---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, May 19, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 94

                            Headlines

517 WEST PROPERTIES: Molina Files Suit Over Handymen’s Unpaid OT
A&D INTERESTS: 5th Cir. OK's Writ of Mandamus in Dancers FLSA Suit
A3 SMART: Case Management Order Entered in Schmidt Class Suit
ADTALEM GLOBAL: Final Approval of McCormick's Settlement Affirmed
AHRC HEALTH: Onate Wins Conditional Certification Bid

ALL AMERICAN: Agrees to Pay $230 Million to Settle Oil Spill Suit
AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over 2021 Data Breach
AMERICAN WATER WORKS: Bruce Suit Over Lost Water Service Ongoing
ARRIVAL SA: Faces Lioubinine Securities Suit in NY Court
ARRIVAL SA: Faces Sanchez Securities Suit in NY Court

AVATAR PROPERTIES: Appeals Circuit Court Ruling
BAKKT HOLDINGS: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of June 20 Deadline
BIMBO BAKERIES: Botonis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Sued Over Illegal Medical Fee Reimbursement
BRYCE’S LAWN: Underpays Mechanics, Crowley Suit Claims

CALIFORNIA: Court Resolves Ashker's Objections in Prisoners Suit
CALIFORNIA: Denial of James' Bid for Injunctive Relief Recommended
CALIFORNIA: State Bar Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach
CFG HEALTH: Faces McGowan Suit Over Unpaid Wages
CHEMICAL AND MINING: Settlement in New York Securities Suit OK'd

CIPRIANO LANDSCAPING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Claros Alleges
COMMERCE INSURANCE: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Breach Class Suit
COMPASS GROUP: Settles BIPA Class Action for $6.8 Million
CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY: Court Narrows Claims in Reynolds Class Suit
COVERALL INC: Faces Worker Misclassification Class Action

CREDIT SUISSE: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of June 28 Deadline
DENVER, CO: Tenth Circuit Vacates Prelim. Injunction in DHOL Suit
DROPBOX INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Granted
DRUNKEN FISH: Fails to Pay Servers’ Minimum & OT Wages, Tweedy
Says
DUNKIN' BRANDS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Deceptive Gift Cards

FASHION NOVA: Faces Proposed Class Action Over Unwanted Texts
FCA US: Petro Files Suit in D. Delaware
FEDEX GROUND: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Aristizabal Suit Alleges
FGX INTERNATIONAL: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FIRST HIGH-SCHOOL: Faces Dagan Suit Over Drop in Share Price

FITBIT INC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Smartwatch Products
FITZCON CONSTRUCTION/REN: Bid to Amend Lema Suit Partly Granted
FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Ballard Spahr Discusses Ruling in TCPA Suit
GEICO GENERAL: Benvenutti Sues Over Unpaid Wages & Retaliation
GENWORTH LIFE: Improperly Denied Insurance Claims, Circus Says

HELLO GROUP: Settles Marchand Securities Suit in NY Court
HONEYWELL INT'L: Kanefsky's $10MM Class Settlement Wins Final Nod
HORIZONS ETFS: July 4 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
HORIZONS ETFS: Ontario Superior Court Certifies Class Action
INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of June 24 Deadline

IQVIA INC: Former Employees Push ERISA Class Action Lawsuit
K.B. WALLWORX: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castillo Suit Claims
KIA CORP: Class Action Lawsuit Over Kia Soul Vehicles Ongoing
KPMG LLP: June 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Fails to Protect Customers' Personal Info, Suit Says

LAKEVIEW LOAN: Taylor Files Suit in S.D. Florida
LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of June 20 Deadline
MADEMAN INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MADISON COUNTY, IN: Final Hearing Set in Inmates Class Lawsuit
MCCALLA RAYMER: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Debt Collection

MEZCALS OF 5TH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Guit Suit Claims
MICHAELS STORES: Must Face Sales Tax Class Action
MILLS COLLEGE: Students File Suit Over Misleading Merger Deal
MOLSON COORS: Eyzaguirre Sues Over Mislabeled Seltzer Products
MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE: Court Dismisses Byberry Suit With Prejudice

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Releases Browns Tanking Investigation Results
NEUTROGENA CORP: July 7 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
NEW YORK: Court Dismisses Shomo v. Department of Corrections
NEXTFOODS INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Probiotic Drinks
NOOM INC: $56M Class Settlement Reached in Autorenewal Suit

OSCAR HEALTH: Johnson Fistel Discloses Securities Class Action
PARTECH INC: Reaches $790K Settlement in Biometric Collection Suit
PATRICIA MUSSLEWHITE: Brown Class Certification Bid Tossed as Moot
PERFORMIX LLC: Scheduling Order Entered in Gonzalez Suit
PINGORA ASSET: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach

PORCH.COM INC: Settlement in Preston Suit Gets Initial Nod
PPL CORPORATION: TMRP Suit Removed to D. Montana
PRESTAMOS CDFI: Marshall Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania
PRIVE GOODS: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
PROFESSIONAL FINANCIAL: Class Action Hearing Scheduled for June 9

R1 RCM INC: Shinn Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
RAHAL BIOSCIENCES: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Court Grants Bid to Remand Powers Suit
RECOLOGY AMERICAN: Brooks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
RISKIFIED LTD: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of July 1 Deadline

RITCHIE BROS: Eck Files Suit in D. Nebraska
ROCKPORT, MA: Rauseo, et al., Seek to Certify Putative Classes
SALAS CONCRETE: Cavazos Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
SANDLAND NATIONAL: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SC DATA: Orders on Schumacher's Standing to Pursue Claims Vacated

SEAGLE PIZZA: Class Settlement in Thompson Suit Wins Final Approval
SIGNATUREMD INC: Seeks Dismissal of Gladstone Complaint
SNAP INC: Faces Coss Suit Over Illegal Biometric Data Collection
SNAP INC: Violated Ill. Users' Privacy, Class Action Alleges
SOCLEAN INC: Odom Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Bombin, Rood Allowed to File Docs Under Seal
STATE FARM: Parties in Cudd Seek Scheduling & Discovery Order
STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of June 13 Deadline
SUN PHARMACEUTICAL: Lowey Dannenberg Discloses Class Settlement
SUN PHARMACEUTICAL: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $485-MM

SUNRUN INC: Chapman Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
TAMARA LICH: Lawyers Seek to Expand Freedom Convoy Class Action
THUNDER BAY, ON: Denies Class Claims Over Pinhole Leaks Damages
TRINET GROUP: Faces ERISA Suit in Florida Court
TURNPOINT SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, D'Arcy Alleges

TWITTER INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of June 13 Deadline
UNITED KINGDOM: Lawsuit Mulled Over Ukrainian Refugee Visa Delays
UNITED SERVICES: Court Certifies Class in Sampson's Valuation Suit
UNITED STATES: Bid to Seal in NorCal Suit v. IRS Granted in Part
UNITED STATES: Casa Libre Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action

UPSTART HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
VIACOMCBS INC: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Continued to August 8
VINNIE FISCHETTI: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Canales Suit Alleges
VIRGIN AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Suit Over Undisclosed Financial Info
WALMART INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Class Action

WELLS FARGO: Baker Settlement Class Initially Certified
WEST BEND, WI: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Gatzke Class Suit
[*] Fisher Phillips Attorneys Discuss Court Rulings in WTPA Suit
[*] K&L Gates Attorney Discusses PFAS Class Action Claims
[*] Over 500 New Advertising Class Actions Filed in 2021

[*] Senate Bill 47 With FLSA Provisions to Take Effect on July 6

                            *********

517 WEST PROPERTIES: Molina Files Suit Over Handymen’s Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, GIOVANNY RAMIREZ MOLINA, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 517 WEST PROPERTIES,
LLC, and ISAAC WETTENSTEIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03839
(S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff against the
Defendants for their alleged failure to pay overtime compensation
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a handyman, who
performs manual work including maintenance and repairs, including
collecting and throwing out garbage/trash, cleaning common areas of
the building, monitoring security cameras, and other manual duties.
The Plaintiff has been employed in such position from January 2,
2020 to the present.

The Plaintiff claims that he has never received any wages from the
beginning of his employment by the Defendant until March 5, 2022.
The Defendant began paying him a weekly salary of $150 in cash
since March 5, 2022 only. Despite working more than 40 hours per
week, the Defendants did not pay him overtime compensation at the
rate of one and one-half times his regular rates of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Moreover, the Defendants
failed to provide him with properly compliant paystubs, and failed
to provide him with a wage acknowledgement notice upon his hiring
or at any time thereafter.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action
complaint on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
employees seeking to recover unpaid compensation at the applicable
statutory minimum wage and overtime rates, as well as liquidated
damages and statutory damages, punitive damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, litigation costs and expenses together with
reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and other relief as the Court
deems just and proper.

517 West Properties, LLC engages in the real estate and building
management and ownership. Isaac Wettenstein is the owner of the
Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Samuel, Esq.
          THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
          1441 Broadway - Suite 6085
          New York, NY 10018
          Tel: (212) 563-9884

A&D INTERESTS: 5th Cir. OK's Writ of Mandamus in Dancers FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE A&D INTERESTS, INCORPORATED, doing business as
HEARTBREAKERS GENTLEMAN'S CLUB; MIKE ARMSTRONG; PEGGY ARMSTRONG,
Petitioners, Case No. 22-40039 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the Petitioner's motion for a
writ of mandamus.

I. Introduction

A&D Interests, Incorporated (doing business as the "Heartbreakers
Gentlemen's Club"), Mike Armstrong, and Peggy Armstrong, petition
the Fifth Circuit for a writ of mandamus. They argue that the
district court should not have certified a Fair Labor Standards Act
collective action comprised of "exotic" dancers who had worked at
Heartbreakers in the last three years. The Fifth Circuit must
decide whether the district court's decision to send notice to
potential opt-in plaintiffs who signed arbitration agreements ran
afoul of our holding in In re JPMorgan Chase & Co., 916 F.3d 494,
499 (5th Cir. 2019). And, if the district court did err, it must
also decide whether Petitioners have cleared the remaining hurdles
for mandamus relief.

II. Background

Respondent Stacey Kibodeaux worked as an exotic dancer for the
Petitioners in Dickinson, Texas. She alleges that the Petitioners
unlawfully misclassified her (along with all other exotic dancers)
as an independent contractor, resulting in Petitioners' unlawfully
withholding wages she was due in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"). Shortly after Kibodeaux filed her
complaint, three other former dancers joined the lawsuit. The
plaintiffs moved the district court to certify the case as an FLSA
"collective action" comprised of dancers who worked at
Heartbreakers in the preceding three years.

The district court granted Kibodeaux's motion for "conditional
certification," citing Kibodeaux v. A&D Ints., Inc., No.
3:20-CV-00008, 2020 WL 6292551 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 27, 2020)
("Kibodeaux I"), order vacated on reconsideration. The Petitioners
moved the district court for permission to seek interlocutory
review of that order, which the district court denied. They then
petitioned the Fifth Circuit for a writ of mandamus. The latter
denied that petition.

While the first mandamus action was pending, the Fifth Circuit
decided Swales v. KLLM Transport Services, L.L.C., which did away
with conditional certification in FLSA cases.In light of this
change in the law, the district court vacated its conditional
certification order and ordered the parties to conduct preliminary
discovery. Armed with new discovery, the district court granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for certification and issuance of notice, citing
Kibodeaux v. A&D Ints., Inc., No. 3:20-CV-008, 2022 WL 92856 (S.D.
Tex. Jan. 10, 2022) ("Kibodeaux II").

The Petitioners then filed a second mandamus petition asking the
Fifth Circuit to vacate the district court's order certifying the
collective action. To facilitate orderly appellate review, the
district court stayed its order certifying the collective action
pending resolution of this petition.

III. Discussion

When deciding whether mandamus is warranted, "the Fifth Circuit
asks (1) whether the petitioner has demonstrated that it has 'no
other adequate means to attain the relief it desires'; (2) whether
the petitioner's 'right to issuance of the writ is clear and
indisputable'; and (3) whether the Fifth Circuit, in the exercise
of its discretion, is 'satisfied that the writ is appropriate under
the circumstances.'"

In sum, the Fifth Circuit holds that the district court apparently
recognized that the arbitration agreement would prevent the opt-in
plaintiffs from ultimately participating in the collective action,
but approved class notice anyways. This was not merely an erroneous
exercise of discretion. In light of JPMorgan, it was wrong as a
matter of law. Because the district court clearly and indisputably
erred, mandamus relief is appropriate.

IV. Conclusion

The petition for writ of mandamus is granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3r972nzz from Leagle.com.


A3 SMART: Case Management Order Entered in Schmidt Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nicole Schmidt v. A3 Smart
Home LP, Case No. 2:21-cv-01797-SPL (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge
Steven P. Logan entered a case management order as follows:

  -- All discovery must be completed          June 30, 2023
     on or before:

  -- All discovery for class                  October 21, 2022
     certification, including
     discovery by subpoena, shall
     be completed on or before:

  -- Parties shall provide full               March 31, 2023
     and complete expert disclosures
     as required by Rule
     26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal
     Rules of Civil Procedure no
     later than:

  -- Rebuttal expert disclosures,             May 26, 2023
     if any, shall be made no later
     than:

  -- Expert depositions shall be              June 30, 2023
     completed no later than:

  -- Any motion for class certification       November 18, 2022
     shall be filed by:

  -- Any response shall be filed by:          December 23, 2022

  -- Any reply must be filed by:              January 20, 2023

  -- Dispositive motions shall be             July 28, 2023
     filed no later than:

A3 Smart is a home security company that offers whole-home
automation and protection.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 27, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yC86aa at no extra charge.[CC]

ADTALEM GLOBAL: Final Approval of McCormick's Settlement Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVE McCORMICK, ROBBY BROWN, T'LANI ROBINSON, DENNIS
MAGANA, SCOTT SWINDELL, and DAVIS TOROSYNA, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees v.
ADTALEM GLOBAL EDUCATION, INC., Formerly Known as DeVRY EDUCATION
GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DeVRY UNIVERSITY, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Defendants-Appellees, (RICHARDO PEART,
Objector-Appellant), Case No. 1-20-1197 (Ill. App.), the Appellate
Court of Illinois for the First District, Third Division, affirmed
the trial court's order granting final approval to the settlement
agreement and McCormick's motion for attorney fees.

I. Background

Adtalem Global Education, Inc. and DeVry University, Inc., who
jointly operated DeVry University and Keller Graduate School of
Management (collectively DeVry), were sued by Dave McCormick and
five others (collectively McCormick) as class representatives of
students who claimed that DeVry was able to recruit students and
charge higher tuition between 2008 and 2016 by making misleading
and deceptive statements about the income and employment statistics
of DeVry graduates. McCormick sought actual damages for the tuition
premium that they paid for a DeVry education, as well as equitable
relief, statutory damages, and attorney fees.

Two years later, McCormick reached a preliminary settlement
agreement with DeVry, to which Richardo Peart objected. The trial
court denied Peart's objections, gave final approval to the
settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and awarded 35% of
the settlement as reasonable attorney fees for the "extraordinary"
result that the Plaintiffs' counsel had negotiated despite DeVry's
"thin" liability. Peart appeals the denial of his objections and
approval of the settlement.

DeVry University was one of the country's largest for-profit
colleges. In 2008, DeVry launched a nationwide advertising campaign
in which it boasted of a high rate of job placements for its
graduates and highlighted above-average salaries at the jobs which
they secured. In 2016, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sought an
injunction and tuition refunds from DeVry based on advertisements,
marketing materials, and other recruitment efforts touting
allegedly-deceptive representations about the advantages of holding
a DeVry degree. That same year, the Department of Education pursued
DeVry for its marketing practices. The FTC action resulted in an
injunction prohibiting DeVry from misrepresenting how many of its
graduates were able to secure jobs within their field of study. In
addition, in late in 2016, DeVry settled with the two federal
agencies by depositing $49.4 million toward tuition refunds and
providing $50.6 million for loan and debt relief to its former
students.

Other actions were filed around the country. There was a $27.5
million settlement in a securities lawsuit, and smaller
settlements, including $2.25 million for consumer restitution with
the state of New York and $455,000 with the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. This Illinois case was commenced in 2018.

In this Illinois action, a former DeVry student, Nicole Versetto,
alleged that DeVry's false statements persuaded prospective
students to enroll at its institutions instead of at similar
colleges and to also pay a premium for their tuition. Versetto's
claims were based on Illinois consumer protection statutes and the
common law theories of fraud, breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty, conversion, and unjust enrichment.

DeVry filed a motion to dismiss which was stayed pending an attempt
to mediate in February 2019. The parties' first attempt at
mediation was unproductive and the litigation resumed with an
amended complaint in March 2019 in which Dave McCormick was
substituted as the plaintiff. DeVry's motion to dismiss McCormick's
first amended complaint was subsequently granted, with leave to
replead.

Around this time, however, two similar actions against DeVry which
students filed in Illinois federal court were dismissed with
prejudice and the second amended complaint that McCormick filed
against DeVry was met with a motion to dismiss -- Robinson v. DeVry
Education Group, Inc., No. 16-CV-7447, 2018 WL 828050 (N.D. Ill.,
Feb. 12, 2018); and Polly v. Adtalem Global Education, Inc., No.
16-CV-9754, 2019 WL 587409 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 13, 2019). The tide
that was seemingly in DeVry's favor shifted while McCormick and
DeVry were briefing DeVry's motion, when motions to dismiss three
similar suits in other parts of the country were denied. Before
DeVry's motion to dismiss McCormick's second amended complaint
could be heard on Jan. 13, 2020, the parties agreed to a second
mediation.

During the mediation session on Dec. 17, 2019, the parties reached
an agreement in principle. Limited discovery ensued. This is the
settlement at issue on appeal. For purposes of settlement,
McCormick proposed to represent the class of approximately 323,000
individuals nationwide who paid for any part of a DeVry education
between 2008 and 2018; and DeVry agreed to create a $44.95 million
fund from which to pay the claims of class members, as well as
notice costs and attorney fees.

The parties agreed that class members who submitted valid claims
would be entitled to a pro rata payment from the $44.95 million in
proportion to their number of paid credit hours. By this they meant
that if Claimant A paid for twice as many credit hours as Claimant
B, then Claimant A's pro rata share would be twice that of Claimant
B's pro rata share. In addition to the pro rata payments, the
parties agreed that associate and graduate degree holders who had
been unable to find jobs within their fields of study within six
months of graduation would be paid an additional $500; and their
bachelor degree counterparts would be paid an additional $1,000.

It was also agreed that claims would be subject to an offset for
debt forgiveness and money that claimants had already received from
any of the federal and state government actions against DeVry, up
to one-third of the fund. In addition, DeVry became obligated to
provide career counseling services to graduates who were unable to
find a job within their field of study within six months, and to
request that the credit reporting bureaus delete negative credit
events that DeVry had reported about student debt. The former
students' release to DeVry preserved their right to seek loan
forgiveness through the Department of Education's Borrower Defense
to Repayment program.

On May 28, 2020, the trial court granted preliminary approval to
the settlement agreement and ordered that notice be given to
settlement class members by paper mail and e-mail. A professional
class action claims administrator was retained to communicate with
eligible individuals by mail, e-mail, website, and telephone.

Class member Peart, who was represented by counsel in Watkinsville,
Georgia, filed an objection on Sept. 22, 2020 to the court's final
approval of the settlement, arguing primarily that he was better
off pursuing "claims for debt cancellation" rather than
participating in a settlement in which his compensation would be
reduced or nullified by the payments he took in other settlements.
Peart also argued that the requested attorney fees were not
reasonable.

In a declaration made on Sept. 16, 2020 under penalty of perjury,
the claims administrator stated that of 444,039 known class
members, 53,132 individuals submitted claims. This response rate of
slightly under 12% of potential claims was considered an
"exceptional" response. Only a small number of settlement class
members, 866, or about .91% of the settlement class, had opted out
of the settlement. Only four settlement class members, including
Peart, filed objections to the settlement. The objectors are .0009%
of the settlement class.

After hearing arguments on the motion for final approval and
objections, the trial court overruled the objections, noted that it
"had given great thought to and *** considered all eight factors
identified in the City of Chicago v. Korshak case *** and concluded
that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate."
The court gave final approval to the settlement and also reviewed
McCormick's motion for attorney fees and granted the requested
amount as reasonable. This appeal followed.

II. Discussion

A.

Peart's first of three arguments is that it was an abuse of
discretion to approve a settlement that was not in the best
interests of class members whose compensation will be offset,
potentially entirely, by their compensation from DeVry's settlement
with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). He claimed and was paid
$772.96 from the FTC settlement and contends that he will be
"disadvantaged" when that amount either reduces or eliminates his
share of the McCormick settlement. The exact amount of Peart's
offset has not been stated by the settlement administrator, but
depends upon the total number of paid credit hours of all former
students who participate in the McCormick settlement.

Peart contends the trial court should have obtained this data and
specifically addressed it before giving approval. However, the
payment offsets were "hardly mentioned" in the trial court, were
not one of the judge's considerations, and should not be analyzed
for the first time on appeal because "that is not a function of an
appellate court (not to mention impossible on this record)." Peart
also argues that class members whose compensation is going to be
reduced by their earlier compensation are being treated differently
from first-time claimants, and that this is an intra-class conflict
which entitled his subset of the class to the appointment of
separate counsel.

The Appellate Court holds that the record does not support Peart's
contention that the trial court lacked sufficient information about
the offset for the payments and debt forgiveness that were claimed
in other settlements with DeVry and should have engaged in further
analysis of the issue, or the contention that the settlement
agreement is unfair to those individuals. The record shows that
McCormick's counsel gave a detailed presentation of both the facts
and law which provided the trial court with ample support for its
discretionary decision to approve the settlement as fair,
reasonable, and adequate.

Accordingly, the Appellate Court finds that there is no basis for
Peart's argument that payment offsets were "hardly mentioned" in
the trial court or that it would be "impossible" from the record
for a reviewing court to address the topic. Furthermore, the quoted
portion of the oral arguments effectively refutes Peart's
contention that the offsets are unfair to him and others like him.
The offset language ensures that all former students will be
compensated equally and that "double" claimants such as Peart will
not recover double compensation or double debt forgiveness through
the McCormick litigation. While Peart is apparently displeased by
the settlement, his argument falls far short of meeting his burden
to show that the trial court's ruling was an abuse of discretion.

B.

Peart's second argument is that it was an abuse of discretion to
award attorney fees as a percentage of the settlement when some of
that money will revert to DeVry as unclaimable by class members who
successfully took part in other settlements, primarily the FTC
action. Peart estimates that up to 100,000 class members made
claims in the FTC action and that this means only $30 million of
the $44.9 million fund will be paid to claimants in the current
action and the remainder of the fund will revert to DeVry. Peart's
estimation is that awarding $15.7 million in attorney fees
overcompensates counsel by $5.24 million. Peart's written objection
to final approval of the settlement included this argument and
these figures. His solution is that the Appellate Court orders the
trial court to reconsider the award, based on what Peart considers
to be the "actual benefit" to the class.

This is not a persuasive argument, the Appellate Court holds.
McCormick and DeVry negotiated a compromise that gives a mix of
financial and nonfinancial benefits to all the class members. Due
to the counsels' advocacy, Peart and his fellow class members are
receiving a package of financial and nonfinancial compensation in
the present without the expense, uncertainty, and time of further
litigation. He may have preferred greater financial compensation
and is arguing that attorney fees should be based strictly on
financial payments. However, he cites no authority for that
proposition and it would be unjust for the Plaintiffs' counsel to
have worked for and obtained "extraordinarily" positive results for
the entire class, despite "thin" grounds for negotiating with
DeVry, yet be compensated for only a portion of the settlement. The
attorneys' efforts created a common fund and the attorneys are
equitably entitled to reasonable attorney fees for that work.

C.

Mr. Peart's final argument is that the attorney fee award of 35% of
the settlement was "unreasonably high" and a "windfall" for a case
that was actively litigated for less than two years, "never
advanced beyond the motion to dismiss stage," and "piggybacked" on
the FTC action. He contends the trial court should have required
evidence of the legal work in order to perform a "lodestar"
cross-check. He also argues that the judge's only stated reason for
exceeding a 25% benchmark was being "very familiar with what
appropriate fees are."

The Appellate Court does not find that the trial court used an
improper standard or procedure in determining attorney fees. The
record is contrary to Peart's contention that the trial judge's
only reason for awarding 35% was being "'very familiar with what
appropriate fees are.'" In the Appellate Court's opinion, even if
the trial judge had used 25% as a starting point, he gave reasons
for increasing that percentage, including that he was in the best
position to assess the circumstances as he was "the Judge on the
case since its inception in Cook County," and that the attorneys
were skilled litigators who undertook significant risk in
overcoming DeVry's thin liability and achieving an extraordinary
settlement for the class. On this record, the Appellate Court does
not find that the 35% award was an abuse of discretion.

III. Conclusion

The Appellate Court affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 4, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2va6sa8h from Leagle.com.


AHRC HEALTH: Onate Wins Conditional Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIO ONATE, JR., on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AHRC HEALTH
CARE, INC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08292-LGS-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Lorna G. Scofield entered an order:

   1. conditionally permitting them to proceed as a collective
      action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of:

      "all current former non-exempt hourly employees and non-
      exempt salaried employees who were employed by Defendant
      AHRC Health on or after the date that is three years
      before the filing of the Complaint;"

   2. compelling Defendant to furnish the names, last known
      physical addresses, last known email addresses and last
      known telephone numbers of those individuals in the
      collective action;

   3. authorizing the Plaintiffs to circulate a Notice of
      Pendency and Consent to Join Form to all individuals who
      are similarly situated in this action; and

   4. together with such other and further relief as the Court
      deems just and proper.

AHRC New York City is an organization serving people with
intellectual and developmental disabilities in New York City. The
initialism AHRC once stood for Association for the Help of Retarded
Children. While the name is no longer used, the organization
retained its four letters.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated  April 25,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wjde05
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brett R. Gallaway, Esq.
          Lee S. Shalov, Esq.
          Jason S. Giaimo, Esq.
          Luis Munoz, Esq.
          McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP
          260 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 448-1100
          E-mail: bgallaway@mclaughlinstern.com
                  lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com
                  jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com
                  lmunoz@mclaughlinstern.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Arthur J. Robb, Esq.
          CLIFTON BUDD & DEMARIA, LLP
          350 Fifth Avenue, suite 6110
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 687-7410
          E-mail: ajrobb@abdm.com

ALL AMERICAN: Agrees to Pay $230 Million to Settle Oil Spill Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback L.L.P. is pleased to announce that Plains All
American Pipeline (NASDAQ: PAA) (Plains) has agreed to pay a total
of $230 million to resolve the class action litigation brought by
members of the local Santa Barbara fishing community and local
property owners, stemming from the May 19, 2015 oil spill in Santa
Barbara County.

The settlement agreement comes nearly seven years after a severely
corroded underground oil pipeline owned and operated by Plains
failed near Refugio State Beach, dumping thousands of gallons of
crude oil into one of the most biologically diverse area of the
West Coast, killing marine life, fouling coastline, and disrupting
local industry.

Nationally recognized environmental and complex litigation law
firm, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., was the first firm to file suit on
behalf of members of what would become the fisher class in 2015.
Keller Rohrback, along with co-counsel, successfully fought through
several rounds motions to dismiss, summary judgment, and
decertification, and endured a long trial delay as a result of the
Covid pandemic, before the case was finally resolved, a few weeks
before the anticipated June, 2022 trial. Plains has agreed to pay
$184 million to members of the Fisher Class and $46 million to the
Property Class, subject to Court approval.

Matthew Preusch, a partner in Keller Rohrback's Santa Barbara
office said "This settlement should serve as a reminder that
pollution just can't be a cost of doing business, and that
corporations will be held accountable for environmental damage they
cause."

Keller Rohrback partner Juli Farris elaborated on the impact that
this settlement would have, stating: "The Gaviota Coast is a
special place, and Plains' 2015 oil spill was devastating to that
area. This settlement will bring some hard-won relief to the people
who live along the Central and Southern California coast and those
who rely on the region's rich fisheries for their livelihoods."

Keller Rohrback Managing Partner, Lynn Sarko, who was deeply
involved in both the Plains and Exxon Valdez cases said "I am very
proud of the hard work that the Keller Rohrback team has put into
this lawsuit and in brokering this settlement with Plains. I am
honored to be part of an organization that fights to hold
corporations accountable for polluting our air, water and natural
resources."

The case name is Andrews et al. v. Plains All American Pipeline,
L.P. et al., and is pending before the Hon. Philip Gutierrez in the
Central District of California. More information about the
settlement is included in a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement, submitted to the federal court. If the court
preliminarily approves the settlement, information will be sent to
class members about the settlement before the court holds a
fairness hearing to decide whether to grant final approval to the
settlement.

                   About Keller Rohrback

Keller Rohrback is not new to oil spill-related litigation, having
been one of the firms to represent the class in the prosecution of
the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill litigation. That spill, which occurred
when the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground in Prince William
Sound Alaska in March of 1989, spilled 11 million gallons of oil
into the pristine waters, devastating coastline and fishery-related
industry for years to come. Keller Rohrback was also appointed by
the district court to administer the claims program in the Exxon
case, ultimately distributing over $1 billion in awards and
interest to affected fishers, property owners and other class
members.

Keller Rohrback L.L.P. is a law firm with offices in seven
locations throughout the country. Keller Rohrback's environmental
lawyers have a long history of successfully representing
individuals and class members in a wide range of important
environmental litigation. Whether working for victims of oil
spills, fires, communities exposed to toxic materials, or people
who purchased contaminated or defective products, Keller Rohrback's
team of experienced environmental litigators have helped to protect
people and the environment across the country. [GN]

AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over 2021 Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that American
Financial Resources allegedly failed to adequately safeguard
private information, leaving the sensitive data vulnerable to a
breach in December 2021, according to a recent class action
lawsuit.

The data breach class action lawsuit says that American Financial
Resources learned of a data breach that took place from Dec. 6-20,
2021 in which an unauthorized actor gained access to the mortgage
lender's customer data.

The personal information compromised in the American Financial
Resources data breach allegedly included customers' names, Social
Security numbers and driver's license numbers.

The mortgage lender failed in its obligation to keep customers'
private information confidential and to protect it from
unauthorized access, the data breach class action lawsuit says.

Data Breach Class Action Says Mortgage Lender Notified Customers
Too Late
Plaintiff Dorothy Zelenski says that American Financial Resources
notified affected customers about the data breach in March even
though the mortgage lender allegedly completed its investigation
into the data breach on Feb. 4, 2022.

"Defendant offered no explanation for the delay between the initial
discovery of the Breach and the belated notification to affected
customers, which resulted in Plaintiff and Class Members suffering
harm they otherwise could have avoided had a timely disclosure been
made," Zelenski alleges in the data breach class action lawsuit.

Zelenski says American Financial Resources also failed to provide
important details about the data breach, such as how unauthorized
parties accessed its network, whether the information was encrypted
and how many customers were affected.

