims.

Long the "bugbear" for both plaintiffs' and defence lawyers,
Agarwal predicts the class-action bar is progressing toward more
certainty on how multijurisdictional cases should proceed.

The SCC had never weighed in on the issue, and one "very old" law
review article argues they are unconstitutional, he says.

"But I think what we've seen is that in the absence of high-court
interpretation and application, motion judges and, frankly, lawyers
are fashioning processes that make multijurisdictional class
actions work better for the courts, work better for the bar, work
better for clients, and ultimately work better for the public."

Winder v Marriott International Inc dealt with defendants facing
overlapping class actions in B.C., Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, and
Nova Scotia. According to the report's chapter, "Navigating
Multijurisdictional Class Actions," written by Keely Cameron and
Alicia Yowart, each case management judge adopted Canadian Bar
Association protocols for multijurisdictional class actions, and
the parties agreed the judges could correspond and hold a
multijurisdictional joint hearing. Participants joined from five
Superior Courts in four time zones.

After the parties agreed to proceed with one national class action
in Ontario, Superior Court Justice Paul Perell called the process
"a remarkably successful collaboration" that "furthers access to
justice and the fair and efficient administration of justice across
the country."

Winder and Britton v Ford Motor Company of Canada represent the
interjurisdictional cooperation between class-action judges and
counsel which the legal system has seen in recent years,
particularly since COVID began, write Cameron and Yowart. "In some
cases, law firms have taken the lead by organizing consortiums to
coordinate national litigation. In other cases, courts have
coordinated actions directly," the authors write. [GN]


                            *********

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 ***