The data breach class action lawsuit says customers' sensitive data
is likely for sale on the dark web and that unauthorized
individuals may have already accessed their unencrypted and
unredacted personal information. Zelenski says that she and the
putative class members are therefore at risk of identity theft and
fraud.

Zelenski filed the American Financial Resources class action
lawsuit on behalf of herself and a proposed class of persons
nationwide whose private information was compromised in the
December 2021 data breach.

In 2019, tens of thousands of potential mortgage borrowers may have
been affected by a massive Ascension customer data breach.

Zelenski is represented by Gary S. Graifman and Melissa R. Emert of
Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman PC.

The American Financial Resources Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit
is Dorothy Zelenski v. American Financial Resources Inc., Case No.
2:22-cv-02392, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey. [GN]

AMERICAN WATER WORKS: Bruce Suit Over Lost Water Service Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2022, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2022, that an
agreed scheduling order scheduled for October 2022 to address the
question of class certification was entered by the court.

On September 12, 2019, the company's Tennessee subsidiary Tennessee
American Waterworks Company (TAWC), experienced a leak in a 36-inch
water transmission main, which caused service fluctuations or
interruptions to TAWC customers and the issuance of a boil water
notice. TAWC repaired the main by early morning on September 14,
2019, and restored full water service by the afternoon of September
15, 2019, with the boil water notice lifted for all customers on
September 16, 2019.

On September 17, 2019, a complaint captioned "Bruce, et al. v.
American Water Works Company, Inc., et al." was filed in the
Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee against TAWC and
American Water Works Service Company, Inc. on behalf of a proposed
class of individuals or entities who lost water service or suffered
monetary losses as a result of the Chattanooga incident.

The complaint alleged breach of contract and negligence against the
Tennessee-American Water Defendants, as well as an equitable remedy
of piercing the corporate veil. In the complaint as originally
filed, the Tennessee Plaintiffs were seeking an award of
unspecified alleged damages for wage losses, business and economic
losses, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of use and enjoyment of
property and annoyance and inconvenience, as well as punitive
damages, attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment interest.

In September 2020, the court dismissed all of the Tennessee
Plaintiffs' claims in their complaint, except for the breach of
contract claims against TAWC, which remain pending. In October
2020, TAWC answered the complaint, and the parties have been
engaging in discovery. The court has entered an agreed scheduling
order, which sets a hearing in October 2022 to address the question
of class certification.

American Water Works Company, Inc. is a traded water and wastewater
utility company in New Jersey.


ARRIVAL SA: Faces Lioubinine Securities Suit in NY Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Arrival S.A. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 27, 2022, that a class action was filed against
the company alleging misstatements and omissions concerning the
company's operations, financial performance, and future growth
prospects and profitability

On April 8, 2022, a purported arrival shareholder, Alexandre
Lioubinine, filed a putative class action complaint in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York captioned "Lioubinine v. Arrival,
et. al." (Index No. 651783/2022). The complaint asserts claims
against Arrival and certain of its executives and members of the
board of directors under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint alleges that Arrival's Registration Statement on Form
F-4 filed with the SEC on December 15, 2020, as amended on January
21, February 16, and February 25, 2021, and declared effective on
February 26, 2021 contained material misstatements and omissions
concerning the Company's operations, financial performance, and
future growth prospects and profitability. Lioubinine purports to
assert his claims on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Arrival ordinary shares pursuant or
traceable to the Registration Statement.

Arrival designs, assembles and distributes commercial electrical
vehicles based in Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.


ARRIVAL SA: Faces Sanchez Securities Suit in NY Court
------------------------------------------------------
Arrival S.A. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 27, 2022, that on January 11, 2022, Miguel
Sanchez filed a putative class action complaint against Arrival
S.A., Denis Sverdlov, Tim Holbrow, Michael Ableson, and Avinash
Rugoobur in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York captioned "Sanchez v. Arrival S.A., et al."
(1:22-cv-00172) asserting claims on behalf of all persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Arrival common stock
between November 18, 2020 and November 19, 2021 under Section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On February 22, 2022, a number of purported Arrival shareholders
filed motions for appointment as lead plaintiff in the Sanchez
action. On April 15, 2022, the court appointed Mostaco Corp. as
lead plaintiff in that action.

Arrival designs, assembles and distributes commercial electrical
vehicles based in Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.


AVATAR PROPERTIES: Appeals Circuit Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------
Taylor Morrison Home Corporation disclosed in its Form 20-F Report
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2022, that in
November 2, 2021, the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit
in and for Polk County, Florida ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in
a class action filed against the company alleging violation of
various laws relating to homeowner associations and other
Florida-specific laws. Case is currently on appeal.

On April 26, 2017, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County,
Florida by Norman Gundel, William Mann, and Brenda Taylor against
its subsidiary Avatar Properties, Inc., generally alleging that the
company's collection of club membership fees in connection with the
use of one of its amenities in the homebuilding segment violates
various laws relating to homeowner associations and other
Florida-specific laws.

The class action complaint seeks an injunction to prohibit future
collection of club membership fees. On November 2, 2021, the court
determined that the club membership fees were improper and that
plaintiffs were entitled to $35.0 million in fee reimbursements.
The company appealed the court's ruling to the Second District
Court of Appeal on November 29, 2021, and as of March 31, 2022, the
company's appeal remains pending. Plaintiffs have agreed to
continue to pay club membership fees pending the outcome of the
appeal.

Taylor Morrison Home Corporation is into residential homebuilding
and the development of lifestyle communities based in Arizona.


BAKKT HOLDINGS: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of June 20 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on May 2 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Bakkt Holdings, Inc.
f/k/a VPC Impact Acquisition Holdings ("Bakkt" or the "Company")
(NYSE: BKKT) securities between March 31, 2021 and November 19,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (b) Bakkt Class A
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents
issued in connection with the business combination completed on or
about October 15, 2021 (the "Business Combination"). Bakkt
investors have until June 20, 2022, to file a lead plaintiff
motion.

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz Announces the Filing of a
Securities Class Action on Behalf of Bakkt Holdings, Inc. f/k/a VPC
Impact Acquisition Holdings (BKKT) Investors

On or about October 15, 2021, VPC Impact Acquisition Holdings
("VIH"), a special purpose acquisition company, completed a
business combination with Bakkt Holdings, LLC ("Legacy Bakkt"), and
the combined entity was renamed Bakkt Holdings, Inc.

On May 17, 2021, Bakkt - then operating as VIH - notified the SEC
of its inability to timely file its quarterly report because "the
Company reevaluated the accounting treatment of its public warrants
and private placement warrants" and "is currently determining the
extent of the SEC Statement's impact on its financial
statements[.]"

On this news, the Company's stock fell $0.13, or 1.3%, to close at
$10.18 per share on May 18, 2021, thereby injuring investors.

Then, on October 13, 2021, the Company revealed that it had
previously failed to properly account for the classification of its
Class A ordinary shares and "adjust[ed] . . . the initial carrying
value of the Class A ordinary shares subject to possible redemption
with the offset recorded to additional paid-in capital (to the
extent available), accumulated deficit and Class A ordinary
shares." As a result, additional paid-in capital was reduced to 0,
accumulated deficit ballooned from $4.86 million to $29.25 million,
and total shareholders' equity swung to a deficit of $29.25
million.

On this news, the Company's stock fell $0.47, or 4.7%, to close at
$9.46 per share on October 14, 2021, thereby injuring investors
further.

Then, on November 22, 2021, Bakkt disclosed that its management had
re-evaluated the accounting classification of the Class A ordinary
shares and had "identified errors in the historical financial
statements of VIH . . . related to the misclassification . . . of
the Class A Ordinary Shares prior to the [Business Combination]."
Specifically, the Company determined that it would restate its
consolidated financial statements for fiscal year 2020 and the
quarterly periods in fiscal 2021.

On this news, Bakkt's stock fell $2.70, or 13.7%, to close at
$17.02 per share on November 22, 2021, thereby injuring investors
further.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) the Company had defective financial controls; (2) as a result,
there were errors in the Company's financial statements related to
the misclassification of certain shares issued prior to the
Business Combination; (3) accordingly, the Company would need to
restate certain of its financial statements; (4) the Company
downplayed the true scope and severity of these issues; (5) the
Company overstated its remediation of its defective financial
controls; 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 Bakkt securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than June 20, 2022, to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you purchased Bakkt securities, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank
R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

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

Contacts
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]

BIMBO BAKERIES: Botonis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bimbo Bakeries USA,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Tim Botonis, Liam Patrick
Meikle, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., Does 1-10, Case No.
34-2022-00319624-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., May
10, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."

Bimbo Bakeries USA -- https://www.bimbobakeriesusa.com/ -- is the
American corporate north-of-the-border arm of the Mexican
multinational bakery product manufacturing company Grupo Bimbo and
is the largest bakery company in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Constanitinos Kerestenzis, Esq.
          BEESON TAYER & BODINE
          520 Capitol Mall, Ste. 300
          Sacramento, CA 95814-4714
          Phone: 916-325-2100
          Fax: 916-325-2120
          Email: ckerestenzis@beesontayer.com


BRITISH COLUMBIA: Sued Over Illegal Medical Fee Reimbursement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lyle Adriano, writing for Insurance Business Canada, reports that
the provincial government of British Columbia and the Insurance
Corporation of BC (ICBC) have both been named as defendants in a
class action lawsuit, which alleges that the Crown insurer has been
illegally reimbursing the province for medical fees.

Plaintiffs Robert Rorison and Brayden Methot alleged that the
reimbursements all came out of the pockets of accident victims, who
needed their full benefit amounts to pay for their treatment and
recovery. Lead lawyer for the plaintiffs, Scott Stanley, explained
that the medical fees should already be covered under BC's
mandatory Medical Services Plan (MSP).

"They say those payments have wrongfully increased insurance costs
for all buyers of compulsory vehicle insurance (the "Ratepayer
Class") while reducing the amount of other medical and
rehabilitation benefits available to people who have suffered
catastrophic injuries in motor vehicle accidents (the "Accident
Victim Class")," the complaint said.

The lawsuit also underlined that it relates to claims that were
filed before the ICBC implemented its "no-fault" insurance system
late last year.

Global News reported that the courts have thrown out the larger
part of the class action application involving the ratepayer class.
While the ratepayer class action application was thrown out, the
Supreme Court has allowed hundreds of individuals to proceed with
litigation in the accident victim class. Court filings by ICBC
reveal that there are 275 people affected by the class action,
whose benefits were allegedly slashed.

ICBC claimed in court that most of those accident victims have been
offered compensation for the missing funds, but lawyers have argued
that the true number of victims is much higher than what the
insurer claims.

"To be clear, ICBC was taking money from everybody's account," said
Stanley. "It's only if you needed all of it that you would notice
it."

Global News stated that lawyers have been accusing ICBC of paying
almost a billion dollars to medical practitioners -- when the MSP
should be the one reimbursing -- since the 1990s. [GN]

BRYCE’S LAWN: Underpays Mechanics, Crowley Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, WILLIAM T. CROWLEY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRYCE'S LAWN SERVICE LLC, and
BRYCE SATTERFIELD, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00559-BHL (E.D.
Wis., May 11, 2022) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as an hourly-paid
Mechanic. Accordingly, only after he was hired by the Defendant
that he was required to take an online test whose questions are
based on the Bryce's Lawn Service Training Manual.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action
complaint asserting claims that the Defendant did not fully
compensate him and other similarly situated employees for the time
they spent studying the Manual to complete the online tests in
which hours worked always rounded start and stop times were
recorded on paper in Bryce's favor. In addition, another 30-minutes
meal break were also deducted from their hours worked on shifts of
ten hours or more when they perform work in the field during Winter
Season, although they did not take meal break.

As a result of the Defendants alleged unlawful practice, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not properly
paid for all their minimum wages and straight time wages, as well
as overtime wages at the federally mandated rate for all hours
worked over 40 hours in a workweek. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks all
unpaid wages on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
employees, along with liquidated damages of 50% and his actual
attorneys' fees and costs of filing and prosecuting this lawsuit.

Bryce's Lawn Service LLC is a company that performs lawn and snow
removal services throughout Southeastern Wisconsin. Bryce
Satterfield is the owner of the Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yingtao Ho, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C.
          310 W. Wisconsin Ave., Suite 100MV
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Tel: (414) 271-4500
          Fax: (414) 271-6308

CALIFORNIA: Court Resolves Ashker's Objections in Prisoners Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TODD ASHKER, Plaintiff v. C. PFEIFFER, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00423-DAD-EPG (PC) (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Dale A. Drozd of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California issued an order addressing the Plaintiff's objections
to the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations.

Plaintiff Ashker is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in the civil
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. This
matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On Dec. 16, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened the
Plaintiff's second amended complaint and issued findings and
recommendations recommending that the case proceed on certain
claims against certain defendants, and that all other claims be
dismissed. Those findings and recommendations were served on the
Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to
be filed within 21 days after service. On Jan. 13, 2022, the
then-assigned District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston issued an order
adopting those findings and recommendations, noting that the
Plaintiff had not filed any objections and that the time "period
for filing objections has expired."

On Jan. 18, 2022, the Court received the Plaintiff's objections in
the mail, and those objections were filed on the docket in the
action that same day. Therein, the Plaintiff states that he
received the service copy of the findings and recommendations on
Dec. 21, 2021, and he includes a proof of service indicating that
he mailed his objections on Jan. 9, 2022.

Consequently, Judge Drozd has now reviewed and considered the
Plaintiff's objections. He concludes that the Plaintiff's
objections do not provide a basis for reconsidering the Court's
order adopting the findings and recommendations and dismissing
certain Defendants and certain claims.

The Plaintiff raises two primary objections. First, the Plaintiff
objects to the magistrate judge's recommendation that his claim for
use of excessive force be dismissed to the extent that claim is
premised upon force used during the extraction of him from his
cell. In his objections, the Plaintiff notes that he specifically
alleged that defendants fired gas canisters into his cell and
sprayed a can of pepper spray directly at his head area, all while
he was lying passively on his bed. Then, according to the
Plaintiff, guards entered his cell in full riot gear, landed on top
of him with a large plastic shield, and placed him in handcuffs and
leg shackles before using a wheelchair to move plaintiff to another
location. The Plaintiff argues this use of force was "unnecessary"
under the circumstances because plaintiff previously told guards
that, while he was not going to "willingly" comply with orders to
move to another cellblock, he also was not going to physically
resist them.

Judge Dorzd finds that the cases cited by the Plaintiff are
distinguishable and do not call into question the reasoning of the
findings and recommendations. Importantly, he says, relevant
caselaw indicates that the use of tear gas after adequate warnings
were given to a prisoner who refuses to move locations may be "a
legitimate means for preventing small disturbances from becoming
dangerous to other inmates or the prison personnel."

Second, the Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge's
recommendation that his claim for violation of a separate class
action settlement in Ashker v. Newsom, No. 4:09-cv-5796 (N.D.
Cal.), be dismissed.

As noted by the magistrate judge, however, the plaintiff's claim
for breach of the settlement agreement in that action was dismissed
previously by the district court in the Northern District of
California in the context of yet another pro se individual action
brought by plaintiff. That dismissal was without prejudice to
plaintiff bringing such claims in the class action through counsel.
Thus, in the present action too, the Plaintiff's objections do not
meaningfully call into question the magistrate judge's reasoning.

In sum, Judge Drozd finds that the Plaintiff's objections, which
have now been fully considered by the Court, do not provide any
basis upon which to vacate the Court's order adopting the findings
and recommendations and dismissing certain defendants and claims,
or to that the analysis therein was not proper and supported by the
record.

Accordingly, the case is referred back to the magistrate judge for
further proceedings consistent with the Court's order of Jan. 12,
2022.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/umpshe5a from Leagle.com.


CALIFORNIA: Denial of James' Bid for Injunctive Relief Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RONALD EUGENE JAMES, Plaintiff v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00713-KJM-JDP (PC) (E.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California recommended that the
Plaintiff's requests for injunctive relief and for appointment of
counsel be denied.

I. Screening Order

The Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed an amended complaint
alleging that his rights were violated when he was extradited from
Kansas to California to stand trial. A federal court must screen a
prisoner's complaint that seeks relief against a governmental
entity, officer, or employee. The court must identify any
cognizable claims and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief.

The court must construe a pro se litigant's complaint liberally. It
may dismiss a pro se litigant's complaint "if it appears beyond
doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of
his claim which would entitle him to relief." However, a liberal
interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential
elements of the claim that were not initially pled.

Judge Peterson finds that the Plaintiff has not stated viable
constitutional or federal statutory claims. He will give him one
final opportunity to amend before recommending dismissal of his
claims. He will also deny without prejudice his motions for
appointment of counsel, and he will recommend that his claims for
injunctive relief contained in those motions also be denied.

As an initial matter, the Plaintiff seeks to bring the complaint as
a class action. However, as a pro se litigant, he is not qualified
to represent anyone but himself.

The Plaintiff's claims concern his extradition from Kansas to
California to face charges for assault with intent to rape,
kidnapping, and taking or detaining by force and instilling fear.
He vaguely alleges that he was seized "without a lawful warrant."
And, more broadly, the requirements of section 3182 do not appear
to have been violated.

Out of an abundance of caution, Judge Peterson will allow the
Plaintiff a final opportunity to amend his complaint and to allege
why his extradition from Kansas to California was unlawful. If he
chooses to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will
supersede the current complaint. This means that the amended
complaint will need to be complete on its face without reference to
the prior pleading. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current
complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended
complaint, as in an original complaint, the Plaintiff will need to
assert each claim and allege each defendant's involvement in
sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled "Second
Amended Complaint" and refer to the appropriate case number. If the
Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, Judge Peterson will
recommend that the action be dismissed.

II. Motions for Appointment of Counsel

Judge Peterson finds that the Plaintiff does not have a
constitutional right to appointed counsel in the action, and the
Court lacks the authority to require an attorney to represent the
Plaintiff. But without a means to compensate counsel, the Court
will seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances.
Judge Peterson cannot conclude that exceptional circumstances
requiring the appointment of counsel are present in the case. The
allegations in the complaint are not exceptionally complicated.
Further, the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to
succeed on the merits. For these reasons, his motions to appoint
counsel are denied without prejudice.

The Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel also request
that Judge Peterson both orders his release from the Sacramento
County Sheriff's custody and intervenes in the ongoing state
criminal proceedings against him. Judge Peterson says he must
abstain from considering these allegations, however. Absent rare
circumstances, which the Plaintiff has not adequately alleged,
Judge Peterson finds that federal courts cannot enjoin active state
criminal proceedings. He will recommend that these requests for
preliminary injunctive relief be denied.

III. Disposition

In light of the foregoing, Judge Peterson recommended that the
Plaintiff's requests for appointment of counsel contained be denied
without prejudice.

Within 30 days of service of the Order, the Plaintiff must either
file an Amended Complaint or advise the Court he wishes to stand by
his current complaint. If he selects the latter option, Judge
Peterson will recommend that the action be dismissed.

Failure to comply with the Order may result in the dismissal of the
action.

The Clerk of Court is directed to send the Plaintiff a complaint
form.

Further, Judge Peterson recommended that the Plaintiff's requests
for injunctive relief contained be denied.

These recommendations will be submitted to the U.S. district judge
presiding over the case under 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Rule 304. Within 14 days of the service of these findings and
recommendations, the Plaintiff may file written objections with the
court. That document must be captioned "Objections to Magistrate
Judge's Findings and Recommendations." The presiding district judge
will then review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C.
Section 636(b)(1)(C).

A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8nk22p from Leagle.com.


CALIFORNIA: State Bar Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
bloomberglaw.com reports that the State Bar of California is taking
its fight against a proposed class action over an alleged data
breach to federal court, California filings show.

Plaintiffs proceeding under pseudonyms sued the California State
Bar and JudyRecords.com in March in Orange County Superior Court.

The complaint, which was later amended, alleges that about 322,525
nonpublic records by the State Bar were published on
Judyrecords.com between October 2021 to February 2022.

The suit alleges the State Bar failed to notify those affected in a
timely manner.

Defendants moved the suit to federal court.

Causes of Action: Violation of California Information Practices Act
of 1977, invasion of privacy, Sherman Act, negligence, negligence
per se.

Relief: Injunctive relief in the form of disclosures, damages,
costs and attorneys' fees.

Class Size: Proposed class includes all Californians identified in
the 188 to 322,525 nonconfidential files released.

Response: The California State Bar declined to comment on pending
litigation.

Attorneys: The plaintiffs are represented by Law Offices of Lenore
Albert.

The case is Roe v. State Bar of Cal., C.D. Cal., No. 8:22-cv-00983,
5/13/22. [GN]

CFG HEALTH: Faces McGowan Suit Over Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------
DIANNE MCGOWAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CFG HEALTH NETWORK, LLC d/b/a CFG HEALTH
NETWORK COMPANIES, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-02770 (D.N.J., May
11, 2022) is a class and collective action complaint brought
against the Defendant for its alleged illegal pay practices that
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage
and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant from April 2010 to
February 2022 as a non-exempt hourly-paid and salaried worker.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to properly pay her
and other similarly situated employees their lawfully earned wages,
including proper overtime compensation, on time and in full, for
all hours they have worked. According to the complaint, the
Defendant's timekeeping and payroll systems were affected by the
hack of Kronos in 2021, which led to problems in timekeeping and
payroll throughout the Defendant's organization. The Defendant
allegedly made the economic burden of the Kronos hack fall on
front-line workers, who rely on the full and timely payment of
their wages to make ends meet. Although the Defendant made payment
of some of these outstanding wages, portions of these earned wages
remain unpaid, added the Plaintiff.

CFG Health Network, LLC is a healthcare provider that provides
medical and mental health services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                -and-

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

CHEMICAL AND MINING: Settlement in New York Securities Suit OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical and Mining Company of Chile disclosed in its Form 20-F
Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2022, that on April
26, 2021, a final settlement was approved by the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York with regards
to an October 2015 consolidated class action lawsuit brought
against the company alleging violations of the U.S. securities
laws.

Said complaint alleged that certain statements made by the company,
principally in its SEC filings and press releases, were materially
false and/or misleading in violation of the Exchange Act. It
challenges certain of the company's statements concerning its
compliance with applicable laws and regulations, the effectiveness
of its internal controls, its adoption of a code of ethics
consistent with SEC requirements, its revenues and taxes owed and
its compliance with applicable accounting standards.

The complaint also alleged that the company made inadequate
disclosures concerning the status of the Corporacion de Fomento de
la Produccion (Corfo) litigation, where its subsidiary SQM Salar
S.A., as leaseholder, holds exclusive and temporary rights to
exploit mineral resources in the Salar de Atacama in northern
Chile. These rights are owned by Corfo, a Chilean government
entity, and leased to SQM Salar pursuant to a 1993 lease agreement
over mining exploitation concessions between SQM Salar and Corfo
and the Salar de Atacama project agreement between Corfo and SQM
Salar. The Lease Agreement provides for SQM Salar to make quarterly
lease payments to Corfo based on product sales from leased mining
properties and annual contributions to research and development, to
local communities, to the Antofagasta Regional Government and to
the municipalities of San Pedro de Atacama, Maria Elena and
Antofagasta, maintain Corfo's rights over the mining exploitation
concessions and make annual payments to the Chilean government for
such concession rights. The Lease Agreement expires on December 31,
2030.

The lead plaintiff sought damages of an undetermined amount to
recover the economic losses allegedly suffered by the class as a
result of the challenged statements.

On January 10, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed a motion to certify a
class consisting of all persons who purchased SQM American
Depository Shares (ADS) between June 30, 2010 and March 18, 2015.

On December 11, 2020, the company and the lead plaintiff, the
Council of the Borough of South Tyneside, acting in its capacity as
the Administering Authority of the Tyne and Wear Pension Fund,
filed before the United States District Court of the Southern
District of New York a Stipulation of Settlement of the class
action litigation. The class action settlement resolves the claims
by class plaintiffs relating to alleged noncompliance with the
securities laws and regulations in the United States in connection
with certain disclosures made by the Company. Pursuant to the
Stipulation of Settlement, SQM paid US$62.5 million. On April 26,
2021, the final settlement was approved by the District Court.

Chemical & Mining Co. of Chile Inc. is into the mining, quarrying
of nonmetallic minerals and is based in Santiago, Chile.


CIPRIANO LANDSCAPING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Claros Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTO CLAROS; NICOLAS DIAZ; and MELVIN GUEVARA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PIETRO
CIPRIANO; MARIA MARKOVINA; and CIPRIANO LANDSCAPING NURSERY, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02706 (E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2022) is an
action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages,
overtime compensation, provide proper meal and break period, and
accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as nursery worker.

CIPRIANO LANDSCAPING NURSERY INC. provides retail lawn and garden
supplies. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Marcus Monteiro, Esq.
         MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP
         91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108
         Hempstead, N.Y. 11550
         Telephone: (516) 280-4600
         Facsimile: (516) 280-4530
         Email: mmonteiro@mflawny.com

COMMERCE INSURANCE: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Breach Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lurah Lowery, writing for Repairer Driven News, reports that a
Massachusetts Appeals Court panel has affirmed the judgment and
decertification, in part, of a class-action lawsuit against
Commerce Insurance Co. that alleged breach of contract and
violations of six state laws as well as state regulations in the
payment of total loss settlements.

The suit was filed in 2019 by policyholder Michelle Puopolo, as the
class representative, on behalf of "all persons who made a claim or
claims under the Limited Collision, Collision or Comprehensive
provisions of their automobile insurance policy with Commerce whose
claim payments were reduced by any amount Commerce contends it paid
to the storage facility in relation to the claim." Jessica Nohmy
and Victor Pagan were later added as class representatives.

"Plaintiffs' claims arise as a result of Commerce's unlawful
practice of charging its own insureds a portion of the vehicle
storage charges which Commerce previously paid to third-party
storage facilities for the storage of the insured's vehicle
following a collision," the third-amended suit states.

The suit sought monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief as
well as an order "permanently enjoining Commerce from continuing
the practices" outlined in the suit and a jury trial.

The policies Puopolo, Nohmy, and Pagan had with Commerce at the
time of their collisions -- which all happened separately –
required that the carrier "pay reasonable expenses incurred in
preventing further damage or loss" to their vehicles "including but
not limited to towing and storage charges," the suit states. The
plaintiffs alleged that, by reducing the claim payments after
paying the storage fees without objection, Commerce breached its
contracts and didn't have the authority to do so under
Massachusetts laws and regulations.

Commerce allegedly failed to comply with performance standards for
claims handling set by Commonwealth Automobile Reinsurers (CAR),
which requires insurance companies to "resist and reduce" towing
and storage charges if they're unreasonable. The suit states that
failing to do so and not having a plan to control storage costs, as
required by CAR, constitutes "unfair and deceptive" business
practices.

The suit also claimed Commerce violated state law by:

   -- Misrepresenting that the plaintiffs were responsible for any
portion of storage charges and that the carrier is permitted to
reduce collision claim payments;
   -- Failing "to effectuate a prompt, fair, and equitable
settlement" of the plaintiffs' claims;
   -- Refusing to offer "the full amounts due" on the claims which,
as a result, "forced Plaintiffs to institute litigation to recover
the full amount due;" and
   -- Failing to provide a "prompt and reasonable explanation" of
how the insurance policy or applicable law allowed for reduced
settlements.

In the trial court, Suffolk Superior Court Justice Kenneth W.
Salinger granted Commerce's request for summary judgment and, in
part, their motion to decertify the class.

The Appeals Court Panel found that Commerce wasn't obligated in its
contracts to pay storage expenses that exceed a reasonable amount,
according to its filed opinion.

"Both the 2008 and 2016 policies state that in the event of a
collision, Commerce will pay up to the vehicle's actual cash value.
Commerce's 2008 edition policy does not expressly provide coverage
for vehicle storage costs," the opinion states. "Rather, it says
that Commerce will pay for the 'reasonable expenses incurred' where
the plaintiffs do 'whatever is reasonable to protect the automobile
from further damage or loss.' The 2016 edition, however, states
that '[Commerce] will also pay reasonable and necessary expenses
for towing, recovery and storage of your auto.'

"The plaintiffs claim that Commerce committed a breach of the above
provisions when it subtracted excessive storage costs from their
ACV payments. As an initial matter, neither contract states nor
suggests that the ACV is an irreducible sum or that it is
irreducible after the subtraction of a deductible. Moreover, the
plaintiffs' argument overlooks a word of fundamental importance to
the contracts: reasonable. . . . The parties agree that Commerce
assumed the portion of the storage charges it deemed reasonable.
Thus, the only way that the plaintiffs can show a breach of
contract is to dispute the reasonableness of Commerce's
deduction."

The panel added that the plaintiffs failed to present breach of
contract evidence. As for the state law allegations, the panel
found that they are without merit.

In regard to allegations of violating CAR's regulations the panel
states, "the plaintiffs have not articulated how a failure to do so
constitutes a c. 93A violation. . . . Nor have they shown that
Commerce violated the standards at all -- he dispositive
consideration here."

"Commerce need only satisfy one of the two requirements. Because
Commerce has amply demonstrated that it has plans to ensure that
storage charges are reasonable -- via its referral network and
"Early Tow" program -- there is no dispute that it is in compliance
with standard six. The motion judge correctly granted summary
judgment on this basis, concluding that '[n]othing in the CAR
[standards] requires Commerce to challenge, resist, or reduce
unreasonable storage charges imposed by non-referral repair shops
chosen by insureds.'"

The panel also agreed with Salinger on the unfair settlement
practice allegations. "Commerce did not commit a breach of the
policy terms, and thus, as the judge explained, its 'claims
practices in setting off excessive storage charges against ACV
payouts were and are lawful.'"

One of Commerce's attorneys, Larry Slotnick, declined to comment on
the case when asked by Repairer Driven News. The plaintiffs'
primary attorney, Michael Forrest, didn't respond to RDN's requests
for comment by the publication deadline. [GN]

COMPASS GROUP: Settles BIPA Class Action for $6.8 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Compass and 365 Retail has agreed to
a $6.8 million settlement to resolve claims their vending machines
requiring the use of a person's fingerprint violated the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).

The settlement benefits individuals who used one of Compass' or 365
Retail's Illinois vending systems between Aug. 23, 2014, and Nov.
2, 2021. Eligible vending systems were operated under names like
Smart Market, Avenue C, Market Now, eMart, NEX Micro Markets, and
Honest Eats Marketplace. The kiosks were placed in canteens, break
rooms, and food service areas and allowed people to purchase food
or drinks.

There are nearly 69,000 affected consumers included in the vending
machines fingerprint settlement, based on defendant records, the
settlement agreement says.

Both Compass and 365 Retail are vending machine companies that
offer food and drink in break rooms and other locations. The
companies offer a number of micro market solutions including
touchless payment options.

Although the companies provide innovative vending options, legal
action against Compass and 365 Retail claim the vendors violate
Illinois biometric laws.

Compass and 365 Retail vending machines collect fingerprint data
from consumers, according to a class action lawsuit against the
companies. However, despite collecting biometric data in Illinois,
the companies allegedly fail to comply with BIPA.

BIPA protects Illinoisans' biometric data such as fingerprints,
facial geometry scans, and voice profiles. Under the law, companies
are required to get consumer consent before collecting biometrics
and must comply with regulations on disclosures and retention. The
two vending companies allegedly fail to comply with BIPA's consent
and disclosure requirements.

Compass and 365 Retail haven't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed
to resolve the claims with a $6.8 million vending machines
fingerprint settlement.

Under the terms of the deal, Class Members can receive a cash
payment.

Exact payment amounts will vary depending on the number of
claimants who participate in the settlement. However, Class counsel
anticipates each claimant could receive payments between $300 and
$600.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 29, 2022.

The final approval hearing in the vending machines fingerprint
settlement is scheduled for Sept. 8, 2022.

In order to receive benefits from the settlement, Class Members
must submit a valid claim form by July 29, 2022. Class Members have
the option to contact the settlement administrator and update their
information if their address changes after filing a claim.

Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits individuals who used one of Compass' or 365
Retail's Illinois vending systems between Aug. 23, 2014, and Nov.
2, 2021. Eligible vending systems were operated under names like
Smart Market, Avenue C, Market Now, eMart, NEX Micro Markets, and
Honest Eats Marketplace. The kiosks were placed in canteens, break
rooms, and food service areas and allowed people to purchase food
or drinks.

Potential Award
Approximately $300 to $600

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
07/29/2022

Case Name
Bryant v. Compass Group USA, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-06622, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Final Hearing
09/08/2022

Settlement Website
FigerScanVendingSettlement

Claims Administrator
Finger Scan Vending Settlement
Analytics Consulting LLC
P.O. Box 2006
Chanhassen, MN 55317-2006
info@FingerScanVendingSettlement.com
844-789-1470

Class Counsel
Douglas M. Werman
Maureen A. Salas
WERMAN SALAS PC

Defense Counsel
Daniel Dupré
MANAGING LEGAL COUNSEL [GN]

CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY: Court Narrows Claims in Reynolds Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Amelia Reynolds, on behalf of herself and File those
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Concordia University, St. Paul,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-2560 (ECT/DTS) (D. Minn.), Judge Eric C.
Tostrud of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
granted in part and denied in part Concordia's motion to dismiss
the Plaintiff's complaint.

I. Introduction

In July 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Plaintiff Reynolds
enrolled in Concordia University, St. Paul's accelerated nursing
program. In the putative class action, Reynolds alleges that
Concordia failed to provide promised clinical, lab-simulation, and
in-person instruction to her and similarly situated nursing
students who paid tuition and fees for those experiences. Reynolds
asserts common law breach-of-contract, quasicontract, and
misrepresentation claims and statutory claims under Oregon's
Uniform Trade Practices Act. Concordia has moved to dismiss
Reynolds's Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

II. Background

Ms. Reynolds is an Oregon citizen and a former Concordia student.
Concordia is a Minnesota nonprofit corporation. It maintains its
headquarters (and principal place of business in St. Paul,
Minnesota.

Ms. Reynolds enrolled in Concordia's Accelerated Bachelor of
Science in Nursing ("ABSN") program on July 7, 2020. Concordia
offers varied (though similar) versions of that program to students
through campuses in St. Paul and Portland, Oregon. Reynolds
enrolled in a "hybrid" version of the ABSN program offered through
Concordia's Portland campus. The ABSN curriculum spans 16 months
and is "comprised of 59 or 60 credit hours received over four
consecutive, fulltime semesters"; upon completion, students receive
a bachelor's degree in nursing.

Ms. Reynolds was enrolled in NUP 350 that semester -- a course
described in her registration form as having lab and clinical
modalities. She paid a $120 lab fee for NUP 350, and, according to
the course syllabus, NUP 350 offered "135.75 hours (beyond the
didactic hours) including skills lab, simulation, and clinical
experience." During the semester, however, Reynolds did not receive
"any in-person simulations or in-person clinical experiences in any
medical settings under the direction of faculty or professionals."
Though she participated in a "handful of in-person skills labs, she
received less than originally promised."

Despite no longer providing important hands-on learning
experiences, Concordia charged full tuition to ABSN students.
Concordia has not refunded Reynolds for tuition and fees it charged
her, including fees earmarked for "consumables and resources within
courses and throughout the program (labs, simulations)." Reynolds
alleges that, during her first three semesters, Concordia failed to
provide "hundreds of hours of in-person learning experience in
simulated or clinical settings that she paid to receive."

In November 2021, Reynolds filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself
and a proposed class of all individuals enrolled in Concordia's
ABSN program "who paid tuition and fees to Concordia" during the
largest period allowed by law. She asserts common law claims for
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel,
negligent misrepresentation, and reckless misrepresentation. In a
sixth count, Reynolds asserts claims under Oregon's Unlawful Trade
Practices Act, Or. Rev. Stat. Section 646.605, et seq., on behalf
of herself and a proposed subclass of Portland ABSN students who
paid tuition and fees to Concordia during the largest period
allowed by law. Reynolds seeks damages and injunctive relief
requiring Concordia to "provide truthful information" on its
websites and in student handbooks and preventing "Concordia from
retaining and/or charging tuition and fees for services it does not
provide or benefits that students do not receive."

III. Discussion

A. Standing

Concordia advances one purely jurisdictional contention: It argues
that Reynolds lacks Article III standing to pursue the injunctive
relief she seeks in the Complaint. Concordia points out that
Reynolds "brought her complaint during the Fall 2021 semester,
which was her fourth and final semester in the ABSN degree program
before graduation." Having graduated, Concordia argues, Reynolds
does not (and cannot) plausibly allege a threat of ongoing or
future harm necessary to obtain injunctive relief. Reynolds
counters that standing is "determined as of the date of the
complaint" and that denying her standing to seek injunctive relief
runs contrary to public policy.

Judge Tostrud opines that Reynolds has not plausibly alleged a
threat of ongoing or future harm. The injury Reynolds alleges is
Concordia's retention of past tuition and fee payments for services
she did not receive—i.e., the benefit of her bargain -- and
perhaps other damages. Though Reynolds was enrolled in the ABSN
program when she filed the suit, she has since completed the
program and graduated. Hence, Reynolds lacks Article III standing
to seek her requested injunctive relief, and her claims -- insofar
as they seek injunctive relief -- will be dismissed for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.

Concordia argues that any claims related to the St. Paul, Minnesota
campus should be dismissed, either because Reynolds lacks standing,
having not "alleged that she suffered any injury related to that
program" (a jurisdictional problem), or because she does not
"allege any facts relevant to the delivery of clinical education in
the St. Paul program" (a merits problem). Reynolds disagrees,
arguing that her Complaint's "factual underpinnings regarding
Concordia's conduct concern the entirety of the ABSN program, not
just one of two campuses," and that Concordia is really making a
"mistimed challenge" to class certification.

Whether considered under Rule 12(b)(1) or Rule 12(b)(6), Judge
Tostrud opines that Concordia's arguments on this point are not
persuasive. It is true that Reynolds has alleged many facts about
her experiences as an ABSN student at the Portland campus. But
she's also alleged facts about Concordia's administration of the
ABSN program that are common to students enrolled at both campuses.
As far as Reynolds' claims are concerned, Concordia's ABSN
curricula "does not materially differ" between its St. Paul and
Portland campuses. Concordia made the same or substantially similar
curricular promises and misrepresentations to students enrolled in
the St. Paul ABSN programs. These allegations plausibly connect
Reynolds' claims to Concordia's St. Paul campus, and that is enough
for now.

B. Motion to Dismiss

1.

Concordia's Rule 12(b)(6) motion raises a choice-of-law problem. In
its opening brief, Concordia took the position that Oregon's
substantive law governs each of Reynolds's claims, though it
conducted no choice-of-law analysis. In her response, Reynolds
asserted that, as the forum state, Minnesota's substantive law
should govern by default. Reynolds did not support this contention
with a choice-of-law analysis, however.No doubt constrained by the
word-count limit of LR 7.1(f), Concordia's reply included a terse
choice-of-law analysis identifying four conflicts between Oregon
and Minnesota law and arguing that Oregon law should govern
Reynolds' claims.

Concordia identifies four substantive conflicts between Minnesota
and Oregon law that implicate Reynolds's breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation claims. Concordia
asserts that Oregon law differs in that it "1) does not permit
statements in promotional materials to establish the terms of a
contract; 2) requires pleading bad faith with respect to a breach
of a student-university contract; 3) requires specification of an
established legal category of unjust enrichment; and 4) requires a
special relationship to sustain a claim for negligent
misrepresentation."

Ms. Reynolds does not address these purported conflicts in depth,
but she does assert that Oregon allows "terms contained in
publications that the university provides to the student" to form
contractual promises, that her breach-of-contract claim does not
require a showing of bad faith under Oregon law, and that there is
no conflict as to her negligent misrepresentation claim.

Judge Tostrud finds that (i) given Minnesota and Oregon's shared
recognition that these documents may establish contractual terms
between a university and student, Concordia has not shown a
conflict on the issue of whether materials a university provides to
students may establish contractual terms; (ii) Reynolds need not
plead bad faith or arbitrariness under Oregon law; (iii) it has not
been shown that Oregon's "established legal category" rule for
unjust enrichment claims creates an outcome determinative conflict
with Minnesota law; and (iv) because Concordia has not shown an
outcome determinative conflict between Oregon and Minnesota's
substantive law, Minnesota's substantive law will be applied to
Reynolds' common law claims.

2.

In Count I, Reynolds alleges that Concordia breached various
contractual promises to "provide specific onsite, in-person
education through simulated and/or clinical settings." She alleges
that these contractual obligations arose from "handbooks, syllabi,
registration forms, course catalogues, and other materials provided
to her and the class members prior to enrollment and re-enrollment
in the ABSN program. Concordia argues that Reynolds has not
identified a specific promise to an "in-person clinical education"
in the materials she cites. It also argues that some of the
documents on which Reynolds relies contained "express language
confirming Concordia's discretion and right to make changes in
providing her instruction."

Drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor, Judge Tostrud holds
that Reynolds has plausibly alleged that Concordia failed to
provide materials it promised in exchange for her payment of an
"ABSN Portland Course Fee." Her allegations plausibly establish
Concordia's breach of its promise to provide lab materials in
exchange for her payment of ABSN Portland Course Fees.

3.

In Count II, Reynolds alleges a claim for unjust enrichment.
Concordia first argues that Reynolds's unjust enrichment claims
should be dismissed as duplicative of her breach of contract claim.
Reynolds counters that she may plead her unjust enrichment claim in
the alternative to her breach of contract claim, as she has done.
Concordia next argues it's not plausibly alleged to have been
unjustly enriched. Reynolds responds that the pandemic is no good
excuse because the pandemic occurred before it made the alleged
misrepresentations she relied on when enrolling in the ABSN
program.

Judge Tostrud finds that Reynolds alleges facts plausibly showing
that Concordia's retention of her tuition and fee payments was
inequitable. Concordia knowingly accepted and retained these
payments "premised upon the existence of services it no longer
provided or refused to provide." These taken-as-true allegations
permit the conclusion that Concordia retained something of value
for which it in equity and good conscience should pay. Concordia's
motion to dismiss Count II will be denied.

4.

In Count III, Reynolds asserts a claim for promissory estoppel. To
recover on this claim, she must allege: (1) a clear and definite
promise was made; (2) the promisor intended to induce reliance and
the promisee in fact relied to his or her detriment; and (3) the
promise must be enforced to prevent injustice. Promissory estoppel
"impl[ies] a contract in law where none exists in fact." Concordia
argues this claim must be dismissed because (1) it's duplicative of
Reynolds's breach-of-contract claim; (2) Reynolds has not alleged
an unequivocal promise of in-person clinical and simulation
education; and (3) she has alleged neither reasonably foreseeable
nor detrimental reliance.

Judge Tostrud finds that the allegations permit the plausible
inference that Reynolds reasonably relied on Concordia's
representations and did so her to detriment. Despite paying full
tuition and fees, Reynolds alleges she did not receive the benefit
of her bargain: "hands on learning experiences in simulated and/or
clinical settings."  She need not allege that she was deprived of
academic credits or a degree. She's also alleged facts allowing the
conclusion that her reliance was reasonable. When Concordia resumed
offering some in-person experiences in 2021, it did so on a limited
basis, did not explain the "lottery" system it implemented, and did
not acknowledge that it would continue to fall short on the
originally promised amount of clinical and lab experiences. Viewed
in her favor, these allegations suffice to show Reynolds'
reasonable reliance. Concordia's motion to dismiss Count III will
be denied.

5.

In Count IV, Reynolds alleges negligent misrepresentation.
Concordia argues this claim fails for lack of duty because, under
Oregon law, there is no "special relationship between students and
universities."

Judge Tostrud opines that Reynolds has not plausibly shown that
Concordia owed her a duty. Reynolds's claim does not concern school
disciplinary proceedings. She cites no binding or persuasive
decision imposing a duty under like circumstances. More critically,
she does not allege that Concordia was acting in her interest or
supplied information about the ABSN program to guide her in some
other transaction or in her business, profession, or employment.
Reynolds' negligent misrepresentation claim will be dismissed under
Rule 12(b)(6) on this basis.

6.

In Count V, Reynolds asserts a claim of reckless misrepresentation.
Concordia argues that Reynolds has not plausibly alleged a
misrepresentation or that it acted recklessly.

Judge Tostrud finds that Reynolds has alleged facts plausibly
showing that Concordia spoke without qualification about curricular
experiences she would receive despite either not knowing its
statements to be true or realizing it had inadequate information to
make them. Concordia's motion to dismiss Count V will be denied.

7.

In Count VI, Reynolds asserts four distinct claims under Oregon's
Uniform Trade Practices Act ("UTPA"), ORS 646.605, et seq.

These claims will be dismissed, Judge Tostrud holds. First, he
finds that given the program's focus and exclusivity, it's
particularly implausible that a "substantial number" of ABSN
students enroll for personal reasons, and not to find employment.
Because Reynolds has not plausibly alleged that services she
received through the ABSN program are personal goods or services
under the UTPA, her claims under ORS 646.608(1)(a), (e), and (q)
will be dismissed.

Second, Reynolds alleges only generally that Orbis "designed and
managed" the ABSN program and "provided the upfront capital, the
academic platforms, the marketing, the enrollment, the course
development, and the `student support'" to Concordia. The Complaint
leaves to the imagination how Concordia's Orbis affiliation could
have played some part in Reynolds's alleged loss. The "sheer
possibility" that Orbis played some role does not equate to a
plausible inference that Reynolds is entitled to recovery. Because
Reynolds has not plausibly alleged an ascertainable loss suffered
as "a result of" conduct proscribed by ORS 646.608(1)(c), her claim
under that subsection will be dismissed.

IV. Conclusion

Therefore, based on all the files, records, and proceedings in the
matter, Judge Tostrud granted in part and denied in part Defendant
Concordia's Motion to Dismiss. Reynolds' claims, insofar as they
seek injunctive relief, are dismissed without prejudice for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Her negligent-misrepresentation claim
[Count IV] is dismissed with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). Reynolds' claims under Oregon's Uniform Trade Practices
Act [Count VI] are dismissed without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6). In all other respects, Concordia's motion is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mr2ahptd from Leagle.com.

Christopher P. Renz -- crenz@chestnutcambronne.com -- Jeffrey D.
Bores -- jbores@chestnutcambronne.com -- and Bryan L. Bleichner --
bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com -- Chestnut Cambronne PA, in
Minneapolis, Minnesota; Terence Coates, and Dylan J. Gould,
Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC, in Cincinnati, Ohio; and Joseph M.
Lyon, The Lyon Law Firm, in Cincinnati, Ohio, for Plaintiff Amelia
Reynolds.

Jane Dall Wilson -- jane.wilson@faegredrinker.com -- and Emanuel
Lee McMiller, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, in Indianapolis,
Indiana; and Jane E. Maschka, and Machen Bihrle, Faegre Drinker
Biddle & Reath LLP, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Defendant
Concordia University, St. Paul.


COVERALL INC: Faces Worker Misclassification Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Susan Antilla, writing for Capital & Main, reports that Quincy
Reeves was working as a janitor in Connecticut in 2019 when he
decided he'd had enough. His paychecks from cleaning services giant
Coverall Inc. had been shrinking due to deductions for everything
from administrative fees to finance payments. "There was a whole
lot of stuff coming out of my check," he told Capital & Main in an
interview. "Something seemed funny to me."

Along with another janitor, he filed a class-action lawsuit against
Coverall, saying it had misclassified its workers as contractors
when they were actually employees. Tallying up the gas costs,
cleaning supply bills and all the fees he was paying to get
clients, he says that some weeks he wasn't even making minimum
wage.

By late 2020, with many of his clients bailing in the throes of the
pandemic, Reeves' case looked doomed. He had signed a document
agreeing to give up his right to fight in court, and Coverall had
forced him into closed-door arbitration. When his lawyer called to
tell Reeves that the American Arbitration Association had sent a
$3,937.50 bill for arbitrator fees, Reeves had to give up the
fight. He said he didn't have the money -- little surprise
considering he'd been making between $1,700 and $1,800 a month.
When AAA saw that it wasn't going to get paid, it closed his case
on Jan. 6, 2021.

"I think they put you through this stuff to deter you," he said.

More than 60 million Americans in the nonunion private sector
workforce have been shut out of the court system by companies that
force them to arbitrate in the event of a dispute, according to a
2019 study by Professor Alexander J.S. Colvin of the ILR School at
Cornell University. But given the costs, many of those same workers
are shut out of arbitration, too. Employment lawyers are often
reluctant to take arbitration cases at all because the hours
required don't always justify the potential reward, particularly
when low wage workers are seeking justice.  

And the odds of winning are low. In a study of AAA cases decided
between 2003 and 2013, Colvin counted cases in which employees won
monetary and nonmonetary awards and calculated a win rate of 19.1%.
The numbers were much worse in a more recent examination that
counted a case as a win only if the employee got a monetary award:
In 2020, the nation's two biggest employee arbitration forums --
the American Arbitration Association and JAMS -- made final
decisions on 5,250 workers' cases, according to a 2021 study by the
American Association for Justice.

Only 82 of those workers received a monetary award.

Women, minority and low wage workers are the most likely to be
forced into arbitration, according to Colvin's research. The
biggest users of arbitration, at 62.1%, are the education and
health industries, which traditionally have been female-dominated,
while the lowest user is the male-dominated construction industry,
at 37.7%. The study said that 59.1% of African-Americans were
subject to mandatory arbitration compared to 55.6% percent of
non-Hispanic whites.

Among workers making less than $13 an hour, 64.5% were bound to
arbitration agreements -- higher than for any other pay level,
according to Colvin. That number declined to 54.1% for employees
making more than $22.50 an hour.

The high rates of forced arbitration of low wage workers makes it
particularly difficult for them to proceed with a case at all,
because arbitration, as Reeves found out, can turn out to be too
expensive. And it isn't as if workers of modest means have any
choice but to agree when employers hand over documents to be signed
on the first day of work, says Joseph M. Sellers, co-chair of the
Civil Rights & Employment Practice Group at Cohen Milstein in
Washington, D.C. "Low-wage workers have the least bargaining
power," he said. "Whatever the employer insists on, they are going
to agree to."  

In Colvin's view, that makes arbitration a contributor to income
inequality, because highly paid executives who can afford
employment lawyers can negotiate their terms of employment while
low wage workers simply accept the policies that companies demand.
And corporations' increasing use of policies that bar class action
lawsuits hits low wage workers hardest of all. Class actions are
the only economically feasible way for lawyers to proceed with wage
theft cases, for example, which leaves many low wage workers with
no way to pursue their claims.

The biggest companies use arbitration most of all, according to
Colvin: 65% percent of companies with 1,000 or more employees
required arbitration. Still, nearly half of companies with fewer
than 100 workers demand arbitration, too. "Mom and Pop companies
oftentimes have the same employment counsel as the larger
companies," said Maine employment lawyer Jeffrey Neil Young. "And
they have put the word out pretty much to all of their clients that
they should require arbitration of any disputes."

Forced arbitration can even be found in documents that farm workers
are forced to sign, says Hugh Baran, a New York employment lawyer.
"It is really spreading quite widely." In 2019, the Center for
Popular Democracy and the Economic Policy Institute estimated that,
barring congressional action, company policies that both force
arbitration and prohibit groups of employees from joining in court
or in arbitration will block more than 80% of private sector,
nonunion workers from court by 2024.

That's a boon to companies looking to reduce damaging financial
exposure: Based on research that estimates 98% of private sector,
nonunion employees subject to arbitration will abandon their
claims, a report by the National Employment Law Project calculated
that, in 2019, more than 4.5 million workers who are subject to
mandatory arbitration and making less than $13 an hour would fail
to bring wage theft claims worth $9.27 billion.

As Reeves learned, fighting back can be a Kafkaesque challenge.

After he filed his lawsuit in 2019, Reeves was shunted to
arbitration and got to work fighting for relief from the high
costs. First, he tried to persuade AAA that he should proceed under
the forum's low-cost employment arbitration rules. The AAA
initially said it would do that, but Coverall objected and said
that AAA's commercial rules, which required Reeves to pay a $925
filing fee and half of the arbitrator's fees, should apply.

The AAA caved to Coverall's demand. Reeves managed to get a
financial hardship waiver of the $925 fee from AAA. But when he
tried to persuade the arbitrator that he couldn't afford the rest
of the charges, his effort failed. That's when that $3,937.50 bill
arrived, and Reeves had to bail. "I thought, all right, they're
robbing me, and there's no recourse," he said.

Coverall didn't respond to emails or phone messages left with its
lawyers and its media relations staff. An AAA spokesperson said in
an email that its policy is "not to comment on any arbitrations
that may have been administered by the Association."

That could have been the end of Reeves' case, but his lawyer,
Shannon Liss-Riordan, persuaded a federal judge to reopen the court
case, which had been temporarily stopped pending the arbitration.
Coverall, the judge said in March, had the option of fronting all
of the arbitrator's fees, but refused to. And there was no question
that Reeves couldn't afford to pay, the judge added. The $3,937.50
charge "would have drained approximately forty-four percent of
Reeves' $8,963 net worth," she wrote. He could move forward with
his court case.

Three weeks later, though, Coverall filed for an appeal.

Truck driver Martin Forero faced some of the same frustrations. He
and other drivers for Strategic Delivery Solutions, a company that
arranges medical deliveries to health care facilities, filed a
class action lawsuit in 2015, saying that they, too, had been
misclassified as independent contractors. Just as happened with
Reeves, a federal judge said in 2016 that the drivers would have to
have their grievances heard by arbitrators.  

Forero began the paperwork for the arbitration process. But when
AAA sent him a bill for $11,900 in advance of the hearing, his
lawyer told SDS and the arbitrator that Forero could not afford to
proceed with the arbitration. Despite that, with neither Forero nor
his lawyer present, SDS and the arbitrator went ahead with the
hearing anyway. The arbitrator ruled for SDS and told Forero to pay
a $7,010 bill to reimburse SDS for half the fees it had fronted.

To collect arbitration awards, winners have to ask a court to
confirm the arbitrator's decision, so SDS filed that so it could
collect its $7,010 from Forero. But a New York federal judge later
overturned the award. There had been no need to proceed with the
arbitration since Forero and his lawyer had been clear that they
were walking away from the claim, the judge wrote: "There was
simply nothing left for [the arbitrator] Judge Rosenblatt to
decide."

It was a win that Forero wasn't stuck with a $7,010 bill, but he
still spent years of his life in a frustrating legal battle that
ended with no award. Baran, who represents five of the SDS drivers,
called it "a real example of someone being bullied out of their
rights.

New Jersey lawyer David F. Jasinski, who represents SDS, said in a
phone interview that the SDS drivers were far from low wage
workers, with many of the drivers making more than $50,000 a year.
(Two made as little as $408 a week after paying for gas and
parking, though). As for Forero, "From SDS's perspective, the
parties had agreed to go to arbitration, we had already selected an
arbitrator, and the arbitrator is the one who went forward," he
said. Asked why SDS didn't offer to pay the fee so that the hearing
could go on with Forero's participation, he said, "There is an
argument to be made that it's not fair and impartial" when the
parties don't split the costs.

When it comes to employee disputes, nothing is of more critical
importance to corporations these days than avoiding situations in
which workers can join collectively, whether before a court or an
arbitrator. "The most effective weapon against employees today" is
an arbitration policy that also bars class actions, said San
Francisco lawyer Cliff Palefsky. Nearly a third of U.S. companies
bar both individual court cases and collective actions, according
to the Colvin study.

Earlier this year, Joe Biden signed a bill into law outlawing
forced arbitration of sexual assault and sexual harassment claims.
It was a setback for corporate defendants, but didn't threaten the
arbitration benefits that mattered most to them. Corporate defense
lawyers reminded clients they had much to be thankful for. "With
respect to wage-hour claims -- for many employers, the greatest
hotbed of potential legal liability -- arbitration agreements,
including class/collective action waivers, remain alive and well,"
wrote two lawyers at Seyfarth Shaw.

Some lawyers for workers have found ways to weaponize forced
arbitration, filing thousands of arbitration demands at a time that
can result in millions of dollars in fees charged to companies. But
companies are fighting back, their defense lawyers advising them to
amend their arbitration policies by ramping up costs for employees
and adding rules that would favor firms when employees file en
masse.

Embarrassing and public, collective actions hold lawbreakers
accountable in a way that closed-door individual hearings never
can.

With dwindling opportunities for multiple low wage workers to seek
justice, employee advocates have taken solace that California has
offered a workaround since 2014. Workers there have been able to
act as private attorneys general, suing over labor law violations
on behalf of the state.

That strategy is under threat now, too. When a sales representative
at Viking River Cruises, Inc,. filed a claim under the state's
Private Attorney Generals Act, Viking took her to court, saying
she'd signed an arbitration agreement and couldn't proceed. The
sales rep, Angie Moriana, said Viking had failed to pay overtime at
the required rate and wasn't providing meal and rest periods.

The California Supreme Court agreed that Moriana had the right to
bring the action. But Viking took the case to the Supreme Court,
which heard arguments on the matter on March 30. Labor advocates
are nervous that the conservative-leaning court will side with
management.

As corporate America closes more doors to the courts, larger
consequences loom. Embarrassing and public, collective actions hold
lawbreakers accountable in a way that closed-door individual
hearings never can. As things stand, it is easy to break the law
with impunity.

What would the business world look like if mandatory arbitration
and class action waivers became a thing of the past? "It would
change business behavior in a real way and workers would have wages
stolen less often," said Baran. "But when they did have wages
stolen, they would have real redress." [GN]

CREDIT SUISSE: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of June 28 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on May 2
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Credit Suisse Group AG (NYSE: CS)
between March 19, 2021 and March 25, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than June 28, 2022.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Credit Suisse class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5868 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 28, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Credit Suisse had deficient disclosure controls and procedures
and internal control over financial reporting; (2) Credit Suisse's
practice of lending money to Russian oligarchs subject to U.S. and
international sanctions created a significant risk of violating
rules pertaining to those sanctions and future sanctions; (3) the
foregoing conduct subjected the Company to an increased risk of
heightened regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement actions; (4) a
synthetic securitization deal, in which Credit Suisse sold off $80
million worth of risk related to a $2 billion portfolio of loans
backed by assets owned by certain of the bank's ultra-high net
worth clients (the "Securitization Deal") concerned loans that
Credit Suisse made to Russian oligarchs previously sanctioned by
the U.S.; (5) the purpose of the Securitization Deal was to offload
the risks associated with these loans and mitigate the impact on
Credit Suisse of sanctions likely to be implemented by Western
nations in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine; (6) Credit
Suisse's request that non-participating investors destroy documents
related to the Securitization Deal was intended to conceal the
Company's noncompliance with U.S. and international sanctions in
its lending practices; (7) the foregoing, once revealed, was likely
to subject the Company to enhanced regulatory scrutiny and
significant reputational harm; and (8) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Credit Suisse class action, go too
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=5868 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

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

DENVER, CO: Tenth Circuit Vacates Prelim. Injunction in DHOL Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DENVER HOMELESS OUT LOUD; CHARLES DAVIS; MICHAEL LAMB;
SHARRON MEITZEN; RICK MEITZEN, JR.; TOMASA DOGTRAIL; STEVE OLSEN;
GREGORY COSTIGAN; SEAN MARTINEZ; LISA MASARO; NATHANIEL WARNER, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees v. DENVER, COLORADO, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants, and JARED POLIS, Governor, in his official
capacity, Defendant. NATIONAL HOMELESSNESS LAW CENTER; AMERICAN
CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF COLORADO, Amici Curiae, Case No. 21-1025
(10th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
vacates the district court's order granting in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for a preliminary injunction and remands for further
proceedings consistent with its Opinion.

The other Defendants-Appellants are MIKE CODY, Lieutenant, in his
individual capacity; MICHAEL HANCOCK, Mayor, in his individual
capacity; BOB McDONALD, in his individual capacity; MURPHY
ROBINSON, in his individual and official capacity; KRISTIN M.
BRONSON, in her individual and official capacity; ENVIRONMENTAL
HAZMAT SERVICES; JAMES D. HARVEY, Officer, in his individual
capacity; DARREN ULRICH, Officer, in his individual capacity;
MALLORY LUTKIN, Officer, in her individual capacity; BRIAN CONOVER,
Sergeant; MARK MOORE, Corporal; THANARAT PHUVHAPAISALKIJ, Officer;
ROP MONTHATHONG, Officer; CHRISTOPHER RANDALL, Officer; DAVID
HUNTER, Officer; TOBY WILSON, Officer; JON UDLAND, Officer; ANDREW
GASPAROVIC, Corporal; J.P. BURT, Trooper; JOSEPH DIRNBERGER,
Trooper; DARCE WEIL, Trooper; WILLIAM CALDWELL, Trooper; KEVIN RAE,
Trooper; COLIN DAUGHERTY, Trooper; VICTOR sSARGENT, Trooper; DAVID
DINKEL, Trooper; DOUG KLINE, Trooper; GREGORY DAVEY, Trooper;
JEREMY HARRINGTON, Trooper; CHRISTOPHER GONZALES, Trooper; RUSTY
SANCHEZ, Trooper; PATRICK WILLIAMS, Trooper; JACOB CLEVELAND,
Trooper; CRYSTAL CRENSHAW, Trooper; RYAN A. VOSS, Trooper; UMAIR
CHEEMA, Trooper; NATHAN HARDY, Trooper; GEOFFREY KEELING, Trooper;
HAAS E. PRATT, Trooper; NICHOLAS TRUJILLO, Trooper; TY SIMCOX,
Trooper; SEAN McCALL, Trooper; HEIDI JEWETT, Trooper; KYLE ROSS,
Trooper; ALEC W. BARKLEY, Trooper; BRYAN LARREAU, Trooper; THOMAS
MAJOR, Trooper; JONATHAN STRICKLAND, Trooper; A. MARTINEZ,
Sergeant; in her/his individual capacity; ANTHONY MARTINEZ,
Sergeant; BRANDON NOVY, Trooper; and DAVID MARTINEZ, Officer.

I. Introduction

The Denver Defendants have authorized and/or conducted sweeps of
homeless encampments throughout Denver, Colorado. The advocacy
organization Denver Homeless Out Loud and several people
experiencing homelessness ("DHOL Plaintiffs") allege these sweeps
violated the rights of persons experiencing homelessness and
breached a settlement agreement resolving related litigation.

The DHOL Plaintiffs, therefore, filed the putative class action and
corresponding motion for a preliminary injunction. They asked the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado to enjoin all
sweeps or, in the alternative, require seven days' advanced notice
for all sweeps.

The district court granted the motion in part after concluding the
DHOL Plaintiffs' procedural due process claim was likely to succeed
on the merits. The district court then issued a preliminary
injunction requiring the Denver Defendants to satisfy additional
notice and procedural requirements before conducting future
sweeps.

The Denver Defendants timely filed this interlocutory appeal
challenging the injunction.

II. Background

A. The Lyall Litigation and Settlement

Encampments of people experiencing homelessness have proliferated
throughout Denver. In response, Denver banned unauthorized camping
on public or private property. The Denver Defendants enforce the
camping ban in the following ways. The Denver Department of Public
Health and Environment ("DDPHE") can issue an "area restriction,"
which "temporarily restricts activities that could occur in a
specified area" to allow officials to remediate public health
hazards. The Department of Transportation and Infrastructure
("DOTI") assists DDPHE in "cleaning locations that are subject to
area restrictions." DOTI can also independently conduct large-scale
"encumbrance removals," where it clears and cleans an area "to make
sure that the public right-of-way is accessible to all Denver
residents." These activities are colloquially known as homeless
sweeps.

In 2016, people affected by these sweeps filed a class action
against Denver and certain city officials in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado -- Lyall v. City of Denver, 319
F.R.D. 558, 562 n.2 (D. Colo. 2017). The Lyall plaintiffs alleged,
inter alia, that Denver's "policies, practices and conduct violate
their right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment."
The Lyall Amended Complaint specifically claimed the sweeps "are
conducted without notice or with inadequate notice and in a manner
that prevents the plaintiffs and the plaintiff class from
retrieving their property."

The parties in Lyall settled in February 2019, shortly before
trial. The district court then entered a Final Judgment stating,
"this civil action and Complaint are dismissed as settled and the
case will be closed." The Lyall settlement agreement sets forth
detailed protocols for Denver's future enforcement of the camping
ban and releases a broad range of city parties from present and
future liabilities.

B. Post-Lyall Sweeps

Sweeps have continued post-Lyall and during the pandemic. The DHOL
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and preliminary injunction motion
focus on three specific sweeps -- July 2020 in Lincoln Park, August
2020 around Morey Middle School, and September 2020 near the South
Platte River.

On July 29, 2020, the Denver Defendants conducted a sweep of the
encampment in Lincoln Park. DOTI swept the park after DDPHE
restricted the area for public health reasons. The sweep was not a
large-scale encumbrance removal. Despite the advanced planning,
DDPHE did not post notice of the area restriction on Lincoln Park
until the morning of July 29. During the sweep, the Denver
Defendants seized and destroyed property belonging to DHOL
Plaintiffs.

The Denver Defendants claim "people who were present (or returned
to Lincoln Park) were given over four hours to pack up their
belongings (or choose voluntary, free storage) and leave." Terese
Howard, founder of Plaintiff Denver Homeless Out Loud, attended
numerous sweeps and testified that she had never seen efforts to
store property or identify property with apparent value. The DHOL
Plaintiffs also state that the Denver Defendants' general website
describing how to recover stored property seized during sweeps
contradicts their claim that they stored any property in the
Lincoln Park sweep.

C. District Court Proceedings

In October 2020, the DHOL Plaintiffs filed the present putative
class action and requested the district court preliminarily enjoin
the Denver Defendants and Colorado Governor Jared Polis. The
operative Amended Complaint frames this as an action to enforce the
Lyall settlement agreement -- its first sentence states the case is
about a "blatant effort to skirt a settlement agreement entered
into between Denver and a class of its homeless population."
Accordingly, the DHOL Plaintiffs seek relief under Colorado law for
Defendants Denver and Mayor Michael Hancock's alleged breach of the
agreement. In addition, they seek relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 for the Denver Defendants' alleged violation of their
procedural due process rights.

In their accompanying Motion for Preliminary Injunction and
Expedited Hearing, the DHOL Plaintiffs argue the Denver Defendants
violated their procedural due process rights in three ways: "(1)
the Defendants provided no (or deficient) notice prior to seizing
their property, (2) the Defendants summarily discarded (and
destroyed) the Plaintiffs' property without any process for
challenging the destruction, and (3) post-deprivation, the
Defendants did not provide an adequate process forthe  Plaintiffs
to challenge the seizure of their property or retrieve their
property."

On Nov. 25, 2020, the Denver Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
based on the preclusive effect of the Lyall settlement agreement.
Due to procedural defects, the district court struck that motion.
For reasons not apparent from the record, the Denver Defendants did
not immediately refile it or otherwise raise preclusion.

Following limited expedited discovery, the district court conducted
a three-day evidentiary hearing on the preliminary injunction
motion. The district court heard from eighteen witnesses during the
hearing. It also considered multiple exhibits and various
declarations. The Denver Defendants did not raise the preclusive
effect of the Lyall settlement agreement in opposition to the
preliminary injunction.

As a result, the district court did not address preclusion in its
order granting a preliminary injunction. Nor did it consider the
Lyall settlement agreement's potentially preclusive provisions. Its
entire discussion of the Lyall settlement agreement was confined to
its breach of contract analysis -- where the district court
correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction to enforce the
agreement. This conclusion is not challenged on appeal.

Instead, the district court analyzed whether the procedural due
process claim was likely to succeed on the merits, but it did so
without considering if the Lyall settlement agreement barred the
claim. The district court then granted a preliminary injunction
based solely on its finding that the procedural due process claim
was likely to succeed. The preliminary injunction requires the
Denver Defendants to satisfy notice requirements beyond those
included in the Lyall settlement agreement.

Approximately two months later, on March 4, 2021, the Denver
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing, inter alia, the
Lyall settlement agreement precluded the due process claim under
the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata. The DHOL
Plaintiffs argued against preclusion in their response brief, and
the Denver Defendants addressed the issue again in their reply
brief. That motion remains pending before the district court.

On Jan. 26, 2021, the Denver Defendants filed this interlocutory
appeal claiming the preliminary injunction was improperly granted.

III. Discussion

The Tenth Circuit begins its analysis with a discussion of the
impact of the Lyall settlement on both jurisdiction and the merits.
Although the district court correctly noted it lacked jurisdiction
to enforce the Lyall settlement agreement, the Tenth Circuit
concludes it improperly failed to consider sua sponte the
preclusive effect of that agreement.

In reaching this conclusion, it explains why it raises the
preclusive effect of the Lyall settlement agreement sua sponte,
despite the Denver Defendants' failure to raise it as a defense to
the preliminary injunction motion or to reassert preclusion on
appeal. It then conclude that the preclusive effect of the
agreement makes it unlikely the DHOL Plaintiffs will succeed on the
merits of their procedural due process claim. Specifically, the
Lyall settlement agreement includes a broad release that
unequivocally prevents the DHOL Plaintiffs from asserting this
specific procedural due process claim against the Denver
Defendants.

The district court's omission of a preclusion analysis is
understandable in light of the Denver Defendant's failure to
reassert preclusion after the district court struck their motion to
dismiss. Because the Supreme Court urges sua sponte consideration
of preclusion in situations like the present, however, the Tenth
Circuit concludes the district court's finding that a precluded
procedural due process claim was likely to succeed on the merits is
an error of law, and the failure to consider the release provision
of the Lyall settlement agreement means the district court's
decision lacks a rational evidentiary basis. Accordingly, the Tenth
Circuit vacates and remands the district court's order granting the
preliminary injunction.

IV. Conclusion

For these reasons, the Tenth Circuit vacates the district court's
order and remands for further proceedings consistent with its
decision.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2022 Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p86erj6 from Leagle.com.

Conor D. Farley, Denver City Attorney's Office (Geoffrey C.
Klingsporn and Wendy J. Shea, with him on the briefs), in Denver,
Colorado, for the Defendants-Appellants.

Andrew McNulty -- AMcNulty@KLN-law.com -- Killmer, Lane & Newman,
LLP, (David A. Lane -- DLane@KLN-law.com -- Darold W. Killmer --
DKillmer@KLN-law.com -- and Reid R. Allison -- RAllison@KLN-law.com
-- with him on the brief), in Denver, Colorado, for the
Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Anna Kurtz, and Mark Silverstein, ACLU Foundation of Colorado, in
Denver, Colorado, filed an amicus brief on behalf of the American
Civil Liberties Union of Colorado.

Tristia M. Bauman, Carlton Martin, and Joseph W. Mead, National
Homelessness Law Center, in Washington, D.C., filed an amicus brief
on behalf of the National Homelessness Law Center.


DROPBOX INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
news.bloomberglaw.com reports that Dropbox Inc. will avoid facing a
securities class action in California state court after an
appellate panel refused to void provision in the company's bylaws
designating federal district court as the exclusive forum for
claims under the Securities Act of 1933.

Jon Simonton sued Dropbox in 2019 on behalf of a proposed class of
shareholders, alleging the registration statement the company
issued for its 2018 initial public offering was inaccurate and
misleading.

A trial court in San Mateo County granted Dropbbox's motion to
dismiss the suit based on a forum selection provision in its
bylaws. [GN]


DRUNKEN FISH: Fails to Pay Servers’ Minimum & OT Wages, Tweedy
Says
---------------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTIN TWEEDY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE DRUNKEN FISH, INC. and SO HOSPITALITY
GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-00315-WBG (W.D. Mis., May
11, 2022) alleges the Defendants of willful violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law.

The Plaintiff, who has worked for the Defendants as a server from
roughly May 6, 2021 to February 6, 2022, asserts that the
Defendants have failed to pay him and other similarly situated
employees all of their compensable time, including straight time
and overtime due. The Defendants allegedly have claimed the tip
credit on the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees,
despite not actually paying them the actual tips or giving them
adequate required notice. As a result, the Defendants failed to pay
them their due minimum wages and overtime compensation at the rate
of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

The Plaintiff brings this collective and class action complaint
against the Defendants on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated employees to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, as
well as liquidated damages, litigation costs and expenses,
reasonable attorneys' fees and expert fees, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and other relief as the Court deems necessary, just and
proper.

So Hospitality Group, Inc. owns and operates numerous restaurants
in Missouri, including The Drunken Fish. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
    
          Phillip M. Murphy II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PHILLIP M. MURPHY, II
          4717 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Tel: (913) 661-2900
          Fax: (913) 312-5841
          E-mail: phillip@phillipmurphylaw.com

                -and-

          Michael Hodgson, Esq.
          THE HODGSON LAW FIRM, LLC
          3609 SW Pryor Rd.
          Lee's Summit, MO 64082
          Tel: (816) 600-0117
          E-mail: mike@elgkc.com

DUNKIN' BRANDS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Deceptive Gift Cards
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak at classaction.org reports that a proposed class action
claims Dunkin' Brands misrepresents the value of its gift cards by
failing to disclose that gift card holders will be unable to redeem
any remaining funds on their cards when the balance falls below a
certain amount.

According to the 11-page case, Dunkin' and subsidiary SVC Service
II, LLC offer reloadable gift cards intended for use at their
coffee and snack shops and represent that the cards' value "may not
be redeemed for cash, check or credit unless required by law."

The suit alleges, however, that this representation is misleading
because Dunkin' fails to disclose that its gift cards are
completely non-refundable, "even in situations where state law
requires it."

Per the case, although at least 10 states, including Massachusetts
and New Jersey, require retailers to provide a cash refund up to a
certain amount for a gift card's remaining value, Dunkin' refuses
to do so.

"These small balances add up," the complaint contends. "Defendants
have distributed millions of these cards to Gift Card purchasers
and holders throughout the United States. Thus, Defendants have
acquired at least millions of dollars in revenue to which they are
not entitled."

The lawsuit alleges that at the point of sale, consumers who
purchase Dunkin's gift cards remain unaware that they come with
"unfair, deceptive, and illegal conditions." Per the suit, Dunkin'
fails to disclose that its policy is to never allow customers to
redeem a card's remaining balance, even in states that require
retailers to do so.

One such state is Massachusetts, the suit says, where the purchaser
or holder of a gift certificate is permitted to request the
remaining balance in cash if it is $5.00 or less. Per the case, New
Jersey and at least eight other states have statutes that require
retailers to provide cash refunds of up to a certain amount for a
gift card's remaining balance.

The plaintiff, a Manchester, New Jersey resident, says he possesses
a Dunkin' gift card with a remaining balance of $4.54 but has been
unable to redeem it due to the defendants' policies and practices.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the U.S. who possesses a
gift card maintained by Dunkin' Brands and SVC Service II,
LLC.[GN]


FASHION NOVA: Faces Proposed Class Action Over Unwanted Texts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fashion Nova Inc. must face a proposed class action brought by two
individuals who claim that the online women's store texted and
called them without their permission.

Juan Grieben and Tynikal Pressley allege that Fashion Nova called
and texted them advertising the store's sales, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act. Fashion Nova didn't provide the plaintiffs. [GN]


FCA US: Petro Files Suit in D. Delaware
---------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA US LLC. The case
is styled as Shawn Petro, Mike Fairchild, David Kinchen, on behalf
of themselves and all other similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00621-UNA (D. Del., May 10, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
The Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans,
trucks and commercial vans, as well as distributes automotive
service parts and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Russell D. Paul, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 875-4601
          Email: rpaul@bm.net


FEDEX GROUND: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Aristizabal Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GERARDO ARISTIZABAL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM INC.;
JAK LOGISTICS, INC.; KERAJ INDUSTRIES INC.; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00529 (E.D. Va., May 10,
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 Aristizabal was employed by the Defendants as delivery
driver.

FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC. provides package delivery
services. The Company delivers packages by truck to residential and
business addresses throughout North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francisco Mundaca, Esq.
          Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq.
          Ashley Collette, Esq.
          THE SPIGGLE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          3601 Eisenhower Ave
          Alexandria, VA 22304
          Telephone: (202) 449-8527
          Facsimile: (202) 517-9179
          Email: fmundaca@spigglelaw.com
                  rtucci@spigglelaw.com
                  acollette@spigglelaw.com

FGX INTERNATIONAL: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FGX International,
Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. FGX International, Inc.,
Case No. 1:22-cv-03811 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2022).

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

FGX International, an EssilorLuxottica company --
https://www.fgxi.com/ -- is a leading global designer and marketer
of non-prescription glasses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
          380 North Broadway, Suite 300
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Phone: (718) 740-5060
          Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com


FIRST HIGH-SCHOOL: Faces Dagan Suit Over Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------------
DAGAN INVESTMENTS LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST HIGH-SCHOOL EDUCATION GROUP
CO., LTD.; SHAOWEI ZHANG; LIDONG ZHU; GUANGZHOU ZHAO; YUANLIN HU;
LONGWATER TOPCO B.V.; EQT MID MARKET ASIA III LIMITED PARTNERSHIP;
EQT MID MARKET ASIA III GP B.V.; EQT FUND MANAGEMENT S.À R.L.;
COLLEEN A. DE VRIES; COGENCY GLOBAL INC.; THE BENCHMARK COMPANY
LLC; VALUABLE CAPITAL GROUP LIMITED; TFI SECURITIES AND FUTURES
LIMITED; AMTD GLOBAL MARKETS LIMITED; MAXIM GROUP LLC; BOUSTEAD
SECURITIES, LLC; FUTU INC.; US TIGER SECURITIES, INC.; and FOSUN
HANI SECURITIES LIMITED, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03831
(S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2022) is a securities class action on behalf of
all persons or entities who purchased FHS American Depositary
Shares ("ADSs") in or traceable to the Company's March 2021 initial
public offering (the "IPO") seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "1933 Act").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Registration
Statement filed by the Defendants was negligently prepared and, as
a result, contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted
material facts necessary to make the statements contained therein
not misleading, and failed to make adequate disclosures required
under the rules and regulations governing the preparation of such
documents.

By May 10, 2022, FHS ADSs closed below $1 per ADS - more than 90%
below the price at which FHS ADSs were sold to the investing a
little more than one year previously. At the time of the filing of
this complaint, the price of FHS ADSs has remained significantly
below the IPO price.

FIRST HIGH-SCHOOL EDUCATION GROUP CO., LTD. provides education
services. The Company offers K-12 (kindergarten through 12 grade)
education and higher education services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vicki Multer Diamond, Esq.
          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                 vdiamond@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (630) 696-4107
          Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Jack G. Fruchter, Esq.
          ABRAHAM FRUCHTER & TWERSKY LLP
          450 Seventh Avenue 38th Floor
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (212) 279-5050
          Facsimile: (212) 279-3655
          Email: jfruchter@aftlaw.com

FITBIT INC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Smartwatch Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action alleges at least 12 Fitbit smartwatch products can
overheat, burn users, and pose a potential fire hazard.

The 54-page complaint out of California alleges the Fitbit models
at issue each suffer from an identical design defect that involves
their battery and charging systems. As a result, the Fitbits are
"unreasonably dangerous" and unsuitable for their intended purpose,
the case says.

The suit, filed on April 29, comes nearly two months after Google,
Fitbit's parent company, announced in tandem with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) a voluntary recall of roughly 1.7
million Fitbit Ionic smartwatches due to the "prevalent nature" of
the burn risk. The lawsuit contends, however, that although only
one Fitbit product was recalled, the same defect exists in more
than 10 other Fitbit devices—and has been a problem for years.

"Defendant fails to acknowledge this, and instead places the blame
on one 'bad apple' to avoid liability and diminished sales for the
'whole bunch,'" the complaint alleges, claiming consumers have been
exposed to "unneeded physical injury and economic harm."

Per the case, Google has danced around how widespread the Fitbit
burn problem actually is, and the company's March 2022 recall was
merely a profit-protecting "façade" that made it unreasonably
difficult for consumers to receive compensation for their defective
smartwatches.

As the lawsuit tells it, when a consumer contacts Fitbit about the
alleged safety issue, the company attempts to shift blame onto the
individual's hygiene, rather than focus on the actual defect
plaguing the smartwatches.

"Reasonable consumers, like Plaintiffs, purchase the Products to
burn calories - not their skin - and to safely pursue a healthy
lifestyle with the aid of a smartwatch," the suit states.

Fitbit Ionic recall was "inadequate," suit claims
The complaint relays that although the defect has existed for years
in each of the specified devices, Google's "feigned recall attempt"
focuses solely on the Fitbit Ionic, which hasn't been produced
since 2020 and hasn't been sold since 2021.

In other words, rather than fixing the defect, telling the truth to
consumers, and protecting consumers that trusted in the company,
Google merely places blame on a long deactivated device."

Further, the suit says, the Ionic recall "conveniently" aligns with
the expected launch of the Fitbit Ionic 2, a replacement for the
defunct initial version that has reportedly been in development
since at least 2019.

Overall, Google's Fitbit Ionic recall allowed the company to say it
was doing right by consumers, the lawsuit argues, yet in fact
allowed the tech giant, who acquired Fitbit in January 2021, to
suppress refunds.

For one, the recall failed to address previous owners who formerly
owned, yet did not currently possess, an Ionic smartwatch, the case
relays. Further, affected consumers were forced to use multiple
third-party platforms, each with their own "additional, onerous
terms and confusing procedures within," as the means to obtain
compensation, the suit says. The case also claims that consumers
were not sufficiently notified of the recall and were offered
compensation that was "grossly insufficient."

Fitbit users speak up, share their experiences
The lawsuit alleges that Google, rather than admit certain Fitbits
suffer from a defect, has consistently denied the existence of a
wider problem and refuses to offer replacements. When consumers
seek out help for the issue, Google claims that the device is no
longer under warranty and often tries to sell the user a new
Fitbit, the suit says. Further, the complaint alleges Google's
"agents and employees" have actively removed online posts from
Fitbit users who have voiced complaints.

The lawsuit scathes that Google's denial of the true extent of the
Fitbit defect "creates undue risk, danger, and harm throughout all
aspects of everyday life."

"This danger is ever-present," the case says. "Thus the Defect
removes all utility from the products."

Included in the complaint are numerous images that purport to show
the injuries of Fitbit users who allege they've been burned while
using their devices as intended:

The complaint goes on to state that Google's denial as to the
extent of the problem unnecessarily exposes millions of airline
passengers to danger given the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) prohibits consumers from traveling with damaged or recalled
batteries. The case says that although some passengers may be aware
that the Ionic is faulty, they are "oblivious" to the fact that
other Fitbits suffer from the same problem.

Similarly, Google has put children at risk and has left many
parents with potentially dangerous Fitbits that have no value and
that they do not want to sell to another person for fear of harm,
the lawsuit relays. Instead, the device may be either thrown away
or stashed in a closet, the suit says.

Which Fitbit smartwatches are mentioned in the lawsuit?
According to the lawsuit, the following Fitbit models, and possibly
others, pose a burn risk to users:

Versa;
Versa 2;
Versa 3;
Charge 4;
Versa Light;
Ionic;
Sense;
Alta HR;
Inspire;
Inspire HR;
Inspire 2; and
Blaze. [GN]

FITZCON CONSTRUCTION/REN: Bid to Amend Lema Suit Partly Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARLOS LEMA, et al., Plaintiffs v. FITZCON
CONSTRUCTION/REN CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No.
20-CV-2311(MKB) (E.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York:

    (i) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion
        to File a Fifth Amended Complaint; and

   (ii) denied without prejudice their request that the Court
        so-orders 15 of their 16 subpoenas.

I. Introduction

Currently pending before the Court are two motions filed by the
Plaintiffs on April 5, 2022, in this wage and hour action. First,
the Plaintiffs seek permission to file a Fifth Amended Complaint to
add two new Defendants and class action claims. Defendants Fitzcon
Construction/Ren Corp., Fitzcon Construction G.C. Inc., Fitzcon
Excavation Inc., Ronan Fitzpatrick, Cornelius O'Sullivan and Liam
O'Sullivan ("the Fitzcon Defendants") oppose the request on the
grounds that the proposed amendments are untimely, and in some
respects, prejudicial and futile. See Response in Opposition. In
the second motion, the Plaintiffs request that the Court so-orders
16 subpoenas to be served on non-parties. The Fitzcon Defendants
oppose that application on grounds of timeliness and relevance.

II. Background

On May 22, 2020, Plaintiff Lema commenced the action against
Defendants Fitzcon Excavation Inc., Pub Construction/Ren Inc., Esco
Hirf Co Inc., Ronan Fitzpatrick, Connie O'Sullivan and Liam O'
Sullivan, alleging claims for, inter alia, unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq.
("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law Section 650 et seq. ("NYLL").
On Aug. 11, 2020, Plaintiff Lema filed an amended complaint, adding
as Defendants Fitzcon Construction/Ren Corp. and Fitzcon
Construction G.C. Inc.

At the initial conference held in the matter on Nov. 18, 2020, the
Court set Dec. 18, 2020 as the deadline by which the parties could
amend the pleadings and/or add parties without seeking further
leave of court. Accordingly, on Dec. 18, 2020, Lema filed a second
amended complaint, adding as named Plaintiffs Byron Quintuna and
Gregorio Vasquez.

At a status conference held on Jan. 8, 2021, the Court, with the
Fitzcon Defendants' consent, granted the Plaintiffs leave to file a
third amended complaint to assert claims for retaliation under the
FLSA and NYLL on behalf of Plaintiff Vasquez. On March 30, 2021,
the Court granted the Plaintiffs' request for leave to file a
fourth amended complaint to add as Plaintiffs Henry Quintuna,
Gilberto Ramirez, Marco Ortiz and Jorge Urgilez.

In their pending motion to amend, the Plaintiffs seek to justify
their delay in moving to add new Defendants and claims, arguing
that the proposed amendments arise from recent deposition testimony
and documents received pursuant to subpoenas, which were so-ordered
by the Court on Jan. 26, 2022. The Fitzcon Defendants object to the
Plaintiffs' proposed amendments on grounds of timeliness, undue
prejudice and/or futility. Regarding the Plaintiffs' request for
so-ordered subpoenas, the Plaintiffs explain that they seek
additional third-party discovery related to the Fitzcon Defendants
and non-appearing Defendants Pub and Esco, in order to identify
potential opt-in plaintiffs. The Fitzcon Defendants argue that the
subpoenas are untimely and overbroad.

III. Discussion

A. Motion to Amend

In the case, it is undisputed that, in accordance with Rule 16, the
Court set a deadline of Dec. 18, 2020 for the parties to amend
their pleadings and/or add new parties. Consequently, Rule 16
governs the dispute, and Judge Mann need not decide whether the
Plaintiffs have satisfied the liberal standard of Rule 15(a) unless
they first establish "good cause" under Rule 16 for seeking amend
their fourth amended pleading after the expiration of the
court-ordered deadline. She concludes that the Plaintiffs have
demonstrated good cause with respect to some, but not all, of the
proposed amendments; therefore, she grants in substantial part and
denies in limited part the Plaintiffs' motion to file a Fifth
Amended Complaint.

First, as to Connor Quinn, Judge Mann holds that the Plaintiffs
have not shown good cause to excuse their violation of the deadline
for amending the pleadings and adding parties. Second, the
Plaintiffs have demonstrated that recently obtained discovery has
enabled them to assert new class action allegations. In the absence
of anything more than a cursory objection from defendants as to
timeliness, the Plaintiffs' request to add Rule 23 class action
allegations is granted. Third, despite the Plaintiffs' untimely
request to amend, Judge Mann finds that the Plaintiffs were
diligent and thus have demonstrated good cause to amend the
pleading to add Jemzn Construction Inc. as a Defendant. Nothing in
the records suggests that the Plaintiffs were or should have been
aware of the facts underlying the proposed claims against Jemzn
until last month.

In sum, Judge Mann holds that the Plaintiffs' request to add Connor
Quinn as a Defendant is denied as untimely and their requests to
add Rule 23 class allegations and claims against Jemzn are
granted.

B. Subpoenas

By letter dated April 5, 2022, the Plaintiffs ask that the Court
so-order certain subpoenas to be served on third parties. Pursuant
to the prior round of so-ordered subpoenas, the Plaintiffs obtained
documents from third parties, including JPMorgan Chase Bank and TD
Bank, concerning non-appearing Defendants Pub and Esco.

Since those documents comprised only a sampling of checks and
deposits from the relevant time period, the Plaintiffs now seek the
remaining checks and deposit records from JPMorgan Chase Bank and
TD Bank. In addition, they propose to serve subpoenas on various
entities that may have used employees of the Fitzcon Defendants,
Pub and/or Esco, as well as subpoenas on subcontractors and site
safety agencies that may have been associated with Fitzcon
projects. The Defendants oppose the Plaintiffs' request on various
grounds, including timing, relevance and burden.

Upon Judge Mann's examination of the subpoenas at issue, all but
the subpoena to TD Bank, DE #86-1, are overbroad as to their
temporal scope. She declines to so-order document subpoenas without
any temporal limits. Accordingly, other than the TD Subpoena, which
the Court will so-order, the Plaintiffs must resubmit the subpoenas
with appropriate time limits.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Mann granted in large part the
Plaintiffs' motion to amend; so-ordered the subpoena directed to TD
Bank; and denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' request that the
Court so-orders the remaining 15 subpoenas.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ycksk5u9 from Leagle.com.


FREEDOM FINANCIAL: Ballard Spahr Discusses Ruling in TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark J. Levin, Esq., of Ballard Spahr LLP, disclosed that recently,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reexamined when use of a website
can bind a consumer to hyperlinked "terms and conditions"
containing an arbitration provision that the consumer never saw or
read. Affirming the district court, the appeals court held that the
plaintiffs in Berman v. Freedom Financial Network, LLC did not
enter into a binding agreement to arbitrate because they did not
"unambiguously manifest their assent to the terms and conditions
when navigating through the [defendants'] websites."

Berman involved a class action alleging that defendants violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendants moved to compel
arbitration, arguing that by using their website, plaintiffs agreed
to its terms and conditions which included an arbitration
provision. The court began its analysis by emphasizing that the
party moving to compel arbitration must establish the existence of
an "agreement to arbitrate" under applicable state law. Under New
York and California law (which produced the same outcome), to form
a contract the parties must manifest their mutual assent to the
contract terms, and may do so through conduct. As it did in earlier
rulings, the court distinguished between "clickwrap" and
"browsewrap" online agreements. "Clickwrap" agreements are
generally enforceable because they present website users with
explicit terms and require them to check an "I agree" box in order
to proceed further. By contrast, in "browsewrap" agreements the
terms are typically disclosed through a hyperlink and assent is
manifested by continued use of the website. A contract can be based
upon evidence the consumer had actual knowledge of the terms and
conditions. Even absent such evidence, a contract can be based upon
"inquiry notice" if (1) the website provided "reasonably
conspicuous" notice of the contract terms, and (2) the consumer
took some action that unambiguously manifested assent to those
terms.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that the webpages in Berman did not
provide reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms and conditions,
including the existence of an arbitration provision. To be
conspicuous, "a notice must be displayed in a font size and format
such that the court can fairly assume that a reasonably prudent
Internet user would have seen it." Here, the text disclosing the
existence of the "Terms and Conditions which includes mandatory
arbitration" was printed in tiny gray font, rather than blue font
which typically signifies a hyperlink. Moreover, the font was
smaller than the font used in the surrounding website elements and
"was barely legible to the naked eye." The surrounding text used
larger font which directed the user's attention away from the
hyperlink, as did the overall design of the webpage. Thus, it was
not readily apparent that a hyperlink was present. The court noted
that these deficiencies might have been avoided by better
formatting and the use of blue rather than gray font and capital
letters to call attention to the hyperlink.

The court further found that the act of clicking a large green
"continue" button did not unambiguously manifest plaintiffs' assent
to be bound by the terms and conditions because there was no
explicit notice that clicking the button would constitute assent.
Thus, the fact that the notice referred to "mandatory arbitration"
was of "no relevance." According to the court, this notice defect
might have been cured by using more specific language such as "By
clicking the Continue button, you agree to the Terms and Conditions
which includes mandatory arbitration."

Companies that offer their financial products and services online
should take heed of the Ninth Circuit's scrutiny in Berman when
they design their webpages. Care must be taken not only in drafting
the substantive terms of the arbitration provision, but also in
ensuring that a court asked to enforce the provision will conclude
that the consumer agreed to it contractually. [GN]

GEICO GENERAL: Benvenutti Sues Over Unpaid Wages & Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMALIA BENVENUTTI, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a
GEICO, Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-00182-MTT (M.D. Ga., May 11,
2022) brings this collective action complaint against the Defendant
for its alleged illegal practices in violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a customer service
representative at its Macon Georgia call center.

The Plaintiff claims that although she and other similarly situated
CSRs were scheduled for 8 hours and 15 minutes, they were
instructed by the Defendant to enter 7.75 hours per day for each
schedule work day at the beginning of their work-week, in which
difference represents a 30-minute unpaid meal period. The Plaintiff
also claims that their compensation is computed basing on the
number of hours logged onto a Cisco software application, which
they used to answer customer calls and record information obtain
from their customers. In addition, the Defendant did not compensate
them during the downtime in which they experienced technical
problems logging onto their application or technical problems while
logged onto the application that required them to close the
application and seek assistance from the IT department. The
Defendant also did not compensate them for working off the clock to
make-up for the downtime. Also, if they failed to meet the quota on
the number of calls which they must handle during the 7.75 hours
per day, they were subjected to discipline for poor work
performance.

As a result, despite working more than 40 hours per week, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated CSRs were allegedly
underpaid by the Defendant and were not compensated for their
lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times their regular hourly rate for all hours worked over
40 in a workweek.

Moreover, when the Plaintiff complained to human resources about
the policy of requiring CSRs to make up for the downtime without
pay, her manager retaliated against her by denying her FMLA
approval for a prior absence and issued her a warning that she was
not handling calls in a timely manner. Her supervisor confronted
her also in an angry and aggressive manner telling her that she
shouldn't go outside the chain of command. The manager's willful
retaliation and hostile conduct has resulted in a constructive
discharge of the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff seeks any lost wages and benefits resulting from the
Defendant's unlawful retaliation, as well as liquidated damages in
an equal amount, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment
interest, compensatory and/or punitive damages to the extent
allowed by law and/or all other legal or equitable relief as the
Court deems appropriate to remedy the Defendant's violations of the
FLSA.

Geico General Insurance Company provides vehicle, property and
business insurance to customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicolas Stanojevich, Esq.
          QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER,
             DAVIES & ROUCO, LLP
          4100 Perimeter Park South
          Atlanta, GA 30341
          Tel: (404) 299-1211
          E-mail: nstanojevich@qcwdr.com

GENWORTH LIFE: Improperly Denied Insurance Claims, Circus Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
HAL CIRCUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENWORTH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; and
GENWORTH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-02765 (D.N.J., May 11, 2022) is an action alleges that the
Defendants misled and misinformed policyholders, insureds, and
beneficiaries regarding their respective rights guaranteed by
Governor Murphy's Executive Order Number 123.

According to the complaint, during the novel coronavirus
("COVID-19") pandemic, the New Jersey state government took steps
to implement changes in New Jersey insurance law in an effort to
protect New Jersey policyholders and beneficiaries. All insurance
companies, including the Defendants, were required to comply with
these new insurance law regulations.

The Defendants allegedly failed to follow these new insurance law
regulations which effectively deprived numerous New Jersey
policyholders and beneficiaries of the protections that were
required by New Jersey law.

The Defendants' actions have led to numerous New Jersey life
insurance policies being canceled improperly, as well as numerous
beneficiaries being deprived of benefits that were contracted for
by their loved ones.

GENWORTH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY operates as an insurance company.
The Company provides life, health, and disability insurance
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chad G. Boonswang, Esq.
          THE BOONSWANG LAW FIRM
          1500 Sansom Street, Suite 200
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 940-8900
          Facsimile: (215) 974-7800
          Email: Chad@boonswanglaw.com

              - and -

          Michael Wentz, Esq.
          THE BOONSWANG LAW FIRM
          1500 Sansom Street, Suite 200
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 940-8900
          Facsimile: (215) 974-7800
          Email: Michael@boonswanglaw.com

              - and -

          Joseph Mattia, Esq.
          THE BOONSWANG LAW FIRM
          1500 Sansom Street, Suite 200
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 940-8900
          Facsimile: (215) 974-7800
          Joseph@boonswanglaw.com

HELLO GROUP: Settles Marchand Securities Suit in NY Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 27, 2022, that a class action
settlement was granted final approval in August 2021.

In May 2019, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the company, its chief executive officer and its
chief financial officer captioned "Marchand v. Momo Inc., et al,"
Civil Action No. 19 CV 04433, May 15, 2019. On September 18, 2019,
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the lead plaintiff's
selection of lead counsel for the class action lawsuit.

On November 20, 2019, lead and named plaintiffs filed —
purportedly on behalf of a class of persons who allegedly suffered
damages as a result of their purchases, acquisitions, and sales of
the company's shares between April 20, 2015 and May 10, 2019 — an
amended class action complaint, which advances that the company's
public filings with the SEC contained material misstatements or
omissions in violation of the federal securities laws.

On January 24, 2020, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended class action complaint. On August 3, 2020, with the motion
to dismiss pending, the court granted the parties' joint request to
stay the action while the parties explore mediation. On December 4,
2020, the lead plaintiff filed a letter notifying the court that
the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve all claims
in the action. On March 23, 2021, the parties executed a
stipulation of settlement, in which the Company agreed, among other
things, to pay US$5.5 million (including attorney's fees), of which
US$3.5 million was borne by insurance companies, without admitting
any of plaintiffs' allegations in consideration for plaintiffs'
agreement to release the Company and other parties from these
claims. On August 4, 2021, the court granted final approval of the
settlement. With this final approval of the settlement, the
securities class action against the Company has been substantially
resolved.

Hello Group Inc. is an online social networking space based in
China.


HONEYWELL INT'L: Kanefsky's $10MM Class Settlement Wins Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID KANEFSKY, Individually and on Behalf of all
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL
INC., DARIUS ADAMCZYK, and THOMAS A. SZLOSEK, Defendants, Docket
No. 18-cv-15536 (WJM) (D.N.J.), Judge William J. Martini of the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of a class action settlement
and motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and
compensatory awards for the Lead Plaintiffs.

Honeywell is a multinational conglomerate that produces a wide
range of consumer and industrial products. Defendant Darius
Adamczyk at all relevant times was the Company's President and CEO.
Defendant Thomas A. Szlosek served as the Company's Senior VP and
CFO until his retirement on Aug. 3, 2018. In 1999, Honeywell
acquired Bendix Friction Materials. As a result of the Bendix
acquisition, Honeywell faced substantial liabilities due to
Bendix's use of asbestos in the automobile brakes it manufactured.

In this putative securities class action, the Plaintiffs contend
that Honeywell materially understated its Bendix-related asbestos
liabilities and misrepresented its internal controls over financial
reporting and public disclosures in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

After more than three years of litigation, the parties agreed on
the terms of a settlement. On Dec. 7, 2021, the parties sought
preliminary approval of the Settlement which would resolve all
outstanding claims and issues in the case for $10 million and
result in the voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, of the action.

The Stipulation defines the Class as: All those who purchased the
common stock of Honeywell International Inc. during the period from
February 9, 2018, through and including Oct. 19, 2018 (the Class
Period), and were damaged thereby, excluding the Defendants,
officers and directors of Honeywell, members of their immediate
families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or
assigns, and any entity in which the Defendants have or had a
controlling interest.

On Jan. 18, 2022, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
Settlement, finding that it "resulted from arm's-length
negotiations between highly experienced counsel and falls within
the range of possible approval" and "raises no obvious reasons to
doubt its fairness and raises a reasonable basis for presuming that
it satisfies the requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and due
process." It also preliminarily certified the Class for settlement
purposes only and approved the proposed Settlement notice documents
and notice plan.

A hearing on the final approval of the Settlement was held on May
3, 2022.

As of March 30, 2022, the Postcard Notice approved in the
Preliminary Approval Order was mailed or e-mailed to 494,035
potential Class Members. The deadline for any objections to the
Settlement was set for April 4, 2022. As of April 26, 2022, 97,825
Proofs of Claim forms were submitted by potential Class Members,
but no objections to the Settlement were filed. As of April 26,
2022, 11 requested opt-out from the Settlement.

The Plan of Allocation provides for the distribution of $10 million
cash Settlement Amount and the interest earned thereon, less all
taxes and approved costs, fees, and expenses to Members of the
Class who submit acceptable Claim Forms. The Net Settlement Fund is
to be distributed to Authorized Claimants on a pro rata basis,
calculated according to each Authorized Claimant's recognized loss
attributable to the alleged fraud relative to the total of all
Authorized Claimants' recognized losses.

The Plaintiffs' motion to approve settlement asks the Court to; (1)
find that the notice of the Settlement given to potential Class
Members was adequate; (2) approve the Settlement as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (3) certify the Class under Rule 23 to
effectuate the class settlement; and (3) approve the Plan of
Allocation for the disbursement of the proceeds among Class
Members. Plaintiffs also request an award of attorneys' fees,
expenses, and compensatory awards for the Lead Plaintiffs.

Co-Lead Counsel request an award of attorneys' fees of 29.2% of the
total recovery of $10 million for a fee of $2.92 million
reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $149,453.67 plus
interest, compensatory awards of $10,000 to each of the two Lead
Plaintiffs -- Charles Francisco and Iron Workers Local 580 - Joint
Funds -- and a limited award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of litigation expenses for Franciso's terminated counsel Levi &
Korsinsky.

Judge Martini concludes that the Settlement, which has no
objectors, is fair, reasonable, and adequate under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(c), notice was adequate, and certification of the proposed Class
is appropriate under Rules 23(a) and (b). Thus, the Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion to certify the Class, for approval of Co-Lead
Counsel as Class Counsel, and for final approval of the Class
Action Settlement is granted. He also granted the Plaintiffs'
request for attorneys' fees, expenses, and awards for the lead
Plaintiffs is also fair and reasonable. An appropriate Order
follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2022 Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yc38vu5r from Leagle.com.


HORIZONS ETFS: July 4 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
James Langton, writing for Investment Executive, reports that the
deadline is looming for investors to opt out of a class action
lawsuit over an inverse ETF product, a case that raised a broader
policy issue for ETF investors.

Last year, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified a
proposed class action against Horizons ETFs Management (Canada)
Inc. alleging that an inverse ETF product was poorly designed.

The court initially denied certification, but that decision was
partly overturned on appeal. Both sides appealed that ruling to the
Supreme Court of Canada, which declined to review the appeal
court's decision.

Ultimately, the lower court certified a claim of negligence against
Horizons stemming from the design of its BetaPro S&P 500 VIX
Short-Term Futures Daily Inverse ETF (HVI). The fund saw its value
plunge by almost 90% in February 2018 amid a spike in market
volatility.

The court certified the lawsuit's proposed claim alleging that
Horizons was negligent in designing a product for retail investors
that was based on a complex institutional trading strategy.

Those allegations have not been proven.

Investors who are covered by the lawsuit -- those who owned the
fund on Feb. 5, 2018 -- have until July 4 to opt out of the
proceeding.

The case has raised a broader issue with the regulation of ETFs.

As it certified the negligence claim, the court also rejected a
claim for misrepresentation in the ETF's prospectus disclosure. The
court said the case exposed a problem with bringing
misrepresentation claims against ETF providers, which "leaves the
law about the Ontario Securities Act's statutory causes of action
about the distribution of ETFs in a problematic and uncertain
state."

In particular, the court found that, while there could be a claim
against an ETF issuer for alleged misrepresentation in its
disclosure to investors, it's not possible to identify whether
investors acquired newly issued "creation" units of an ETF (relying
on prospectus disclosure) or units that were already trading in the
secondary market.

"The paradox is that for purchasers of ETFs, it cannot be
determined whether or not their ETF unit is a creation unit," the
court said. This makes it impossible to determine the group of
investors with common issues.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice noted that the Court of
Appeal effectively ruled ETFs are a hybrid, with "creation" units
and non-creation units falling under different parts of the
existing securities law. As a result, a claim for misrepresentation
can't be brought as a class action, the court ruled.

"The problem for the regulation of ETFs is that this paradox is not
confined to the immediate case," the court noted. "The class
members must thus rely on a common law negligence claim which takes
the matter outside the Ontario Securities Act. This is a problem
worth the attention of the Ontario Securities Commission or the
legislature." [GN]

HORIZONS ETFS: Ontario Superior Court Certifies Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has certified a class action
against Horizons ETFs Management (Canada) Inc. ("Horizons") on
behalf of the following Class:

All persons and entities, wherever they may reside, who held units
in Horizons BetaPro S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures Daily Inverse
ETF ("HVI") on the Toronto Stock Exchange ("TSX") as at the close
of business on February 5, 2018, excluding the defendant, its past
and present subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, senior
employees, partners, legal representatives, heirs, predecessors,
successors and assigns.

The action alleges, among other things, that Horizons was negligent
in the design, implementation, testing and marketing of HVI, that
HVI was too complex and risky to be offered to retail investors,
and that flaws in its design caused losses to the Class members.
The class action seeks compensation for those losses on behalf of
the Class members. The allegations made in the class action have
not been proven and are contested by Horizons.

Full details about this action, the rights and options of Class
members, the steps in the proceeding, and how to obtain more
information are located here: horizonsclassaction.ca.

If you wish to participate in the class action, DO NOTHING.

If you do not wish to participate in the class action, be bound by
or receive any benefits from it, you must opt out by sending an
opt-out form to RicePoint Administration Inc. by July 4, 2022. The
opt-out form can be downloaded here: horizonsclassaction.ca.

To obtain other important information regarding the class action
visit horizonsclassaction.ca.

The law firm Crawley MacKewn Brush LLP is representing the Class
members and may be contacted at:

Crawley MacKewn Brush LLP
179 John Street, Suite 800
Toronto ON M5T 1X4
Tel: 416.217.0110
Fax: 416.217.0220
Admin@HorizonsClassAction.ca [GN]

INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of June 24 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Innovative Industrial
Properties, Inc. (NYSE: IIPR) and Natera, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTRA).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.

Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. (NYSE: IIPR)
Class Period: May 7, 2020 - April 13, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 24, 2022

On April 14, 2022, market researcher Blue Orca Capital released a
report describing the Company as "a marijuana bank masquerading as
a REIT. IIPR's model is to conduct sale-leaseback transactions with
cannabis producers who are otherwise prohibited from borrowing
money because of federal regulations." The report further noted
that "[u]nlike with other REITs, IIPR cannot expect to recover the
lost income from defaulting tenants because it appears that the
actual value of its properties are substantially below their
carrying value on the IIPR's balance sheet."

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

According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
touted its rigorous underwriting standards and extensive experience
in the cannabis industry. They also stated that the Company's
organization and operations qualify it to be taxed as a REIT for
U.S federal income tax purposes. Notwithstanding, defendants failed
to disclose that the value of the Company's properties are
significantly lower than represented and that the Company's focus
is to be a cannabis company lender rather than a REIT. Further,
Innovative Industrial Properties' top customers may not be able to
continue making payments and the Company would face significant
issues replacing those customers.

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

Natera, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTRA)
Class Period: February 26, 2020 - April 19, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 27, 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.:

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

Contact Information:

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

IQVIA INC: Former Employees Push ERISA Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicole DeFeudis at endpts.com reports that class action lawsuits
surrounding the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
have exploded in recent years, sweeping up companies like Trader
Joe's and American Airlines. After a motion filed in North Carolina
federal court, IQVIA could be next.

A group of former IQVIA employees is looking to bring a class
action lawsuit against the company for alleged mismanagement of its
401(k) plan that purportedly cost the plan and its participants
millions of dollars.

The case traces back to a complaint filed in 2020, claiming IQVIA
maintained funds that were identical or similar enough to
alternatives with lower costs and/or better performance histories.
The former employees accused IQVIA of "failing to objectively and
adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to
ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost."

In the complaint, plaintiffs argued that IQVIA did not have a
"proper system of review" in place to ensure participants were
being charged reasonable fees for the investment options, and that
it failed to leverage the size of the $1.6 billion plan to
negotiate for lower expense ratios for certain investment options
and a "prudent payment arrangement" for record keeping and
administrative fees.

"The Plan has retained several actively-managed funds as Plan
investment options despite the fact that these funds charged
grossly excessive fees compared with comparable or superior
alternatives," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs called the alleged mismanagement a "breach of the
fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty."

"I am not an investment expert. I expected that IQVIA and the other
Defendants would ensure that the investment options in the Plan
were prudent," they each wrote in a motion for class
certification.

At the end of 2018, the plan had more than 21,000 participants,
with account balances and assets totaling over $1.6 billion,
placing it in the top 0.1% of all 401(k) plans by size, according
to the complaint.

In a response to the complaint filed last year, IQVIA denied the
allegations, and argued that class treatment is inappropriate.

IQVIA declined a request for comment made by Endpoints News. The
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and now it's up
to Judge William Osteen to decide how the case will proceed. [GN]

K.B. WALLWORX: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Castillo Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO CASTILLO; and GARY HUMM, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. K.B. WALLWORX, INC.
d/b/a K.B. APPLIANCE; KENNETH CHARLES BRUNING; LORI ANN BRUNING;
and SPENCER'S AIR CONDITIONING & APPLIANCE, INC. d/b/a SPENCER'S TV
& APPLIANCE, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00798-DMF (D. Ariz., May
10, 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 Castillo and Humm was employed by the Defendants as
delivery driver and installers.

K.B. WALLWORX, INC. is a freight shipping trucking company. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Nathaniel Hill, Esq.
         Michael R. Pruitt, Esq.
         JACKSON WHITE
         40 North Center Street, Suite 200
         Mesa, AZ 85201

KIA CORP: Class Action Lawsuit Over Kia Soul Vehicles Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jackie Callaway, writing for ABC Action News, reports that the
I-Team is breaking new ground on a four-year investigation into
thousands of car fires.

As more car and SUV drivers report narrow escapes after the recalls
of 5.8 million vehicles, a national auto safety watchdog tells
I-Team investigator Jackie Callaway about plans to issue a consumer
alert.

The I-Team first broke the story of Kia's and Hyundai's catching
fire while parked in driveways or riding on the road in 2018. Yet
drivers continue to endure harrowing escapes.

Yolanda Lawson said a fellow motorist waved her over after flames
started shooting out of the bottom of her Kia SUV on an Ocala road
in February.

"When I jumped out, as soon as I jumped out, I just looked back I
seen the flames engulf," Yolanda said.

Mathias Donaldson, 17, bailed out of his burning 2011 Kia Optima on
February 19 after a security guard at a Tampa subdivision alerted
him to flames leaping from underneath the front end. Mathias said,
"a few seconds later, the car was in flames."

Last October, Maureen Huckler's 22-year-old daughter Aubrey raced
to get out of her burning 2015 Kia Soul after another driver
flagged her down on a California highway.

"They got her belongings out of the car, and it just imploded,"
Maureen said.

In the years after ABC Action News first exposed fires in certain
models, Kia and Hyundai recalled more than 5.8 million vehicles
over fire risks. Michael Brooks, with the Center for Auto Safety,
said the recalls and repairs did not go far enough.

"The recall did not fix the underlying problems with the engine
design that caused these issues in the first place," Brooks said.

The I-Team's latest reports, combined with the Center for Auto
Safety's fielding of ongoing complaints of fires and engine
failures, led Brooks to tell the I-Team a consumer advisory is
inevitable.

"We are going to begin issuing warnings to consumers and try to get
the word out to folks shopping for used cars," he said.

The consumer alert could include about 4 million Kia and Hyundai
vehicles manufactured between 2011 and 2019; all of which have the
Theta 2 engines that have been tied to multiple recalls.

2011-2019 Hyundai Sonata
2013-2019 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport
2014-2015, 2018-2019 Hyundai Tucson
2011-2019 Kia Optima
2012-2019 Kia Sorento
2011-2019 Kia Sportage

Brooks told ABC Action News the only way he sees to stop these
complaints from coming in "is to warn consumers to prevent them
from having to have one of these vehicles in the first place."

We reached out to both automakers about the Center for Auto
Safety's announcement.

Hyundai responded:

Hyundai has taken numerous proactive actions to address engine
issues, including conducting several recalls, launching a new
engine monitoring and diagnostic technology, providing extended
warranties and enhancing our customer service response. Hyundai
fosters a culture of transparency and accountability as the safety
of our customers is the top priority in everything we do.
Kia responded:

At Kia America, the safety of our vehicles is our main priority. We
foster a culture of transparency and accountability and are proud
of our strong safety record and the integrity of our products. We
continuously evaluate our vehicles as part of ongoing monitoring
activities and provide quarterly reports to NHTSA regarding any
consumer complaints, notices or claims for any safety issues. All
Kia vehicles sold in the United States meet or exceed all federal
government vehicle safety standards.
In December, the National Highway Transportation Safety
Administration announced an expanded investigation into the scope
of the recalls and the effectiveness of the recall remedies. As of
December, NHTSA counted nearly 5,000 fires and158 injuries. The
I-Team has reported on two deaths involving Kia Souls that caught
fire.

Recent recalls connect the fires to multiple defects. They include
oil leaks, electrical problems connected to the anti-lock braking
system and a faulty recall repair that can trigger a fuel line leak
causing vehicles to burst into flames while driving.

In 2018 after the I-Team exposed faulty recall repairs, Kia
recalled thousands of 2011 to 2104 Optimas. But Mathias' 2011
Optima was not included in the recall.

We asked fire investigator Richard Meier, owner of Meier Fire
Investigations, to inspect Mathias' vehicle. He concluded a gas
leak in a fuel pipe was to blame.

"The most likely cause from what I've seen at this point is the
fuel line connector came off and spilled gasoline," Meier said.

Mathias told ABC Action News, "You've got to fix those. That is
just putting more people in danger."

Yolanda Lawson is one of several Kia fire victims who told us the
brakes failed after their vehicles caught fire. Yolanda said the
emergency brake and regular brakes failed. She ran the car into the
median to get it to stop.

Jordan Carlton died in 2020, 14 months after his rented 2019 Kia
Soul burst into flames. His mom Becky, who was in the car with him,
escaped. Jordan's dad Robert Carlton said the brakes failed and
prevented his son from getting out of the vehicle in time to save
his own life.

In Yolanda's case, the I-Team found Kia recalled her 2017 Sportage
in March of 2021 over an electrical fire risk. Yolanda said she
never received a recall notice.

The I-Team asked Kia to examine Maureen Huckler's 2015 Soul. In a
report provided to Maureen, Kia states: "The cause of the fire was
a catastrophic failure of the engine resulting in a hole in the
engine block and the expulsion of engine oil onto the exhaust
system."

But records show the vehicle was recalled in 2020 for an engine
inspection to look for fire-related defects. A Kia dealer performed
the inspection in March 2021. Six months later, the Soul burned
up.

In 2020 Kia and Hyundai agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit
over engine fires for $760 million. As a result, both Mathias and
Yolanda may qualify for money to cover their losses. Litigation
involving the Kia Souls is ongoing. [GN]

KPMG LLP: June 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

Lewis Cosby, Eric Montague, and Martin Ziesman, as Co-Trustee for
the Carolyn K. Ziesman Revocable Trust, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KPMG LLP,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:16-cv-121 (TAV)

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED MILLER ENERGY
RESOURCES, INC. ("MILLER ENERGY") COMMON STOCK OR SERIES C OR
SERIES D PREFERRED STOCK BETWEEN AUGUST 29, 2011 AND JULY 30, 2015,
INCLUSIVE, OR PURCHASED MILLER ENERGY SERIES C OR SERIES D
PREFERRED STOCK PURSUANT TO OR TRACEABLE TO CERTAIN PUBLIC
OFFERINGS (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS")

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, that a
hearing will be held on June 30, 2022 at 1:30 p.m., before the
Honorable Thomas A. Varlan at the Howard A. Baker, Jr. United
States Courthouse, 800 Market Street, Knoxville, TN 37902, for the
purpose of determining (1) whether the proposed settlement of the
claims in the above-captioned action (the "Action") for the
principal amount of $35,000,000 for the Settlement Class (the
"Settlement") should be approved by the Court as fair, just,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal should be entered by the Court dismissing the Action with
prejudice; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable,
and adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether the
application of Co-Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees
in the amount of 33 1/3% of the Settlement Fund, litigation
expenses not to exceed $600,000, and Notice and Administration
Expenses incurred in connection with the Action should be
approved.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED SHARES OF COMMON OR SERIES C OR SERIES
D PREFERRED STOCK OF MILLER ENERGY DURING THE PERIOD FROM AUGUST
29, 2011 THROUGH JULY 30, 2015, INCLUSIVE, OR PURCHASED MILLER
ENERGY SERIES C OR SERIES D PREFERRED STOCK PURSUANT TO OR
TRACEABLE TO CERTAIN PUBLIC OFFERINGS, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED
BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION.

You may obtain copies of a detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement
of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release form by writing to Miller Energy-KPMG Securities
Settlement, PO Box 5024, Portland, OR 97208-5024, visiting
www.MillerEnergy-KPMGsecuritiessettlement.com or calling the claims
administrator at 855-604-1841.

If you are a Settlement Class member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Settlement fund, you must submit a Proof of
Claim and Release postmarked no later than August 18, 2022,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Miller Energy common or
Series C or Series D preferred stock during the Class Period and
you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion postmarked no later than June 16,
2022, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice
referred to above. All Settlement Class members who do not timely
and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class will be
bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the
applicable stipulation of Settlement.

Any objection to the Settlement must be mailed to each of the
following recipients no later than June 16, 2022.

Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee

Howard H. Baker, Jr. United States Courthouse
800 Market Street, Suite 130
Knoxville, TN 37902
Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs:
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC

Laura H. Posner
88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10005

GORDON BALL PLLC

Gordon Ball
7001 Old Kent Drive
Knoxville, TN 37919

Counsel for Defendant KPMG:

MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP

Gregory G. Ballard
Ludwig von Rigal
One Vanderbilt Avenue
New York, NY 10017

WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP

Paul S. Davidson
511 Union Street, Suite 2700
Nashville, TN 37219

LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
Gary F. Bendinger
201 East Washington St., Suite 1200
Phoenix, AZ 85004

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OF THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

If you have questions about the Settlement, you may contact the
claims administrator at the address or phone number listed above.

DATED: May 2, 2022

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
URL// www.MillerEnergy-KPMGsecuritiessettlement.com [GN]

LAKEVIEW LOAN: Fails to Protect Customers' Personal Info, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett at topclassactions.com reports that Lakeview Loan
Servicing failed to secure the sensitive personal information of
its customers and employees during an October 2021 data breach, a
new class action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiffs Season Taylor and Matthew Taylor, a married couple,
claim the Personally Identifiable Information (PII) of more than
2.5 million current and former Lakeview customers was exposed in
the breach.

"Plaintiffs bring this class action against Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive Personally
Identifiable Information provided by and belonging to its
customers," the Lakeview Loan Servicing class action states.

The Taylors say they received letters from Lakeview in March
informing them about the data breach and that information such as
their names, addresses and loan and Social Security numbers had
been exposed.

Lakeview 'Negligent' In Protecting Customer Data, Class Action
Claims
Lakeview's "negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and the
failure to protect PII of Defendant's current and former customers"
resulted in the breach, the Taylors claim.

They argue they now face a "lifetime risk" of identity theft and
claim they have been informed that the exposed PII has already been
placed for sale on the "dark web."

"Plaintiffs and Class Members had no idea their PII had been
compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant
risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social
and financial harm," the Lakeview Loan Servicing class action
states.

The Taylors claim Lakeview is guilty of negligence, breach of
implied contract and breach of fiduciary duty. They are demanding a
jury trial and requesting injunctive relief along with actual,
consequential and nominal damages for themselves and all class
members.

The Taylors want to represent a nationwide class of individuals
whose PII was accessed or exfiltrated during the data breach.

In a separate class action lawsuit filed against Lakeview in 2020,
a consumer alleged the company charged improper pay-to-pay mortgage
payment fees. [GN]

LAKEVIEW LOAN: Taylor Files Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lakeview Loan
Servicing, LLC. The case is styled as Season Taylor, Matthew
Taylor, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-21445-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., May 10, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC -- https://lakeview.com/ -- is the
fourth largest mortgage loan servicer in the country.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES PC
          763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Phone: (757) 930-3660
          Fax: (757) 930-3662
          Email: craig@clalegal.com


LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of June 20 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attention Li-Cycle Holdings Corp. f/k/a Peridot Acquisition Corp.
("Li-Cycle") (NYSE: LICY) shareholders:

The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on May 2 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased
between February 16, 2021 and March 23, 2022.

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

https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/li-cycle-holdings-corp-f-k-a-peridot-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=26538&wire=4

ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Li-Cycle includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Li-Cycle's largest customer, Traxys, is not actually a customer,
but merely a broker providing working capital financial to the
Company while Traxys tries to sell Li-Cycle's product to end
customers; (2) the Company engaged in highly questionable related
party transactions; (3) the Company's mark-to-model accounting is
vulnerable to abuse and gave a false impression of growth; (4) a
significant portion of the Company's reported revenues were derived
from simply marking up receivables on products that had not been
sold; (5) the Company's gross margins have likely been negative
since inception; (6) the Company will require an additional $1
billion of funding to support its planned growth (which is a figure
greater than the Company raised via the merger); and (7) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.

DEADLINE: June 20, 2022

Aggrieved Li-Cycle investors only have until June 20, 2022 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. You are not
required to act as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any
recovery.

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

CONTACT:

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

MADEMAN INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mademan Inc. The case
is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Mademan Inc. doing business as:
MadeMan, Case No. 1:22-cv-02710-AMD-SJB (E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2022).

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

MadeMan -- https://getmademan.com/ -- is an American cosmetics
company focused on men's skincare.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170-1830
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


MADISON COUNTY, IN: Final Hearing Set in Inmates Class Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ken de la Bastide at The Herald Bulletin reports that a final
hearing is set in a class action lawsuit filed against the Madison
County Sheriff's Department.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Mark Long in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

It alleges that people were arrested without a warrant and detained
in the Madison County jail for 48 hours or longer without a court
appearance or notification of the charges.

The county's case is being handled by an attorney named by the
county's insurance company.

Attorney Christopher Myer, representing Long and the class, said
the final hearing is set for 10 a.m. Monday in U.S. District
Court.

According to court documents, a minimum of 175 people could be
included in the class action lawsuit.

The class covers inmates at the Madison County jail who were
detained on warrantless arrests from Jan. 13, 2015, through July 1,
2018.

Judge Sarah Barker has already given preliminary approval to a
payment of $622,011 to people included in the class, according to
Long's attorney Ilene Smith.

She said the amount to be paid to each person has not been
determined by the court, but that Long will receive an additional
$5,000.

Smith said Long contacted their office about filing a lawsuit
against the county and it was determined that other people were
detained on warrantless arrests for more than 48 hours without a
judicial determination that probable cause existed.

People included in the class can file for a special damage award if
they lost a job while incarcerated or suffered physical or
psychological damages.

The court has appointed Rust Consulting to consider requests for
special damages as part of the lawsuit.

The cost of the litigation will not be deducted from the $622,011
settlement agreement.

The law firm has received approval for $315,903 in costs by Judge
Barker. [GN]

MCCALLA RAYMER: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Harroff, writing for Law360, reports that Georgia-based law
firm McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce LLC has been hit with a proposed
class action alleging it took a New Jersey man to court twice over
the same disputed solar energy debt without validating the debt in
the first place. [GN]

MEZCALS OF 5TH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Guit Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR GUIT; and PAOLA ROZO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MEZCALS OF 5TH AVE. REST
CORP. (d/b/a MEZCAL'S); and EDUARDO GALLARDO, Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-02755 (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2022) is an action against the
Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages,
wages for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as bartenders.

MEZCALS OF 5TH AVE. REST CORP. (d/b/a MEZCAL'S) owns, operates, or
controls a Mexican restaurant, located at Brooklyn, NY under the
name "Mezcal's." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MICHAELS STORES: Must Face Sales Tax Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg Tax, reports that Michaels
Stores Inc. must face a proposed class action alleging
over-collection of sales tax on remote sales in Missouri state
court, a federal court ruled.

The amount in controversy doesn't meet the $5 million threshold for
federal class action jurisdiction, Judge Henry Edward Autrey of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri ruled on
April 29.

The suit, originally filed in a Missouri trial court, alleges
Michaels charged a higher tax rate than the applicable use tax rate
for online sales delivered from an out-of-state facility to a
Missouri address. [GN]

MILLS COLLEGE: Students File Suit Over Misleading Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
edsource.org reports that a class-action lawsuit was filed on
behalf of 800 students against Mills College for allegedly
illegally misleading them about the upcoming merger with
Northeastern University, costing them money and delaying their
education.

The college is set to merge with Boston-based Northeastern
University on July 1.

As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, students say the
college encouraged students to remain enrolled, and failed to tell
them until later that the last time to graduate with a Mills degree
would be in 2022, not 2023 as announced, and that once Northeastern
took over, many degree programs would be eliminated. They say that
as a result, they missed deadlines to transfer to other colleges.
They are seeking unspecified monetary compensation.

A Mills spokesperson told the Chronicle that the college's lawyers
have not yet reviewed the lawsuit. [GN]

MOLSON COORS: Eyzaguirre Sues Over Mislabeled Seltzer Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
EVVIE EYZAGUIRRE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOLSON COORS BEVERAGE COMPANY USA
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:22-cv-60889-WPD (S.D., Fla., May 11,
2022) alleges violation of the Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures, labels,
markets, and sells hard seltzer in flavors including "Hint of
Watermelon Strawberry," promoted as "With Antioxidant Vitamin C
From Acerola Superfruit" under the Vizzy brand ("Product").

The emphases on "antioxidant Vitamin C" and "Acerola Superfruit"
suggests the Products are "a healthful source of nutrients,
obscuring the fact that alcoholic beverages provide empty calories,
are associated with serious health conditions, and can impair the
body's metabolism of nutrients," like vitamin C, says the suit.

Advertising health benefits of the Products through the addition of
antioxidants and "superfruit" caused consumers, like Plaintiff, to
misconstrue the negative effects of even moderate amounts of
alcohol consumption.

The Watermelon Strawberry Vizzy misleads consumers through the
statement, "Hint of Watermelon Strawberry" and pictures of
watermelon and strawberry. "Hint" is understood as describing a
non-de minimis amount of something. While the ingredients list
strawberry juice, no watermelon ingredients are identified. This
means that the Product does not have a "hint" of watermelon, and at
best, only compounds isolated and synthesized from watermelon.

As a result of the alleged false and misleading representations,
the Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than
no less than $15.99 for a pack of twelve 12 OZ cans, excluding tax
and sales, higher than similar products represented in a
non-misleading way, and higher than it would be sold for absent the
misleading representations and omissions.

MILLERCOORS LLC operates as a brewery. The Company brews, produces,
and markets beer in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Will Wright, Esq.
         THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A.
         515 N Flagler Dr Ste P300
         West Palm Beach FL 33401-4326
         Telephone: (561) 514-0904
         Email: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com

              - and -

         Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
         SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
         Great Neck NY 11021
         Telephone: (516) 268-7080
         Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com

MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE: Court Dismisses Byberry Suit With Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BYBERRY SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
20-cv-03379 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Mary M. Rowland of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint.

I. Introduction

Plaintiffs Byberry Services and Solutions, LLC, JA Fitness 1, LLC,
and JA Fitness 2, LLC bring the action against Mt. Hawley
individually and on behalf of a class. The Plaintiffs allege that
Mt. Hawley breached its insurance contract with them by failing to
compensate them for losses that arose during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mt. Hawley asserts that the third amended complaint fails to state
a claim and has moved for dismissal.

II. Background

Byberry Services and Solutions, LLC operates a Snap Fitness Center
in Columbus, New Jersey, while JA Fitness 1, LLC and JA Fitness 2,
LLC each operate a gym in Ohio. Mt. Hawley is incorporated in
Delaware and its principal place of business is Peoria, Illinois.

The Plaintiffs are required to participate in Mt. Hawley's
insurance plan under an "all risk policy." The policies provide
business income coverage when there is actual loss of earnings
caused by direct physical damage, and coverage when certain losses
are the product of government order.

On March 16, 2020, in response to the growing COVID-19 pandemic,
the governor of New Jersey ordered that all gyms close that
evening. The next day, the Ohio Department of Health ordered the
closure of all non-essential businesses, including gyms, by March
22. In response to the Orders and the pandemic, the Plaintiffs
closed their gyms. Later that year, both states allowed the gyms to
open under restricted capacities. In response, the Plaintiffs
allege they made significant changes to their gyms.

On April 1 and April 6 of 2020, Mt. Hawley received claims for loss
of income from JA Fitness 1 and 2 and Byberry, respectively. In May
of that year, Mt. Hawley sent letters to the franchisees declining
to cover the lost income. The Plaintiffs then filed a class-action
suit in the Court, seeking damages for breach of contract and a
declaratory judgment that their losses arising from the Orders and
the COVID-19 pandemic are covered by the insurance policy.

In the 2021 Opinion, this Court granted Mt. Hawley's motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint and explained that it believed
further amendment would be futile but allowed plaintiffs an
opportunity to amend. On Aug. 29, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a five
count Third Amended Complaint (TAC). Mt. Hawley now moves to
dismiss the TAC for failure to state a claim.

III. Analysis

In their TAC, the Plaintiffs seek damages under the Policy's
business income and extra expense provisions, civil authority
provision, and sue and labor provision. Mt. Hawley argues that none
of these provisions apply to losses associated with the COVID-19
pandemic and that recovery is barred by several exclusions in the
contract.

The difference between the Second Amended Complaint and the TAC is
that the latter alleges (1) that when droplets of the COVID-19
virus are present on physical surfaces the items become unusable;
(2) that in September 2020, Byberry learned that a COVID-positive
member visited the gym in March 2020 prior to the Orders; (3) COVID
forced the Plaintiffs to "explore a full-scale replacement" of
their ventilation systems; and (4) that property near the
Plaintiffs' facilities suffered physical loss or damage. The TAC
repeated an allegation that an employee at JA Fitness 1 and JA
Fitness 2 tested positive and quarantined prior to returning to
work.

Judge Rowland opines that these new allegations do not cure the
deficiencies of the prior complaint, requiring dismissal.

A. Business Income and Extra Expenses

Mt. Hawley argues that the Plaintiffs cannot state a claim for
coverage under either the Business Income or Extra Expenses
provisions. The Expense Coverage provision states that Mt. Hawley
will provide coverage for "necessary expenses" incurred from
restoration that would not have occurred had there been "no direct
physical loss or damage to property caused by or resulting from a
Covered Cause of Loss."

Judge Rowland opines that allegations that the virus was present or
physically attached itself to a plaintiff's premises is
insufficient when the virus did not alter the physical structure of
the facility. The Plaintiffs' factual allegations also fail to
state a plausible claim. Further, it is not plausible that "the
suspension of the Plaintiffs' 'operations' were caused by direct
physical loss of or damage to property".

For these reasons, Count I (breach of contract based on business
expense provision), Count III (breach of contract based on extra
expense coverage) and Count V (declaratory judgment on business
expense provision) are dismissed.

B. Civil Authority Claims

The Plaintiffs re-allege, without change, their breach of contract
claim based on civil authority coverage. The Court previously
dismissed this claim because "the Plaintiffs do not identify any
surrounding properties that were physically damaged and do not
establish that that damage led to the state-wide orders" and
because "the civil authorities were not motivated by physical
damage to property, but by the state-wide health crisis."

Mt. Hawley argues that the Plaintiffs fail to allege: (1) the
Orders prohibited access to the premises; (2) the Orders were due
to direct physical loss or damage to other adjacent properties. The
Defendants also assert that the Plaintiffs cannot establish that
there is any causal link between the alleged damage to other
properties and the issuance of the orders.

Judge Rowland holds that the Plaintiffs cannot seek coverage under
the Civil Authority provision in the policy. Recent cases authority
establishes that a state-wide orders, not caused by the physical
damage of property, do not provide a basis for civil authority
coverage.

Mt. Hawley argues that the Orders serve as proof the gyms were not
closed because of physical damage to the property, but rather
closed due to the pandemic. Judge Rowland agrees. Reviewing both
the Ohio and New Jersey Orders, it is clear they were issued in
response to the pandemic. Nowhere do the Orders indicate that gyms
must close because they were contaminated or suffered physical
damage or loss or because neighboring properties suffered loss or
physical damage. The Plaintiffs cannot succeed on the claim that
the Orders were based on damage at their properties or at
surrounding properties.

For these reasons, the Plaintiffs cannot seek a claim under the
Civil Authority coverage. Count II is dismissed.

C. Sue and Labor Claims

The Plaintiffs re-allege a "sue and labor" claim. The Defendant
argues that the Plaintiffs' claims under this provision fail as the
"sue and labor" provisions do not provide actual coverage, but
rather just describe what must occur if there is coverage.
Additionally, if coverage were to be provided under this clause,
the Defendant argues that it would only occur when there is direct
physical loss or damage, as the Court previously held in its 2021
Opinion. The Plaintiffs assert that alleging "incurred expenses
associated with taking all reasonable steps to protect" the
properties when it complied with the Orders is sufficient to state
a claim.

The plain language of the insurance contract between Mt. Hawley and
Plaintiffs supports Mt. Hawley's interpretation. The policy lists
"duties" the Plaintiffs are obligated to complete in the event of
loss of earnings such as: Notifying the insurer, giving prompt
notice to Mt. Hawley, permitting inspection, and resuming
operations. Nowhere in the provision does it put an obligation on
Mt. Hawley to provide coverage.

Judge Rowland sees no reason to detour from the extensive precedent
from these COVID-19 cases. Because precedent and the plain language
are clear that there is no independent coverage provided by the
"sue and labor" provision, the Plaintiffs claims are dismissed with
prejudice. Count IV is dismissed.

D. Amendment would be futile

The Plaintiffs have now amended their complaint three times. In
light of recent precedent, there is no basis to permit further
amendment, and dismissal with prejudice is warranted. "Leave to
amend should be freely given, but district courts have broad
discretion to deny it where the amendment would be futile." Nothing
in Rule 15, nor in any of our cases, suggests that a district court
must give leave to amend a complaint where a party does not request
it or suggest to the court the ways in which it might cure the
defects. To the contrary, Judge Rowland says, they have held that
courts are within their discretion to dismiss with prejudice where
a party does not make such a request or showing.

IV. Conclusion

For the stated reasons, Mt. Hawley's Motion to Dismiss is granted.
Judge Rowland dismissed the case with prejudice. The Clerk is
directed to enter judgment in favor of the Defendant and against
the Plaintiffs. The civil case is terminated.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 4, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/nhz5b4ub from
Leagle.com.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Releases Browns Tanking Investigation Results
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Frank, writing for Sportsnaut, reports that former
Cleveland Browns head coach Hue Jackson alleged back in February
that owner Jimmy Haslam paid him cash to tank games during the 2016
and 2017 seasons when the team went a combined 1-31.

Said allegations came after former Miami Dolphins head coach Brian
Flores filed a class-action suit against the NFL and its teams
claiming racism within the hiring process of head coaches and front
office personnel. In the class-action suit, Flores alleges that
Fins owner Stephen Ross incentivized losing games during his tenure
in South Beach.

More than two months after Hue Jackson made his claims, the NFL has
released the results of an independent investigation into the
Browns' tanking allegations. Per the league, said claims could not
be substantiated.

"Following a 60-day independent review into comments made by former
Cleveland head coach Hue Jackson that the Browns paid or otherwise
provided incentives to lose games during the 2016-17 seasons,
former U.S. Attorney and SEC Chair Mary Jo White and a team of
lawyers from the Debevoise firm determined that none of the
allegations could be substantiated.

The investigation found no evidence to suggest that the Browns'
Four-Year Plan or the club's ownership or football personnel sought
to lose or incentivized losses and made no decisions deliberately
to weaken the team to secure a more favorable draft position.

The comprehensive review included the full cooperation of the
Browns and interviews with Jimmy Haslam and current and former
members of the organization. While Coach Jackson initially agreed
to meet with the investigators, he ultimately did not do so."

NFL statement on investigation of Hue Jackson tanking claims,
obtained by Sportsnaut
The league also noted that the investigation did not include the
team speaking directly to Jackson. This is a rather interesting
development when it comes to the findings. Either Jackson refused
to speak with the investigative team or they opted against
interviewing him.

As for the Browns, they also released a statement after the NFL's
findings.

"We appreciate the independent investigation led by May Jo White
and the Debevoise team which brings closure to these allegations
that Hue Jackson publicly recanted shortly after they were made and
the we've known all along are categorically false.

As we've previously stated, we welcomed this investigation because
the integrity of our game is something that should not be taken
lightly and an independent review was crucial to bringing a
conclusion to this matter."

Cleveland Browns statement on Hue Jackson investigation results
Immediately after Jackson made his claims on social media, Browns
owner Jimmy Haslam absolutely blasted the former head coach --
saying that "Hue Jackson has never ever accepted any responsibility
for our record during that time."

Results of Hue Jackson tanking investigation on Brian Flores'
class-action suit

It was noted back in February that the NFL had hired former United
States Attorney General Loretta Lynch to defend it in the
class-action case. That's a clear indication commissioner Roger
Goodell and Co. plan on fighting it.

More recently, a report broke that the NFL wants to take the
Flores' lawsuit into arbitration. This means that any type of
transparency when it comes to the class-action suit and claims of
the Dolphins tanking would be lacking.

For his part, Dolphins owner Stephen Ross is under fire. If an
investigation into Flores' claims proves to be true, there's a darn
good chance that the league's other owners will vote to force him
to sell.

The May 2 news regarding Hue Jackson and the NFL's findings of his
tanking claims does nothing to really change this. [GN]

NEUTROGENA CORP: July 7 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
MaySavings reports that if you've purchased select Neutrogena or
Aveeno Sunscreen from May 26, 2015 - April 8, 2022, you may be
eligible to receive 2 FREE vouchers as part of this class action
settlement. If you qualify, you can claim 2 vouchers, each worth
$10.58 and may be used toward the purchase of any Neutrogena and
Aveeno product. Limit of two products per household,

If you qualify, claims must be files by July 7, 2022. Only submit
truthful claims. [GN]


NEW YORK: Court Dismisses Shomo v. Department of Corrections
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE J. SHOMO, Plaintiff v. STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 21-CV-00128 (PMH) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Philip M.
Halpern of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
complaint.

I. Background

Plaintiff Shomo, currently incarcerated at Fishkill Correctional
Facility, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis ("IFP"), brings
the action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 12101 et seq., and the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. Section 701, et seq.,
alleging that the New York State Department of Corrections and
Community Supervision ("DOCCS"), Acting DOCCS Commissioner Anthony
Annucci, Chief DOCCS Medical Officer Dr. John Morley, and Dr.
Gaetan Zamilus were deliberately indifferent to his medical
condition and denied him medical treatment.

The Plaintiff commenced the action on Jan. 7, 2021 and sought: (i)
class action status; (ii) convening of a three-judge panel; (iii)
appointment of pro bono counsel; and (iv) equitable relief. After
filing the Complaint and before any response was filed, the
Plaintiff filed various letters raising new and distinct issues
unrelated to his claims in the case.

On Oct. 7, 2021, the Court denied the Plaintiff's requests and
advised that such complaints are better raised through the
administrative grievance process at the prison. After additional
attempts to raise new, unrelated issues via letter, the Court
issued an Order on Oct. 28, 2021 warning the Plaintiff that it
"need not, and will not, consider any more letters filed by the
Plaintiff pertaining to issues that do not relate to the claims in
the case" and that "to the extent the Plaintiff believes he is
entitled to relief for injuries unrelated to the case, he may
address them through the administrative grievance process."

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. Section
1915(g) on Nov. 19, 2021. The motion and accompanying memorandum
were served on the Plaintiff on Nov. 19, 2021. The Plaintiff's
opposition to the Defendants' motion was due Dec. 20, 2021. The
Plaintiff failed to file any opposition and, on Jan. 5, 2022, the
Defendants wrote the Court requesting that their motion to dismiss
be deemed fully submitted.

On Jan. 6, 2022, the Court denied the Defendants' request and sua
sponte extended the deadline for the Plaintiff's opposition to Feb.
4, 2022. It granted two additional requests by the Plaintiff to
extend the time to file opposition papers, with the eventual
deadline set for Feb. 25, 2022 -- nearly three months past the
Plaintiff's original deadline.

The Plaintiff again failed to file any opposition, and, on March
11, 2022, the Defendants again requested that their motion to
dismiss to be deemed fully briefed. The Court granted that request
and deemed the Defendants' motion to dismiss fully submitted and
unopposed by Order entered on March 14, 2022.

Despite the Plaintiff's failure to oppose the Defendants' motion,
he wrote to the Court to request a telephone conference and sought
an order directing the Defendants to preserve certain video footage
from Dec. 21, 2021 to present, long after the events at issue in
the case took place. The Court denied these requests.

II. Analysis

The Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g).
They argue that the Complaint ought to be dismissed under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted because the pleading: (i) is barred by
the Eleventh Amendment; (ii) fails to allege any personal
involvement on the parts of Annucci, Morley, or Zamilus
(collectively, "Individual Defendants"); (iii) fails to plausibly
allege deliberate indifference to the Plaintiff's health or safety;
(iv) is devoid of facts establishing deliberate indifference to the
risk of COVID-19; (v) does not state adequately ADA or
Rehabilitation Act claims; and (vi) the Individual Defendants are
entitled to qualified immunity.

A. Eleventh Amendment Immunity

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's claims against DOCCS
under 42 U.S.C Section 1983 and the ADA are barred by the doctrine
of sovereign immunity.

Judge Halpern opines that the it is well-settled that New York has
not waived its sovereign immunity in Section 1983 lawsuits, nor has
Congress abrogated the State's immunity. Section 1983 does not,
without more, abrogate sovereign immunity. Nor has the ADA
abrogated New York's sovereign immunity, except to the extent that
there is also an underlying violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Thus, a plaintiff may only bring an ADA claim against a state when
the violation either "was motivated by discriminatory animus or ill
will based on the plaintiff's disability" or was "of a fundamental
right."

The Plaintiff does not allege that the Defendants acted with
discriminatory animus or ill will based on his disability. However,
he does raise allegations that a fundamental right was violated
under the Eighth Amendment. Nevertheless, Judge Halpern finds that
the Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims fail. Therefore, DOCCS is
entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and the
Plaintiff's claims against that entity under Section 1983 and the
ADA are barred. Accordingly, all three of the Plaintiff's claims,
which relate to: (i) deliberate indifference to medical needs; (ii)
misbehavior reports; and (iii) COVID-19 protections, are dismissed
against DOCCS.

B. Prerequisite of Personal Involvement Under Section 1983

With respect to the Plaintiffs constitutional claims brought under
Section 1983, the Defendants argue that the Complaint does not
adequately allege personal involvement by the Individual
Defendants, and that the claims against them should therefore be
dismissed.

Judge Halpern agrees. The Plaintiff makes no factual allegation
against Annucci aside from his status as a DOCCS executive and that
he refused to transfer him into a Prison Hospital Ward. As for
Morley, the Plaintiff repeats the allegations made against Annucci,
and adds that the Plaintiff wrote to Morley seeking a call bell,
which he admits would be useless. In fact, the Complaint at
paragraphs 80, 94, and 207 contain all of the Plaintiff's
conclusory allegations as to the Individual Defendants and do not
establish the personal involvement necessary to state a claim for
relief against any of them under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

The Plaintiff's allegations that the Individual Defendants held
certain positions within DOCCS and denied his grievances are simply
insufficient. The Plaintiff similarly fails to allege that the
Individual Defendants were personally involved in the allegedly
deficient COVID-19 protocols. While the Plaintiff claims that
DOCCS' protocols to combat the COVID-19 pandemic were inadequate,
he fails to allege the role any Individual Defendant had in them.
The Individual Defendants' supervisory positions are insufficient,
without more, to establish personal involvement.

For these reasons, the Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims for relief
pressed against the Individual Defendants are, accordingly,
dismissed for lack of personal involvement.

C. Failure to State a Claim Under Section 1983

Even assuming that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar the
Plaintiff's claims against DOCCS and that personal involvement was
adequately plead as to the Individual Defendants, Judge Halpern
opines that the Plaintiff's constitutional claims still fail to
meet the plausibility test imposed by Iqbal, Twombly, and their
progeny. The Plaintiff presents two factual predicates for his
Eighth Amendment claims: (i) that the Defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his medical needs; and (ii) the Defendants failed to
protect him from the risk of COVID-19.

Judge Halpern holds that the Plaintiff failed to plead facts
supporting either prong of a claim under the Eighth Amendment in
connection with his medical care. Any such claims for relief are,
consequently, dismissed. He also holds that the Plaintiff's
conclusory allegations involving COVID-19 protocols at "every DOCCS
facility" are insufficient to state a claim and are, therefore,
dismissed. Lastly, the Plaintiff does not claim that his
misbehavior reports were "false," only that, had DOCCS sifted
through his medical record, he would have had a justification for
his misbehavior. The Plaintiff's "second cause of action" is,
therefore, dismissed.

D. Failure to State a Claim Under the ADA and the Rehabilitation
Act

The Plaintiff states that he "also seeks to remedy those rights
secured by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 and the Civil Rights Act
of 1973 (Rehab Act)." He states that "there are allegations that
DOCCS has rescinded previously granted and approved reasonable
accommodations approved under the ADA and Rehab Act." He does not
specify which accommodations these were or when and how they were
rescinded.

Regardless, Judge Halpern holds that these claims fail because the
Plaintiff does not allege that he was discriminated against because
of his disability, as is required by both statutes. Moreover, "a
challenge to the adequacy of services provided, as opposed to a
challenge alleging denial of services provided to non-disabled
persons, is not a valid claim under the ADA or the Rehabilitation
Act." The Plaintiff does not allege that he was denied services; he
instead repeatedly avers to the medical services that he did
receive. Thus, the Plaintiffs claims under the ADA and
Rehabilitation Act are dismissed.

E. Revocation of IFP Status Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g)

Judge Halpern declines to rule on this portion of the Defendants'
motion brought under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g) to revoke the
Plaintiff's IFP status. He finds that the Plaintiff failed to state
a claim on the merits and the Complaint is being dismissed with
prejudice, regardless of whether he may proceed IFP. Without taking
a position on the applicability of the bar, however, Judge Halpern
notes that in Shomo v. DOCCS, No. 20-583 (2d. Cir. 2020), the
Second Circuit held that "Appellant's core claim, that he suffers
from paralysis, is flatly contradicted by the record, and his other
arguments likewise 'lack an arguable basis either in law or in
fact,'" and in Shomo v. State of New York, 07-4162-PR (2d Cir.
2008), held that the Plaintiff's appeal "lacked an arguable basis
in fact or law." Those decisions are strikes. Thus, upon the entry
of the Order, the Plaintiff will have at least three, and
presumably more, strikes under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g).

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Halpern granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss and dismissed the Complaint with prejudice for
failure to state a claim.

While "district courts should frequently provide leave to amend
before dismissing a pro se complaint leave to amend is not
necessary when it would be futile." The Complaint is dismissed with
prejudice because any amendment would be futile.

Judge Halpern certifies under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3) that any
appeal from the Memorandum Opinion and Order would not be taken in
good faith. IFP status is therefore denied for the purpose of an
appeal.

The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the
motion sequence pending at Doc. 62, mail a copy of the Memorandum
Opinion and Order to the Plaintiff, and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 4, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5e6886p5 from
Leagle.com.


NEXTFOODS INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Probiotic Drinks
--------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal
judge has tossed a class action lawsuit that claimed GoodBelly
probiotic drinks weren't as healthy as they were marketed to be
because they contain sugar.

San Diego federal judge Barry Ted Moskowitz tossed the case April
27, granting plaintiff lawyers at Fitzgerald Joseph a month to fix
the problems with their case. "It is not clear to the Court whether
Plaintiff will be able to state a claim in light of the Court's
conclusions," the judge wrote.

The case targets GoodBelly drinks purchased by plaintiff Evlyn
Andrade-Heymsfield. Defendant NextFoods said its ingredients
promoted health in the digestive system.

But lawyers said the drinks contained "excessive amounts of free
sugar" that could lead to conditions like obesity and high
cholesterol. Moskowitz ruled a reasonable consumer would not be
misled by NextFood's marketing.

"(M)embers of the public would not likely be deceived by the juice
drink labels," he wrote. "Fairly read, and taking into account the
context of the whole label, the juice drinks claim to promote
digestive health via the probiotics in the drinks.

"Any reference to 'overall' health or wellness is related to claims
that digestive health may impact on overall wellness."

The sugar content was clearly disclosed on the packaging, too.

"(B)ecause a reasonable consumer would not mistakenly believe the
product is promoting that sugar is good for health, or that the
product promises overall health in spite of the sugar, Plaintiff's
theory is ultimately implausible." [GN]

NOOM INC: $56M Class Settlement Reached in Autorenewal Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Who Qualifies: The settlement Class (which includes two Subclasses)
is made up of anyone who purchased an autorenewing Noom Healthy
Weight subscription through the company's website or mobile app
between May 12, 2016, and Oct. 6, 2020, while in the United States
and did not receive a full refund or chargeback on their
subscription payments.

Potential Award: An approximate payment of $167 for Subclass A
Members, $30 for Subclass B Members

Proof of Purchase Required: No

Claim Deadline: 6/24/2022

Weight-loss program Noom has agreed to a $56 million settlement to
resolve class action claims regarding its autorenewal and
cancellation policy.

The Class is made up of anyone who purchased an autorenewing Noom
Healthy Weight subscription through the company's website or mobile
app between May 12, 2016, and Oct. 6, 2020, while in the United
States and did not receive a full refund or chargeback on their
subscription payments. Those who purchased their Noom subscriptions
through the Apple iTunes or Google Play stores are not part of the
Class.

The Class has been divided into two Subclasses.

According to the company's website, Noom helps people lose weight
through "a combination of psychology, technology, and human
coaching."

Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit accused Noom of violating
consumer protection law by not clearly disclosing the Noom Healthy
Weight subscription autorenewal offer terms and by not providing a
simple way to cancel the subscription online.

Noom has not admitted any wrongdoing and maintains that its
autorenewal and cancellation practices were at all times lawful but
has agreed to resolve the claims with a settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement, Noom will pay $56 million and
provide another $6 million in subscription fee credits.

Payments are expected to be approximately $167 for Subclass A
Members and $30 for those in Subclass B, excluding any subscription
fee credits.

Subclass B Members also will be eligible to choose one free month
of Noom's Healthy Weight product, which will not reduce their cash
award. This free month will be available to the first 100,000
Subclass B Members who file a valid claim form.

Those who have a Healthy Weight subscription when the free month is
redeemed will receive an additional month on their subscription.
Those who are not subscribers when the credit is redeemed will
receive a voucher or promo code for a single month of a
non-automatically renewing subscription.

Class Members may have received a notice about this settlement via
email, Facebook, or Instagram. Those who did not receive a notice
and think they qualify for this settlement should visit the
settlement website or call 1-844-999-2466.

In addition to the monetary relief, Noom also has agreed to alter
certain business practices for two years.

A final fairness hearing in the Noom settlement is scheduled for
July 11, 2022.

The deadline for Class Members to exclude themselves from or object
is June 24, 2022.

The deadline to submit a claim is June 24, 2022.

Who's Eligible
Anyone who purchased an autorenewing Noom Healthy Weight
subscription through the company's website or mobile app between
May 12, 2016, and Oct. 6, 2020, while in the United States and did
not receive a full refund or chargeback on their subscription
payments.

The Class has been divided into two Subclasses.

Subclass A includes Class Members who either never completed their
Noom enrollment but were charged; enrolled but there is proof they
never used Noom post-trial; there is proof they used Noom during
the trial but not after being charged for a subscription; there is
proof they used Noom two times or fewer after the trial; there is
proof they stopped using Noom after day 58 of the subscription;
they received a partial refund of any payments for the Healthy
Weight Subscription; or they were a California resident when they
signed up for the Healthy Weight Subscription.

Any Class Member who does not fit that description belongs to
Subclass B.

Potential Award
$30 to 167.

Payments are expected to be approximately $167 for Subclass A
Members and $30 for those in Subclass B, excluding any subscription
fee credits.

Subclass B Members also will be eligible to choose one free month
of Noom's Healthy Weight product, which will not reduce their cash
award. This free month will be available to the first 100,000
Subclass B Members who file a valid claim form.

Proof of Purchase
No proof of purchase is required.

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

Claim Form Deadline
06/24/2022

Case Name
Nichols, et al. v. Noom Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-CV-03677-KHP in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Final Hearing
07/11/2022

Settlement Website
NoomClassSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Noom Settlement
c/o Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
1-844-999-2466
Questions@NoomClassSettlement.com

Class Counsel
WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC

Defense Counsel
COOLEY LLP [GN]

OSCAR HEALTH: Johnson Fistel Discloses Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors of Oscar
Health, Inc. ("Oscar" or the "Company") (NYSE: OSCR). The class
action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased in or traceable
to Oscar's March 2021 initial public offering (the "IPO").
Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from this
notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.

What actions may I take at this time? If you suffered a loss and
are interested in learning more about being a lead plaintiff,
please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) by email or phone
at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number.

To join this action, you can click or copy and paste the link below
in a browser:

https://www.johnsonfistel.com/investigations/oscar-health-recover-your-losses-ipo-lawsuit


There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that the
Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and
omitted to state: (1) that Oscar was experiencing growing COVID-19
testing and treatment costs; (2) that Oscar was experiencing
growing net COVID costs; (3) that Oscar would be negatively
impacted by an unfavorable prior year Risk Adjustment Data
Validation (RADV) result relating to 2019 and 2020; (4) that Oscar
was on track to be negatively impacted by significant SEP
membership growth; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Oscar Health class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff
can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future
recovery of the Oscar Health class action lawsuit is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff. For more information regarding the
lead plaintiff process please refer to
https://www.johnsonfistel.com/lead-plaintiff-deadlines.

                   About Johnson Fistel

Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. Johnson Fistel
seeks to recover losses incurred due to violations of federal
securities laws. For more information about the firm and its
attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney
advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. [GN]

PARTECH INC: Reaches $790K Settlement in Biometric Collection Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
topclassactions.com reports that ParTech agreed to pay $790,000 to
resolve claims that its point-of-sale restaurant systems violated
biometric privacy laws.

The settlement benefits individuals who scanned their finger on a
scanner attached to a point-of-sale system issued, leased or sold
to their employer by ParTech between March 21, 2014, and March 3,
2022.

ParTech is a restaurant point-of-sale provider that has over
500,000 terminals deployed around the world. According to the
company's website, over 100,000 restaurants operate with ParTech's
EverServ point-of-sale system while more than 10,000 restaurants
run the company's Brink point-of-sale system.

According to a 2019 class action from a restaurant worker, ParTech
wrongfully collects and stores fingerprints connected at its
point-of-sale systems. The plaintiff allegedly used her finger scan
to operate a ParTech point-of-sale system at her restaurant job in
Illinois. Despite the fact that these systems regularly collected
and stored biometric data, the plaintiff contends ParTech failed to
comply with Illinois biometric law.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) protects
fingerprints, retinal scans and other biometrics by regulating the
way this information is collected, stored and destroyed. To comply
with BIPA, companies must provide clear disclosures about how they
are collecting, storing and using collected biometric information.
BIPA also requires companies to maintain a public retention and
destruction schedule for biometric data so consumers know how long
companies will hold onto their sensitive data.

ParTech allegedly failed to comply with these and other regulations
under BIPA. The plaintiff sought financial compensation under the
law, which allows for liquidated damages of up to $5,000 per
violation.

ParTech hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to resolve the
claims with a $790,000 settlement deal.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, class members can
receive a cash payment representing their equal share of the net
settlement fund.

Exact payment amounts will vary depending on the number of claims
filed and the amount deducted in various fees. However, according
to the settlement website, class members are estimated to receive
between $670 and $1,340. Actual payment amounts could be higher or
lower.

Unclaimed checks issued by the settlement will be donated to
Southern Smoke Foundation's Chicago Restaurant Worker Relief Fund.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is May 26, 2022.

The final approval hearing for the ParTech settlement is scheduled
for July 20, 2022.

In order to receive a payment from the settlement, Class Members
must submit a valid claim form by June 2, 2022.

Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits individuals who scanned their finger on a
scanner attached to a point-of-sale system issued, leased, or sold
to their employer by ParTech between March 21, 2014 and March 3,
2022.

Potential Award
Between $670 and $1,340

Proof of Purchase
No proof of purchase applicable

Claim Form
CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM »
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

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

Claim Form Deadline
06/02/2022

Case Name
Neals v. Partech, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-05660, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern District

Final Hearing
07/20/2022

Settlement Website
ParIlBIPASettlement.com

Claims Administrator
Neals v ParTech
c/o Kroll Settlement Administrator
P.O Box 5324
New York, NY 10150-5324
info@parilbipasettlement.com
833-910-4497

Class Counsel
Schuyler Ufkes
EDELSON PC

Defense Counsel
John T Ruskusky
NIXON PEABODY LLP [GN]

PATRICIA MUSSLEWHITE: Brown Class Certification Bid Tossed as Moot
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SYLVESTER L. BROWN, TRACY
MCLIN and RICARDO GALLOWAY, v. PATRICIA MUSSLEWHITE, and
L. YERGER, Case No. 2:22-cv-00117 (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge John
L. Badalamenti entered an order denying as moot motion to certify
class.

This case was dismissed on March 2, 2022, before the motion for
class certification was filed.

The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus --
Civil Rights.[CC]

PERFORMIX LLC: Scheduling Order Entered in Gonzalez Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VANESSA GONZALEZ, on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, v. Performix
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01271-AWI-HBK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Helena M.
Barch-Kuchta Judge entered a first case management and scheduling
order as follows:

  -- Deadline for moving to amend the           June 1, 2022
     pleadings.

  -- Status Conference telephonic               Oct. 6, 2022
     before M.J. Helena Barch-Kuchta:

  -- Class Certification Motion                 Feb. 17, 2023
     Filing Deadline:

  -- Class Certification Opposition:            April 17, 2023

  -- Class Certification Reply                  May 22, 2023

  -- Class Certification Hearing:               July 17, 2023

A copy of the Court's order dated April 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3l9oBSR  at no extra charge.[CC]

PINGORA ASSET: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Hawkins, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Pingora
Asset Management LLC faces a proposed class action brought by an
individual who claims that the asset manager and its third party
subservicer Pingora Loan Servicing failed to take actions to
prevent a data breach that exposed her personal information.

Kimberly Johnson claims that the December 2021 breach affected
thousands of individuals, exposing their names, addresses, dates of
birth, Social Security numbers, and loan numbers, as well as some
data regarding their loan applications.

Johnson says that Pingora didn't take reasonable measures to ensure
its data systems were protected, nor did it properly monitor its
computer network and systems . . . [GN]

PORCH.COM INC: Settlement in Preston Suit Gets Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARIANA PRESTON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PORCH.COM, INC., a Delaware Corporation; HIRE A HELPER LLC, a
California limited liability company; KERI MILLER, an individual.;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-00168-JLS-BLM
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jannis L. Sammartino entered an order
granting motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement.

   1. Preliminary Class Certification

      Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the
      Court preliminarily certifies, for settlement purposes
      only, the following Settlement Class:

      "All current and former non-exempt California employees of
      the Defendants or their present and former parents,
      subsidiaries, successors or assigns, including without
      limitation Kandela, LLC, Serviz.com, Inc., and Elite
      Insurance Group, Inc."

   2. preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement Agreement

      The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement
      as fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Federal Rule
      of Civil Procedure 23(e).

   3. Class Counsel

      The Court appoints Blanchard, Krasner & French; the Law
      Office of David A. Huch; and Matcha Law as Class Counsel
      for  the Settlement Class.

   4. Class Representative

      The Court appoints Ariana Preston as Class Representative
      for the Settlement Class.

   5. Notice

      The Court preliminarily approves the form and substance of
      the Proposed Notice set forth in the Settlement Agreement,
      and approves and appoints Phoenix Settlement
      Administrators as the Settlement Administrator. The form
      and method for notifying the Class Members of the
      Settlement Agreement and its terms and conditions
      satisfies the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil
      Procedure 23(c)(2)(B) and 23(e).

   6. Final approval hearing:

      The Court sets a Final Approval Hearing on Thursday,
      August 11, 2022 at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 4D of the
      Edward J. Schwartz United States Courthouse, 221 W.
      Broadway, San Diego, California.

   7. Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement:

      No later than 28 days before the Final Approval Hearing,
      the Parties shall file a Motion for Final Approval of
      Class Action Settlement.

   8. Application for Attorney Fees, Costs, and Class
      Representative service award:

      No later than 21 days before the Final Approval Hearing,
      Class Counsel shall file an application for attorney fees,
      costs, and a Class Representative Service Award.

Porch.com, Inc. designs and develops software solutions. The
Company offers platform to compare and set up movers, television,
internet, and home insurance.

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

PPL CORPORATION: TMRP Suit Removed to D. Montana
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Talen Montana Retirement Plan, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PPL Corporation, PPL
Capital Funding, Inc., PPL Electric Utilities Corp., PPL Energy
Funding Corp., Paul A. Farr, Mark F. Wilten, Peters J. Simonich,
Does 1-50, Case No. DV 18-00056 was removed from the MT 16th
Judicial District Court, Rosebud County, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Montana on May 10, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-00045-SPW-TJC to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

PPL Corporation -- https://www.pplweb.com/ -- is an energy company
headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Sterup, Esq.
          BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C. - BILLINGS
          315 North 24th Street
          PO Box 849
          Billings, MT 59103-0849
          Phone: (406) 248-2611
          Fax: 248-3128
          Email: rsterup@brownfirm.com


PRESTAMOS CDFI: Marshall Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Alicia Marshall, Daniel Pronsky, Paris Townsend,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Prestamos CDFI LLC, Defendant; Chicanos Por La Causa Incorporated,
Movant; Case No. 2:22-mc-00007 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 10, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:22-mc-00025-JMG to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutes: Other Statutory
Actions.

Prestamos -- https://www.prestamosloans.org/ -- is committed to
promoting business and community development by providing access to
capital through non-traditional small business financing.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bart Cohen, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1210 Prospect Hill Rd.
          Villanova, PA 19085
          Phone: (304) 345-6555
          Fax: (304) 342-1110

               - and -

          Justin A. Heller, Esq.
          Matthew M. Zapala, Esq.
          NOLAN HELLER KAUFFMAN LLP
          80 State Street, 11th Floor
          Albany, NY 12207
          Phone: (518) 449-3300
          Email: jheller@nhkllp.com
                 mzapala@nhkllp.com

               - and -

          Lawrence J. Lederer, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: (202) 463-2101
          Fax: (202) 463-2103
          Email: llederer@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Murphy, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301-1386
          Phone: (304) 345-6555
          Fax: (304) 342-1110
          Email: mmurphy@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Patricia Mulvoy Kipnis, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          923 Haddonfield Rd., Suite 307
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Phone: (856) 324-8219
          Email: pkipnis@baileyglasser.com

The Movant is represented by:

          Alexa Levy, Esq.
          Marcel S. Pratt, Esq.
          Michael R. Mcdonald, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR
          1735 Market St 51st Fl
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 864-8278
          Email: levya@ballardspahr.com
                 prattm@ballardspahr.com
                 mcdonaldm@ballardspahr.com

               - and -

          Daniel Abraham Arellano, Esq.
          Roy Herrera, Jr., Esq.
          HERRERA ARELLANO LLP
          530 E McDowell Rd., Ste. 107-150
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-1500
          Phone: (602) 567-4820

          Jillian Laura Andrews, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP - PHOENIX, AZ
          1 E Washington St., Ste. 2300
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555
          Phone: (602) 798-5400



PRIVE GOODS: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prive Goods, LLC. The
case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Prive Goods, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-03813 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2022).

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

Prive Goods LLC doing business as Prive Revaux --
https://priverevaux.com/ -- operates as an eyewear company and is a
leading brand of Designer sunglasses and prescription eyeglasses
designed for everyone.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Noor Abou-Saab, I, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NOOR A. SAAB
          380 North Broadway, Suite 300
          Jericho, NY 11753
          Phone: (718) 740-5060
          Email: noorasaablaw@gmail.com


PROFESSIONAL FINANCIAL: Class Action Hearing Scheduled for June 9
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Wood, writing for The North Bay Business Journal, reports
that while masterminds of what authorities say was a $330 million
Ponzi scheme in Marin County were living the good life buying
celebrity estates and other lavish luxuries for years, Tina Benson
was looking forward to her own good life in retirement.

Instead, the Sausalito woman is hoping a class action suit will
help her gain back more than $500,000 she says she lost at the
hands of Professional Financial Investors and Professional
Investors Securities Fund, based at 350 Ignacio Blvd. in Novato.
Casey's two firms have declared bankruptcy, and the courts approved
the selloff of millions of dollars in property.

However, Benson has since only recovered $121,000 as one of 1,267
investors bilked by the late Kenneth Casey, the investment firms'
founder, and the companies' CEO, Lewis Wallach, an Encino man who
started out as a bookkeeper there. Casey died of a heart attack in
May 2020, and Wallach was convicted of fraud last year.

"I'm 60. I'm supposed to be preparing for retirement. Now I can't
retire, and I'll be working full time. This is not the future I
planned," Benson said, adding she's not alone. "Many investors have
declared bankruptcy. Some can't pay their utilities. It's been
devastating."

Both she and her ex-husband had invested and lost money in Casey's
real estate firms from the sale of their house they owned together
before their divorce.

The real estate magnet has been accused of running the investment
scheme alongside Wallach, who was sentenced to 12 years in prison.
An audit conducted by Armanino LLP, a San Ramon accounting firm,
and overseen by Ragghianti Frietas, a San Rafael law firm, found
accounting irregularities dating back to 2015. Benson testified
against Wallach. At trial, prosecutors showed the scheme enabled
him to buy Judy Garland's $3.54 million Malibu mansion, luxury
vehicles, expensive jewelry and coin collections.

Benson's indoctrination to the PFI and PISF operations, of which
the boards have since dissolved, started with an initial investment
of $100,000 in 2010.

"Ken and Lewis brought out binders. It all looked very impressive,
very legitimate. And Ken, he was a larger-than-life character," she
said of the introduction to PFI.

Timely interest payments as well as glossy charts and graphs piqued
her interest in investing more when she could.

But two weeks after Casey died, and following Wallach's letter
promising investors a succession plan was in place, she talked to
Wallach to check in to ensure he and the company was OK.

"He sounded very weird. He told me: 'We're being investigated by
the (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission), and I can't talk
about it.' Lewis took $28 million, and he acted like he didn't know
anything. That was a troubling conversation that day," she said.
"I've been through all five stages of grief."

"From September 2015 through May 2020, Wallach and Casey raised
more than $330 million by falsely telling investors that their
money would be used primarily to invest in multi-unit residential
and commercial real estate managed by PFI," according to the SEC
complaint filed in September 2020.

The investment companies have been embroiled in a two-year legal
battle in bankruptcy court -- with more than $20 million in
attorney fees.

The $436 million in sales of the 1.4 million square feet of the
companies' commercial and multi-family space netted a
"disappointing" amount for investors like Benson, she said.

In August 2020, a handful of other investors sued Umpqua Bank. The
Oregon-based financial institution is accused in the complaint of
"aiding and abetting" the fraud, plaintiff attorneys claim in the
proposed class action filing.

"They should have known," Benson said, especially since Casey, who
once worked as an accountant, lost his CPA license in 1997. He was
convicted of 21 counts of bank fraud; five counts each of tax
evasion and filing false income tax returns; and another count of
conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government. He was sentenced to 18
months in prison.

Despite his previous legal troubles, Casey built up a reputation as
a prominent businessman and philanthropist, managing 70 properties
with a value exceeding $550 million before his death.

"This class action pending is the only remaining significant hope
to make us whole again," Benson said.

A hearing to determine its class-action status will be heard June 9
in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

In this case, four other investors - Shela Camenisch, Dale Dean,
Luna Baron and Eva King - are suing the bank for allegedly not
living up to their fiduciary responsibility while funds from new
investors were crafted to pay existing ones - hence, a
rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul Ponzi scheme. Some of the money found its way
into the PFI corporate executives' personal accounts, the suit
alleges. The document also states Umpqua Bank officer June Weaver
assisted in the transactions. The bank did not confirm whether
Weaver still works at the Novato branch.

The lawsuit states: "Weaver's allegiance was so complete that she
even alerted Casey and Wallach when an investor's attorney called
to complain about PFI and PISF."

The plaintiffs' attorney, Linda Lam of Gibbs Law Group in Oakland,
argues Umpqua Bank had a fiduciary "duty to monitor for unethical
behavior."

In the plaintiff's document seeking class-action status filed last
February, it was noted "the branch even helped Casey hide his
involvement by taking his name off bank records, so PFI and PISF
could obtain real estate loans from other institutions."

The suit states for 13 years the scheme was centered at the bank's
Novato location and resulted in investors losing in the upwards of
$300 milllion.

Further, court records reveal $26 million in investor money made
its way into Casey and Wallach's personal accounts, and Umpqua Bank
"provided the legitimacy" to successfully run the Ponzi scheme.

The bank's attorneys, McGuireWoods in San Francisco, requested a
judge to dismiss the case but were denied. In the October 2020
filing, Umpqua contended the complaint by plaintiff investors seeks
"to hold Umpqua liable for their failed investment. But their
complaint fails because they do not - and cannot – allege facts
showing that Umpqua actually knew about the scheme or substantially
assisted with Casey's scheme as required to maintain their two
claims for aiding and abetting fraud and breach of fiduciary
duty."

But in U.S. District Court, Judge Richard Seeborg's January 2021
order denying dismissal, he stated: "Umpqua is required by law to
conduct extensive customer due diligence, especially for high-risk
and high-net worth customers like Casey." The judge added the bank
had an obligation to "know" its customer and monitor "red flags"
that may show potential fraud.

Reached by phone and email, Umpqua's lead attorney David Powell and
bank executives have declined to comment on the litigation.

This latest legal wrangling is the third time in a decade Umpqua
has been named in a suit involving fraud. The Oregonian reported
that the bank, which grew from a small bank to one of the
Northwest's largest financial chains, was sued in 2014 in another
Ponzi scheme involving Berjac, an insurance financing business in
Eugene.

About the same time, the bank was sued as the result of the
collapse of the real estate firm Summit Accommodators of Bend,
Oregon. Both cases resulted in settlements totaling $41 million in
2019, the Oregon newspaper reported. [GN]

R1 RCM INC: Shinn Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ryan Shinn, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. R1 RCM Inc. doing business as: Medical
Financial Solutions, Case No. 50-02022-CA-002834 was removed from
the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on April 28, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:22-cv-80659-DMM to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.

R1 RCM Inc. -- https://www.r1rcm.com/ -- is an American revenue
cycle management company servicing hospitals, health systems and
physician groups across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael Jarallah Said Hindi, Esq.
          Jennifer Gomes Simil, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th St., 17th Floor
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 907-1136
          Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                 jen@jibraellaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas John Patti, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 1700
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 907-1136
          Fax: (954) 529-9540
          Email: tom@jibraellaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Nicole Lauren Kalkines, Esq.
          Richard Dean Rivera, Esq.
          Scott Stephen Gallagher, Esq.
          SMITH, GAMBRELL , RUSSELL, LLP
          50 N. Laura Street, Suite 2600
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Phone: (904) 598-6163
          Email: nkalkines@sgrlaw.com
                 rrivera@sgrlaw.com
                 ssgallagher@sgrlaw.com


RAHAL BIOSCIENCES: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rahal Biosciences,
Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Rahal
Biosciences, Inc. doing business as: Armra, Case No. 1:22-cv-02711
(E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2022).

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

Rahal Biosciences, Inc. doing business as ARMRA --
https://tryarmra.com/ -- is physician-developed colostrum, nature's
unrivaled superfood with over 200+ nutrients and no additives.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170-1830
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Court Grants Bid to Remand Powers Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Timothy S. Hillman of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts granted Powers' motion to remand the
case, STEPHANIE POWERS, Plaintiff v. RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 4:21-12125-TSH (D.
Mass.).

I. Introduction

In September 2018, Plaintiff Powers commenced the action against
Defendant Receivables Performance Management ("RPM") in
Massachusetts Superior Court. After RPM removed the case to federal
court in December 2021, Powers moved to remand.

II. Background

Ms. Powers alleges that she incurred a debt, and that RPM attempted
to collect the debt by calling her cellular telephone "at an
excessive and harassing rate." She alleges that RPM violated
Massachusetts law, which prohibits a creditor from "initiating a
communication" with a debtor "in excess of two" times in a
seven-day period. Powers seeks to represent a class of
Massachusetts consumers who, within four years prior to the filing
of this action, "received in excess of two telephone calls
regarding a debt from RPM within a seven-day period."

In October 2018, RPM removed the case to federal court, invoking
federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a). Concluding
that Powers' individual claim did not exceed $75,000, the Court
granted her motion to remand.

In December 2021, RPM again removed the case to federal court, this
time invoking federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness
Act ("CAFA"). CAFA, codified in part at 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d),
confers federal jurisdiction over any class action involving (1)
100 or more class members, (2) an aggregate amount in controversy
of at least $5 million, and (3) minimal diversity.

Ms. Powers again moves to remand, contending that RPM has failed to
show by a reasonable probability that the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million.

III. Discussion

RPM bears the burden of proving the Court's jurisdiction. In its
notice of removal, RPM represented that, after investigating its
call records, it discovered that the number of calls implicated in
the class period would, if found unlawful, lead to damages in
excess of $5 million, irrespective of any punitive multiplier. RPM
further represented that it anticipates that the class size will
exceed 100 members, noting that it contacted over 206,000 accounts
during the proposed timeframe for the putative class.

Powers argues that RPM's allegations lack the specificity required
to prove that the jurisdictional thresholds have been met. She
contends, for instance, that it is unclear whether the number of
"accounts" RPM "contacted" includes everyone RPM contacted or just
those who received excess calls. Powers also takes issue with the
lack of explanation surrounding RPM's damages calculations.

RPM supplemented its allegations in opposition to Powers' motion to
remand. First, RPM submitted a declaration from Mark Case, its
general counsel. Case declared that an investigation by RPM's IT
team revealed that RPM "appears to have attempted to initiate two
or more calls within a seven-day period, at least once during the
Class Period," to 202,515 Massachusetts consumers. Second, RPM
detailed how it calculated the amount in controversy. A prevailing
plaintiff under M. G. L. c. 93A is entitled to a minimum recovery
of $25. If each of the 202,515 Massachusetts consumers recovered
the minimum $25, the aggregate damages would exceed $5 million.
Because M. G. L. c. 93A mandates an award of attorney's fees,
moreover, Powers' potential recovery increases further above the $5
million threshold.

Judge Hillman concludes that RPM's counting of 202,515
Massachusetts consumers is over-inclusive of Powers' proposed
class. Powers seeks to represent a class of consumers who received
"in excess of two" calls in a seven-day period, not a class of
consumers who received "two or more" calls in a seven-day period.
Perhaps the number of Massachusetts consumers RPM called three or
more times in a seven-day period during the class period is not
significantly lower than the number of Massachusetts consumers RPM
called two or more times in a seven-day period during the class
period, such that, with the treble damages available under M. G. L.
c. 93A, the amount in controversy still exceeds $5 million. But the
record lacks sufficient information from which the Court can make
that finding.

IV. Disposition

Based on the information RPM has submitted, Judge Hillman cannot
find it "reasonably likely" that the amount in controversy exceeds
$5 million. Therefore, she granted Powers' motion to remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2022 Order & Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/nhn3fcca from Leagle.com.


RECOLOGY AMERICAN: Brooks Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Recology American
Canyon, et al. The case is styled as Antoine Brooks, Satavia Jones,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Recology
American Canyon, Recology Arcata, Recology Auburn Placer, Recology
Blossom Valley Organic U0096 South, Recology Blossom Valley
Organics U0096 North, Recology Brisbane, Recology Butte Colusa
Counties, Recology Cleanscrapres (CA), Recology Davis, Recology Del
Norte, Recology Dixon, Recology East Bay Organics, Recology East
Bay, Recology Eel River, Recology Environmental Solutions, Inc.,
Recology Hay Road, Recology Humboldt County, Recology Leasing,
Inc., Recology Los Angeles, Recology Mariposa, Recology Mountain
View, Recology Of The Coast, Recology Ostrom Road, Recology Pacheco
Pass, Recology Products Inc., Recology Properties Inc., Recology
Sacramento, Recology San Bruno, Recology San Francisco, Recology
San Mateo County, Recology Service Center Coast, Recology Service
Center North, Recology Service Center South, Recology Service
Center, Recology Services, Recology Sonoma Marin, Recology South
Bay, Recology South Valley, Recology Stockton, Recology Vacaville
Solano, Recology Vallejo, Recology Waste Solutions, Recology
Yuba-Stutter, Recology, Inc., SF Recycling & Disposal Inc., an
unknown business, Entity West Coast Recycling Co. d/b/a Recology
Shredding & Destruction Services, Golden Gate Disposal & Recycling
Company d/b/a, Recology Golden Gate d/b/a Recology Debris Box
Service, Does 1 Through 50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC22599566 (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., May 10, 2022).

The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."

Recology American Canyon -- https://www.recology.com/ -- provides
yard debris, recycling, and garbage services to residential and
commercial customers in the City of American Canyon.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
          1230 Rosecrans Ave Ste 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266-2497
          Phone: 310-531-1900
          Fax: 310-531-1901
          Email: MMatern@maternlawgroup.com


RISKIFIED LTD: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of July 1 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP reminds that a federal
securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Riskified Ltd. (NYSE: RSKD) on behalf of shareholders who purchased
Class A ordinary shares directly on the offering or traceable to
Riskified's July 2021 initial public offering (the "IPO").

All investors who purchased the shares of Riskified Ltd. 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 Riskified Ltd. you may, no later
than July 1, 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 Riskified Ltd.

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"). 20.125
million Riskified Class A ordinary shares were sold to the public
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:

-- 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;
-- Riskified had expanded its customer base into industries with
relatively high rates of fraud – including partnerships with
cryptocurrency and remittance business – in which Riskified had
limited experience and that this expansion has negatively impacted
the effectiveness of Riskified's machine learning platform;
-- 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
-- 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."

Subsequently, 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. In addition, 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. 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 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.

Riskified Class A shares are currently trading near $5 per share,
close to 80% below the IPO price of $21 per share.

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 or via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com [GN]

RITCHIE BROS: Eck Files Suit in D. Nebraska
-------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ritchie Bros.
Auctioneers. The case is styled as Cody Eck, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ritchie Bros.
Auctioneers, Case No. 4:22-cv-03084-JMG-CRZ (D. Neb., May 10,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.

Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers, or simply Ritchie Bros. --
https://www.rbauction.com/ -- is industrial asset disposition &
management company, selling heavy industrial equipment and trucks
through live and online auctions, and other transactional
channels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Terence R. Coates, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK LAW FIRM
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Phone: (513) 651-3700
          Fax: (513) 665-0219

               - and -

          Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
          MILBERG, COLEMAN LAW FIRM - ILLINOIS
          227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (847) 208-4585
          Email: gklinger@milberg.com


ROCKPORT, MA: Rauseo, et al., Seek to Certify Putative Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stephanie Rauseo, et al.,
v. Town of Rockport, Case No. 1:22-cv-10331-WGY (D. Mass.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the putative
classes, in any combination which the Court feels is just, and
appointing Attorney Walsh and Attorney Keene as class co-counsel.

The Town of Rockport is a municipality of little more than 8000
people on Cape Ann. It is an enclave being surrounded by the City
of Gloucester and the ocean. The Town is currently a tourist
destination with a thriving art community, building upon its
history as a maritime town and as a world center of granite.

The Town thrives upon its tourism industry and the various ways
that tourists contribute to the economy by spending. The tourists
to Rockport generally come in two stripes, short-term day-trippers
who arrive by auto or train and may stay the night, or longer-term
rentals who rent weeks or even the entire season much like
traditional summer holidays of yore.

Longer term renters are able to obtain a beach sticker, and a
resident parking sticker, while day-trippers must hazard their luck
with the Town's parking meter arrangements.

The genesis of this dispute comes from a neighborhood quarrel in
the Back Beach section of Rockport. However the heart of this
litigation is an array of claims aimed at the heart of Rockport's
entire parking regimen, on behalf of tens of thousands of visitors,
businesses, guests and residents.

One of the claims targets an oversize angled parking lot on Beach
Street, seeking recompense for all who have either paid meter fees
or been ticketed parking fines for the allegedly illegal and ultra
vires lot. Another of the claims target the entire parking meter
fee rate, with several iterations, arguing that the fees are
unconstitutionally high under the 1780 Constitution and that the
Town is not legally maintaining the moneys. Another of the claims
targets the Town's parking ticket appeal process, arguing that Town
Officials have explicitly misled the motorists about their due
process rights to a hearing under the operative statutes.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated April 25,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3N6wyV0
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Walsh, Esq.
          WALSH & WALSH LLP
          PO Box 9
          Lynnfield, MA 01940
          Telephone: (617) 257-5496
          E-mail: Walsh.lynnfield@gmail.com

SALAS CONCRETE: Cavazos Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN CAVAZOS, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, and as an "aggrieved
employee" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, v. SALAS CONCRETE,
INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1–50, inclusive, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00062-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order:

   1. finally approving the First Amended Joint Stipulation of
      Class Action Settlement and Release;

   2. confirming the certification of the Class solely for
      settlement purposes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
      Procedure 23 (Rule 23);

   3. confirming the appointment of David Spivak of The Spivak
      Law Firm and Walter L. Haines of United Employees Law
      Group as Class Counsel;

   4. confirming the appointment of Plaintiff as class
      representative; and

   5. granting final approval to an allocation of $4,000.00 for
      claims for civil penalties under the Labor Code Private
      Attorneys General act of 2004, Labor Code sections 2698,
      et seq. (PAGA Payment), of which $3,000.00 will be paid to
      the Labor and Workforce Development agency ("LWDA") and
      $1,000.00 of which will be included within the Net
      Settlement Amount to be made available for distribution to
      Settlement Class Members; and

   6. directing that [Proposed] Final Approval Order and Final
      Judgment be entered as called for under the Settlement.

Salas is a family-owned concrete contractor.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 25, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3yxm0dr at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          Maya Cheaitani, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          8605 Santa Monica Bl
          PMB 42554
          West Hollywood CA 90069
          Telephone: (213) 725-9094
          Facsimile: (213) 634-2485
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
                   maya@spivaklaw.com

               - and -

          Walter L. Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          4276 Katella Ave
          Suite 301
          Los Alamitos CA 90720
          Telephone: (562) 256-1047
          Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
          E-mail: walter@uelglaw.com

SANDLAND NATIONAL: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sandland National
LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Sandland National
LLC doing business as: Sandland Sleep, Case No. 1:22-cv-02712
(E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2022).

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

Sandland Sleep -- https://sandlandsleep.com/ -- is a
non-pharmaceutical line of holistic, vegan-friendly sleep-aid
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
          LIPSKY LOWE LLP
          420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
          New York, NY 10170-1830
          Phone: (212) 764-7171
          Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


SC DATA: Orders on Schumacher's Standing to Pursue Claims Vacated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Ria Schumacher, Plaintiff-Appellee v. SC Data Center,
Inc., doing business as Colony Brands, Inc., Defendant-Appellant,
Case No. 19-3266 (8th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit vacates the district court's orders approving a
settlement agreement and determining that the Plaintiff-Appellee
has standing as to all three claims.

I. Introduction

In February 2016, Schumacher commenced the purported class action,
alleging SC Data committed three violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 1681-1681x. In May 2016,
the parties reached a tentative settlement agreement. Four days
later, the Supreme Court decided Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S.
330 (2016), which led SC Data to move to dismiss the action for
lack of standing. Without deciding standing, the district court
approved the settlement. The Eighth Circuit vacated the district
court's approval of the settlement agreement and remanded for a
determination on whether Schumacher has standing to pursue her
claims. On remand, the district court determined that Schumacher
has standing as to all three claims. SC Data again appeals.

II. Background

In August 2015, Schumacher applied for employment with SC Data. As
part of the application process, she responded "no" to a question
asking whether she had ever been convicted of a felony. She added
the following handwritten explanation: "was once arrested in 1996
at age 17 and then found Not guilty." Schumacher signed a
certification on the form attesting that the answers she provided
to the questions were true and correct and further authorized SC
Data to contact, among other entities, references, past or present
employers, law enforcement agencies, and "any other sources of
information which may be relevant to her application for
employment." SC Data reviewed Schumacher's application and called
her to let her know that it would send her links to complete
pre-employment tests. After Schumacher completed the tests, she was
offered a position to begin on Oct. 21, 2015. SC Data sent
Schumacher an orientation email and asked her to complete an
Authorization for Release of Information form.

The Authorization notified Schumacher that SC Data intended to use
Sterling Infosystems "to conduct a criminal background search." It
further stated that a "search will only be conducted once an offer
of employment has been made." Schumacher was directed to read the
form because it contained information pertaining to the FCRA and
her rights under the Act.

SC Data requested, and Sterling Infosystems prepared, a "Background
Screening Report" on Schumacher. After SC Data reviewed the report
and one week before Schumacher was scheduled to start, SC Data
called Schumacher and informed her that it was withdrawing the
conditional offer of employment and that a confirmation letter
would follow. Schumacher was afforded neither an opportunity to
correct nor to explain the results in the report before the
employment offer was withdrawn. Schumacher received a letter two
weeks later -- one week after her start date had passed.

The background report Sterling Infosystems provided to SC Data
consisted of the following components: county criminal records, an
enhanced nationwide criminal search with national sex offender,
locator-county validator, and a national sex offender search. The
report stated that a Social Security trace/address locator search
was completed "to locate jurisdiction for purposes of expanding the
scope of the criminal background check." It specifically explained
that the applicant's Social Security number was not checked against
Social Security Administration records. The database searches
uncovered Schumacher's 1996 felony convictions for murder and armed
robbery. Handwritten at the top of the report was "offer rescinded
— did not disclose felony K.H." Schumacher has never disputed the
accuracy of the information. Instead, her claim is premised on a
right to contextualize and explain negative information in her
report.

Ms. Schumacher, individually and on behalf of others, commenced
this action alleging SC Data committed three violations of the
FCRA: (1) taking adverse employment action based on a consumer
report without first providing the report to the applicant, in
violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(3)(A) ("adverse action
claim"); (2) obtaining a consumer report without providing a
disclosure form that complied with the FCRA, in violation of 15
U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) ("improper disclosure claim"); and
(3) exceeding the scope of the Authorization by obtaining more
information than disclosed in the Authorization, in violation of 15
U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(ii) ("failure to authorize claim").

SC Data moved to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3) for lack of standing. The district court
construed the motion as a factual attack on jurisdiction. The court
initially denied the motion as to the adverse action claim and
granted it as to the two remaining counts. On reconsideration, the
district court discovered that it overlooked evidence in the record
regarding Schumacher's failure to authorize claim and reinstated
count three. It also reinstated count two after re-evaluating the
evidence and the law, reasoning that SC Data's failure to provide a
clear disclosure regarding the type of consumer report it was
procuring amounted to a de facto injury-in-fact resulting in harm
that was not only akin to a common law claim of invasion of privacy
but also claims based on misrepresentation and contract. SC Data
appeals, contending Schumacher lacks standing to pursue any of her
FCRA claims.

III. Analysis

A. Adverse Action Claim

Schumacher's first count alleges SC Data took an adverse employment
action based on her consumer report without first showing her the
report. SC Data repeatedly disputes the characterization of the
report it obtained, noting it only procured a "limited consumer
report" reflecting Schumacher's criminal history.

The Eighth Circuit holds that neither the text of the FCRA nor the
legislative history provide support for Schumacher's claim that she
has a right under the FCRA to not only receive a copy of her
consumer report, but also discuss directly with the employer
accurate but negative information within the report prior to the
employer taking adverse action. While it is true that Schumacher
did not receive a copy of her report prior to rescindment of the
job offer, she has not claimed the report was inaccurate. SC Data
wrote on the report the reason for the job offer withdrawal -- the
undisclosed felony convictions. Schumacher may have demonstrated an
injury in law, but not an injury in fact. One of the primary goals
of the FCRA is to protect consumers and employees from the
dissemination of inaccurate information.

The Eighth Circuit declines Schumacher's request to create an
additional right under the FCRA -- that is, the right to explain to
a prospective employer negative but accurate information in a
consumer report prior to the employer taking an adverse employment
action. Her adverse action claim is not redressable under the plain
language of the statute.

B. Improper Disclosure Claim

Ms. Schumacher next asserts that SC Data obtained her consumer
report without first providing her with a disclosure form that
complied with the FCRA.

Ms. Schumacher's improper disclosure claim consists of a panoply of
alleged defects in the Authorization along with an allegation that
SC Data acted in willful disregard of the Federal Trade
Commission's guidance and the unambiguous language of the statute,
the Eighth Circuit finds. Notably absent is any claim of harm,
neither tangible nor intangible. Schumacher has not established
that she suffered a concrete injury due to the improper disclosure.
She lacks standing to pursue her improper disclosure claim.

C. Failure to Authorize Claim

Ms. Schumacher's last claim is that she did not authorize SC Data
to obtain a consumer report. She did, however, explicitly authorize
Sterling Infosystems to conduct a criminal background search and
"make an independent investigation of her criminal records
maintained by public and private organizations."

The Eighth Circuit holds that because Schumacher consented to a
criminal background check, which a search of a sex offender
registry is not so unrelated to criminal history so as to plainly
fall outside the scope of the Authorization, Schumacher has failed
to plead an intangible injury to her privacy that is sufficient to
confer Article III standing.

Assuming arguendo that conducting a search in the national sex
offender database went beyond the scope of Schumacher's
authorization because it is "non-criminal" in nature, the only
possible harm noted by the district court was invasion of privacy.
Schumacher, however, has not pleaded any facts demonstrating a
concrete harm—a prerequisite for Article III standing. She lacks
standing to pursue her failure to authorize claim.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Eighth Circuit vacates the district
court's orders. When a case is in federal court because it has been
removed there by the defendant and it turns out the district court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction to decide the claims, "the case
will be remanded." The Eighth Circuit remands to the district court
with instructions to return the case to the state court.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p9hzepd from Leagle.com.


SEAGLE PIZZA: Class Settlement in Thompson Suit Wins Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JENNIFFER THOMPSON, Plaintiff v. SEAGLE PIZZA, INC. et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-16-DJH-RSE (W.D. Ky.),
Judge David J. Hale of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky, Louisville Division, granted the Plaintiff's
unopposed motion for final approval of collective-action
settlement.

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Thompson, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons, has filed an unopposed motion for final approval
of her hybrid class-action and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
collective-action settlement with Defendants Seagle Pizza, Inc.;
Joseph M. Seagle; Bullion Pizza, Inc.; Allgood Pizza, Inc.;
Madisonville Pizza, Inc.; J&D Pizza, Inc; E-Ville Pizza, Inc.; and
J&C Pizza, Inc.

Ms. Thompson seeks class and collective-action certification for
purposes of the settlement; final approval of the parties'
"Settlement and Release Agreement" and "Supplemental Settlement
Agreement and Release"; approval of the attorney fees, costs, and
expenses requested by class counsel; and approval of payments to
the class representative and the third-party settlement
administrator

A final fairness hearing was held on Feb. 18, 2022, and no class
members have objected to the parties' settlement.

II. Background

The case involves the alleged under-reimbursement of Domino's Pizza
delivery drivers for the use of their personal vehicles for
business purposes. According to Thompson's complaint, the
Defendants "operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores in
Kentucky and Indiana." Thompson, who worked as a delivery driver
for the Defendants for four months in 2019, claims that the latter
required delivery drivers to "use their own automobiles to deliver
pizza and other food items to their customers." But rather than
reimbursing those drivers "for the reasonably approximate costs of
the business use of their vehicles," the Defendants allegedly used
a "flawed" reimbursement method for such vehicle expenses, causing
the drivers' wages "to fall below the minimum wage during some or
all workweeks."

Ms. Thompson brought the action "individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated delivery drivers" in January 2020,
alleging violations of the FLSA and Kentucky and Indiana
minimum-wage laws. Following limited discovery and mediation with
an "experienced wage and hour class and collective action
mediator," the parties reached a settlement in September 2020. They
then jointly moved for preliminary approval of their class- and
collective-action settlement agreement, which was filed under
seal.

The Court held a preliminary fairness hearing in May 2021 and
preliminarily approved the parties' settlement agreement in a June
1, 2021 Order. It also conditionally certified a settlement class;
approved and directed the distribution of the parties' "Notice of
Class and Collective Action Settlement and Final Fairness Hearing"
and "Settlement Claim Form" to the class members; appointed class
counsel; confirmed a third-party settlement administrator; and set
an implementation schedule for the claims process and final
approval of the settlement.

The Court-approved notice of the parties' settlement was sent to
2,244 potential class members. Two recipients excluded themselves
from the settlement class, and no class members objected to the
parties' settlement agreement. The settlement administrator also
mailed notices to "the appropriate federal and state government
officials" as required by the Class Action Fairness Act, none of
whom objected to the parties' settlement. A final fairness hearing
was held on Feb. 18, 2022, which no class members attended.
Thompson now seeks final approval of the parties' class and
collective-action settlement agreement.

Under the parties' Settlement and Release Agreement, "Participating
Class Members" will "release and forever discharge" the Defendants
from all claims that arose under any federal, state, or local wage
and hour laws during the "Release Period." The total "Maximum
Settlement Amount" -- that is, the "maximum amount the Defendants
will pay under" the parties' agreement -- is $383,900. This amount
is inclusive of (1) $208,333.33 in attorney fees, costs, and
expenses; (2) a $5,000 service payment to Thompson, the class
representative; (3) $20,000 in potential settlement administration
costs to be paid to the settlement administrator; and (4)
$150,566.67 in total settlement funds that will be distributed to
the participating class members.

The Class members who opted in to the FLSA portion of the
settlement by submitting a "valid and timely Claim Form" will
receive a "Potential Settlement Payment" that is based on the
number of miles each claimant drove while making pizza deliveries
for the defendants during the Release Period. All other
participating class members--that is, those "who did] not timely
submit a valid Claim Form" and did not request to be excluded from
the settlement class--will receive a "minimum payment" of $25.
These minimum payments will be paid out of a "Rule 23 Fund"
consisting of $40,200; the larger "Potential Settlement Payments"
will be paid out of a "FLSA Claim Fund" consisting of $80,366.67;
and a "Reserve Fund" of $30,000 will cover late opt-in claims and
other "contingencies." Of the 2,242 participating class members,
386, or 17.2% of the settlement class, submitted a Settlement Claim
Form and thus opted to receive their individualized "Potential
Settlement Payments" from the FLSA Claim Fund.

The Defendants and Thompson also entered into a Supplemental
Settlement Agreement and Release, which is meant to "fully and
conclusively resolve and settle all matters and claims Thompson
could assert against the Defendants, including, but not limited to,
any claims for relief that were made or could have been made by
Thompson in the present matter." The supplemental agreement further
provides that Thompson will not "seek reemployment with or by the
Defendants"; that she will not say "anything derogatory or
disparaging about the Defendants" to any "person or entity"; and
that she "agrees and understands" that the agreement is "strictly
confidential."

III. Discussion

The settlement class here consists of "all Kentucky-based delivery
drivers employed by th Defendants from May 29, 2015 to June 1,
2021" and "all Indiana-based delivery drivers employed by the
Defendants from May 29, 2017 to June 1, 2021." Judge Hale certifies
the settlement class under both Rule 23 and the FLSA.

Having certified the settlement class, Judge Hale next decides
whether to approve the parties' settlement agreement. He concludes
that the parties' Settlement and Release Agreement and Supplemental
Settlement Agreement and Release are fair, reasonable, and adequate
under both Rule 23(e)(2) and the FLSA.

Next, the class counsel seek $208,333.33 in attorney fees, costs,
and expenses, an amount that the parties' settlement agreement
describes as "one-third of the Total Settlement Amount." Judge Hale
opines that the class counsel's requested fees are excessive under
the percentage-of-the-fund method. But they are nonetheless
reasonable under the alternative lodestar method, and that alone
warrants the Court's approval.

Ms. Thompson also requests that the Court approves (1) the service
payment that she will receive for serving as the class
representative and (2) the "payment of the actual costs" incurred
by the third-party settlement administrator. Under the parties'
settlement agreement, Thompson will receive a $5,000 service
payment "for her service as class representative" in addition to
"any payments she may otherwise receive" as a settlement-class
member. Judge Hale approves Thompson's service payment as
reasonable holding that the $5,000 service payment is comparable to
those awarded in similar hybrid class-action and FLSA
collective-action cases involving pizza-delivery drivers.

Ms. Thompson also requests that the Court approves the $19,964.42
in fees and expenses incurred by the third-party settlement
administrator retained by the class counsel in the matter, an
amount that will comprise part of the "Maximum Settlement Amount"
to be paid by the Defendants. The settlement administrator seeks
reimbursement for the costs of mailing the notices of the parties'
settlement agreement to class members; resending notices that were
initially returned as undeliverable; processing opt-in FLSA claims;
and general settlement management. The settlement administrator
will also be responsible for "making all payment distributions" to
class members once the parties' settlement agreement is approved.
These expenses are "reasonable and necessary in connection wit
resolving the case," and Judge Hale therefore approves them.

Finally, the Court must decide whether the parties' settlement
agreement should remain under seal in its entirety after it is
approved. Judge Hale opines that the settlement agreement that the
Defendants wish to seal reveals nothing about their staffing and
compensation strategies. They have thus fallen far short of
"showing a compelling reason why" their class- and FLSA
collective-action settlement agreement "should be sealed" in its
entirety. Recognizing that "settlement amounts can be -- and often
are -- sealed," Judge Hale orders that the redacted versions of the
parties' settlement documents be filed on the public docket to
ensure that the public can "ascertain what evidence and records"
the Court "relied upon in reaching its decisions."

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Hale granted Thompson's
unopposed motion for final approval. The parties' Settlement and
Release Agreement and Supplemental Settlement Agreement and Release
are finally approved and will be consummated in accordance with the
terms and provisions thereof.

Judge Hale approved (i) the attorney fees, costs, and expenses to
be paid to the class counsel as set forth in the Settlement and
Release Agreement; (ii) the service payment to be paid to Thompson
as set forth in the Settlement and Release Agreement; and (iii) the
settlement administration costs to be paid to the third-party
settlement administrator as set forth in the Settlement and Release
Agreement.

The following class is certified pursuant to Section 216(b) of the
FLSA for settlement purposes: All delivery drivers employed by
Defendants or the Additional Entities from May 29, 2017, to June 1,
2021.

The following classes are certified pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 for settlement purposes: All delivery drivers
who worked for Defendants or the Additional Entities during the
Release Period, with the Release Period defined as the five-year
period preceding the Court's Order approving the Parties' Joint
Motion to Stay Pending Mediation (May 29, 2015) for Participating
Class Members who worked for Defendants or an Additional Entity in
Kentucky, and the three-year period preceding the Court's Order
approving the Parties' Joint Motion to Stay Pending Mediation (May
29, 2017) for Participating Class Members who worked for an
Additional Entity, through the date the Court granted Preliminary
Approval (June 1, 2021).

Ms. Thompson's previous unopposed motion for final approval is
denied as moot.

Judge Hale directed the Clerk of Court to unseal in the record of
this case the redacted versions of the parties' Settlement and
Release Agreement; Supplemental Settlement Agreement and Release;
and Notice of Class and Collective Action Settlement and Final
Fairness Hearing.

The action is dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the terms
of the Settlement and Release Agreement and Supplemental Settlement
Agreement and Release and is stricken from the Court's active
docket. The Court retains "continuing jurisdiction over the Action
and the Settlement solely for purposes of enforcing the Settlement,
addressing settlement administration matters, and addressing such
matters as may be appropriate under court rules or applicable
law."

A full-text copy of the Court's May 4, 2022 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3e6cxzy9 from
Leagle.com.


SIGNATUREMD INC: Seeks Dismissal of Gladstone Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL S. GLADSTONE, an
individual, and LONGEVITI HEALTH, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, v. MATTHEW A. JACOBSON, an individual, and SIGNATUREMD,
INC., a California corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00775-DSF-ADS
(C.D. Cal.), the Defendants Jacobson and SignatureMD ask the Court
to enter an order dismissing with prejudice Plaintiffs' claims for
violations of the Sherman Act, malicious prosecution, abuse of
process, and violations of California Business and Professions Code
section 17200, et seq.

First, and most significantly, the Complaint lacks facts explaining
"concierge medicine support services" at all. For that reason
alone, the Complaint fails entirety to define any market, the
Defendants contend.

Mr. Gladstone established Longeviti Health, LLC, a company that
also provides concierge medicine support services to healthcare
providers. Prior to working for SignatureMD, Mr. Gladstone worked
for MDVIP, which likewise provides concierge medicine support
services to healthcare providers. Both of Mr. Gladstone's former
employers have accused him of theft of trade secrets and
confidential information.

After Mr. Gladstone left SignatureMD, SignatureMD came to believe
that he was using its confidential information to develop his own
concierge medicine business, Longeviti. SignatureMD sued Mr.
Gladstone in 2018 in California state court before resolving the
matter through mediation that year.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 26, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3FJAecF at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Eric M. George, Esq.
          Katherine A. Petti, Esq.
          Jason Y. Kelly, Esq.
          ELLIS GEORGE CIPOLLONE
          O'BRIEN & ANNAGUEY LLP
          2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 274-7100
          Facsimile: (310) 275-5697
          E-mail: egeorge@egcfirm.com
                  kpetti@egcfirm.com
                  jkelly@egcfirm.com

SNAP INC: Faces Coss Suit Over Illegal Biometric Data Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN COSS; and MARIBEL OCAMPO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SNAP INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-02480 (N.D. Ill., May 11, 2022) is an action against
the Defendant for collecting and storing individual biometric
identifiers and biometric information without notice and consent.

The Plaintiffs bring the class action to prevent the Defendant from
further violating the privacy rights of its users, and to recover
statutory damages for its unauthorized collection, storage, and use
of these individuals' biometrics in violation of the Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

SNAP INC. provides technology and social media services. The
Company develops mobile camera application products and services
that allow users to send and receive photos, drawings, text, and
videos. Snap serves customers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
          SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
          2500 S. Highland Ave. Suite 200
          Lombard, IL 60148
          Telephone: (630) 581-5456
          Facsimile: (630) 575-8188
          Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com

SNAP INC: Violated Ill. Users' Privacy, Class Action Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Shaak at classaction.org reports that Snapchat has come under
fire in a recent proposed class action that claims the social media
app unlawfully collects users' biometric information without their
informed consent.

More specifically, the 33-page lawsuit filed on May 11 alleges
defendant Snap Inc. has run afoul of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA), a law designed to protect residents
from the unauthorized use of their biometric identifiers—such as
fingerprints, iris and retina scans, and, at issue in this case,
voiceprints and scans of facial geometry.

The lawsuit claims Snapchat, a social media platform that allows
users to communicate through short videos and images called
"snaps," collects, stores and shares users' unique facial features
and voices without first providing required disclosures about how
the information will be used and for how long. Moreover, Snap fails
to obtain a written release from users authorizing the company's
collection of their private information as required by the BIPA,
the suit alleges.

All told, the lawsuit claims that Snap has violated the privacy
rights of Illinois Snapchat users whose facial scans and
voiceprints were collected, stored and shared without their
permission.

Snapchat's alleged biometric data collection practices
The case claims Snapchat has unlawfully collected users'
voiceprints and scans of their facial features through its lenses
and filters features.

Per the suit, lenses allow Snapchat users to modify their facial
features with special effects using their smartphone camera. After
opening the camera screen within the Snapchat app, users can swipe
left to access the different lenses, follow any on-screen prompts
such as "raise your eyebrows," and tap or hold the "capture" button
to take a Snap or video, the complaint relays.

Snapchat's sponsored lenses and filters work in a similar way,
allowing users to send images and videos of their faces with
special effects applied, the suit says.

According to the case, Snapchat's lenses feature uses facial
recognition technology developed by Looksery, Inc. to scan users'
faces and assemble a "detailed map of their facial
features"—which the suit argues constitutes a biometric
identifier or biometric information as defined by the Illinois
BIPA. The filters feature likewise scans users' faces and obtains
their unique biometric identifiers, the suit says.

As such, Snap was obligated under the BIPA to make certain
disclosures and obtain users' written consent before collecting
their data, the lawsuit contends.

BIPA requirements
The case explains that the Illinois BIPA specifies that no entity
may "collect, capture, purchase, receive through trade, or
otherwise obtain" a person's biometric identifier or information
without first taking certain actions.

For one thing, the company must inform the person in writing that
their biometric information is being collected or stored, and the
purpose and length of time for which the data will be collected,
stored and used.

The company is also required to obtain a written release from the
individual authorizing the use of their biometric identifier or
information and refrain from disclosing that information to third
parties without the person's consent.

The BIPA also requires private entities to develop a publicly
available retention policy and guidelines for the permanent
destruction of biometric data once its initial purpose has been
satisfied or within three years of the individual's last
interaction with the company, whichever occurs first.

The case claims that Snap has failed to comply with all of these
requirements despite collecting its users' biometric information
through its lenses and filters features.

Who is covered by the lawsuit?
The lawsuit aims to cover all Illinois citizens who used the
Snapchat app and had their biometric information or identifiers
obtained through the app without first providing a written release
as defined by the Illinois BIPA.

The suit also looks to cover Illinois residents whose biometric
information or identifiers were collected through Snapchat and then
sold, leased, traded or otherwise used for profit by Snap, or were
disclosed, redisclosed or otherwise disseminated without the
individuals' consent.

How do I join the lawsuit?
There's usually nothing you need to do to join or be considered
part of a proposed class action when it's first filed. If the case
moves forward and settles, which could take months or even years,
that's when those affected, called the class members, would receive
notice of the settlement with instructions on how to file a claim
for their share.

Why is this lawsuit only for Illinois residents?
The case only covers people who live in Illinois because the BIPA
is an Illinois state law that only applies to its residents.

Although some other states have laws that regulate the use of
residents' biometric information, the Illinois BIPA is the only
statute so far to include a private right of action, meaning
private citizens are allowed to sue companies for alleged
violations of the law.

The BIPA received significant attention during litigation against
Facebook that accused the social media giant of unlawfully
collecting Illinois users' face templates through its "tag
suggestions" feature. Facebook agreed to pay $650 million to settle
those claims in what the judge described as "one of the largest
settlements ever for a privacy violation."

More recently, another BIPA lawsuit against Facebook over its
allegedly unlawful collection of Instagram users' facial scans was
sent to arbitration. [GN]

SOCLEAN INC: Odom Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SoClean, Inc. The
case is styled as Chris Odom, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. SoClean, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00063-KS-MTP
(S.D. Miss., May 10, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability for
Personal Injury.

SoClean, Inc. -- https://www.soclean.com/ -- manufactures cleaning
devices. The Company produces automated continuous positive airway
pressure (CPAP) cleaners and sanitizers which improves health
outcomes and quality of life for those suffering from obstructive
sleep apnea and other sleeping disorders.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John M. Deakle, Esq.
          DEAKLE-JOHNSON LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 2072
          Hattiesburg, MS 39403
          Phone: (601) 544-0631
          Fax: (601) 544-0666
          Email: jmd@deaklelawfirm.com


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Bombin, Rood Allowed to File Docs Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIAN BOMBIN and 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
Hon. Judge John M. Gallagher entered an order granting the Motion
of the Plaintiffs Adrian Bombin and Samantha Rood for leave to file
under seal.

The Court entered an order that the following are deemed filed
under seal:

  -- The unredacted Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of
     Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification;

  -- The unredacted Expert Report of Chris Bennett;

  -- The unredacted Exhibits 4 and 109 to the Declaration of
     Annick Persinger; and

  -- Exhibits 3, 8-17, 21, and 108 to the Declaration of Annick
     Persinger.

Southwest Airlines, typically referred to as Southwest, is one of
the major airlines of the United States and the world's largest
low-cost carrier. It is headquartered in Dallas, Texas and has
scheduled service to 121 destinations in the United States and 10
additional countries.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wfG4jf at no extra charge.[CC]

STATE FARM: Parties in Cudd Seek Scheduling & Discovery Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JARRETT CUDD, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:21-cv-00217-CDL (M.D.
Ga.), the Parties ask the Court to enter a scheduling and discovery
order as follows:

              Event                            Due Date

  -- Fact Discovery Begins:                  April 29, 2022

  -- Fact Discovery Ends:                    December 29, 2022

  -- Expert Disclosures Due:                 January 30, 2023

  -- Responsive Expert Disclosures           February 20, 2023
     Due:

  -- Rebuttal Experts Disclosures            March 6, 2023
     Due:

  -- Expert Discovery Closes:                May 1, 2023

  -- Plaintiff's Class Certification         June 1, 2023
     Motion:

  -- Defendant's Opposition to Class         July 1, 2023
     Certification:

  -- Plaintiff's Reply Brief:                July 22, 2023

The Plaintiff filed his Complaint on behalf of himself and the
Putative Class on December 23, 2021. Service was perfected on
December 28, 2021.

On January 14, 2022, the parties agreed to extend the time to which
the Defendant could respond to the Complaint until February 17,
2022.

On February 17, 2022, the Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint, or in the alternative, compel appraisal and stay.

The Plaintiff responded to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on
March 10, 2022, filing an Amended Complaint. In an abundance of
caution, the Plaintiff also substantively responded to State Farm's
motion that same day, arguing that all relief sought was moot and,
alternatively, that the motion to compel arbitration and stay was
meritless.

On March 24, 2022, the Parties submitted a Consent Motion to
Dismiss for Mootness addressing the Motion to Dismiss, and
Defendant's alternative relief of the Motion to Compel Appraisal
and Stay. This Court granted that Motion the same day and issued an
Order denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint Or, in
the Alternative, Compel Appraisal and Stay (Dkt. 10) as moot in its
entirety.

The Order also extended the deadline for Defendant to respond to
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint to April 29, 2022.

In the event Defendant files another Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint, Plaintiff's Opposition will be due May 20, 2022 and
Defendant's Reply will be due June 3, 2022 at which time briefing
will be closed.

On April 6, 2022, the Parties held their Rules 16(b) and 26(f)
conferences. This Proposed Order is being submitted pursuant to the
Court's March 14, 2022 Order that requires the Parties to confer
and develop a proposed discovery plan and submit a report to the
Court.

State Farm Insurance is a large group of mutual insurance companies
throughout the United States with corporate headquarters in
Bloomington, Illinois.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael B. Terry, Esq.
          Frank M. Lowrey, Esq.
          BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP
          3900 One Atlantic Center
          1201 W. Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-4100
          Facsimile: (404) 881-4111
          E-mail: terry@bmelaw.com
                  lowrey@bmelaw.com

               - and -

          MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
          J. Benjamin Finley, Esq.
          N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq.
          Kirkland E. Reid, Esq.
          THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.
          200 13th Street
          Columbus, GA 31901
          Telephone: (706) 322-6226
          Facsimile: (706) 322-6221
          E-mail: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com
                  bfinley@thefinleyfirm.com
                  njackson@thefinleyfirm.com
                  kreid@thefinleyfirm.com

               - and -

          R. Brent Irby, Esq.
          IRBY LAW, LLC
          2201 Arlington Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 335-9102
          Facsimile: (866) 618-4629
          E-mail:  brent@irbylaw.net

               - and -

          Daniel F. Diffley, Esq.
          Melissa G. Quintana, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          1201 W. Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-7000
          E-mail: dan.diffley@alston.com
                 melissa.quintana@alston.com

STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of June 13 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attention Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc. ("Stronghold Digital
Mining, Inc.") (NASDAQ: SDIG) shareholders:

The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on May 2 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors. This lawsuit
is on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Stronghold Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable
to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection
with the Company's October 2021 initial public offering.

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

https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/stronghold-digital-mining-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=26534&wire=4

ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Stronghold Digital
Mining, Inc. includes allegations that the Company made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) contracted suppliers, including MinerVa Semiconductor Corp.,
were reasonably likely to miss anticipated delivery quantities and
deadlines; (2) due to strong demand and pre-sold supply of mining
equipment in the industry, Stronghold would experience difficulties
obtaining miners outside of confirmed purchase orders; (3) as a
result of the foregoing, there was a significant risk that
Stronghold could not expand its mining capacity as expected; (4) as
a result, Stronghold would likely experience significant losses;
and (5) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

DEADLINE: June 13, 2022

Aggrieved Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc. investors only have until
June 13, 2022 to request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. You are not required to act as a lead plaintiff in order
to share in any recovery.

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

CONTACT:

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

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL: Lowey Dannenberg Discloses Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
news-journal.com reports that if you paid for or provided
reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of generic
Nexium (esomeprazole magnesium), brand or generic Diovan
(valsartan), or brand or generic Valcyte (valganciclovir
hydrochloride), you could get a payment from a class action
lawsuit.

Your rights may be affected by a proposed settlement in a class
action lawsuit regarding the prices paid for generic Nexium and
brand and generic Diovan and Valcyte by third-party payors filed
against Defendants Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. and Ranbaxy,
Inc. ("Ranbaxy"). The case name is In Re Ranbaxy Generic Drug
Application Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2878, Master File No.
19-md-02878-NMG (D. Mass.) (the "Lawsuit"). The Lawsuit, which is
pending in the District of Massachusetts, alleges Defendants
engaged in a scheme, in violation of state antitrust, state
consumer protection, and federal racketeering laws, involving
misrepresentations to the FDA in connection with pursuing tentative
approvals for abbreviated new drug applications, which resulted in
delayed market launch of generic versions of Nexium, Diovan, and
Valcyte. As a result, the Lawsuit alleges that the End-Payor
Classes paid or reimbursed for the at-issue drugs at prices that
were higher than they would have otherwise been. Defendants deny
any wrongdoing.

The Court has preliminarily approved the proposed settlement
between the End-Payor Classes and Ranbaxy (the "Settlement"). The
proposed Settlement will provide for the payment of $145 million
(the "Settlement Fund") to resolve the End-Payor Classes' claims
against Ranbaxy. The full text of the proposed Settlement
Agreement, which is dated April 8, 2022, is available at
www.RanbaxyTPPLitigation.com.

The Court has scheduled a hearing to decide whether to approve the
Settlement, the plan for allocating the Settlement Fund to Class
Members, and the request of Lead Class Counsel for payment of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and service awards to
the Class Representative Plaintiffs out of the Settlement Fund (the
"Fairness Hearing"). The Fairness Hearing is scheduled for
September 8, 2022, at 11:00 a.m., before Judge Nathaniel Gorton at
John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse, One Courthouse Way,
Boston, Massachusetts 02210.

Who Is Included?

You are a member of the Class(es) if you are a third-party payor
and you purchased or provided reimbursement for prescription drugs
as described below:

(1)Generic Nexium Nationwide Class. Between May 27, 2014 and
February 1, 2019, you purchased or paid for some or all of the
purchase price of AB-rated generic versions of Nexium in the United
States and its territories;

(2)Brand or Generic Diovan Nationwide Class. Between September 28,
2012 and April 1, 2020, you purchased or paid for some or all of
the purchase price of Diovan and/or AB-rated generic versions of
Diovan in the United States and its territories; or

(3)Brand or Generic Valcyte Nationwide Class. Between August 1,
2014 and April 1, 2020, you purchased or paid for some or all of
the purchase price of Valcyte and/or AB-rated generic versions of
Valcyte in the United States and its territories.

Excluded from all of the Classes are: natural person consumers;
Defendants, their officers, directors, management, employees,
subsidiaries, and affiliates; all federal and state governmental
entities except for cities, towns, municipalities, or counties with
self-funded prescription drug plans; all persons or entities who
purchased the at-issue drugs for purposes of resale from any of the
Defendants or any brand or generic manufacturer; fully insured
health plans (i.e., health plans that purchased insurance covering
100% of their reimbursement obligation to members); and pharmacy
benefit managers.

For additional details, please read the Long Form Notice available
at www.RanbaxyTPPLitigation.com.

Your Rights and Options

DO NOTHING: If you are a member of a Class, by doing nothing you
will remain in that Class but will not be entitled to share in any
distribution from the Settlement Fund. You will be bound by any
decision of the Court in this Lawsuit, including rulings on the
Settlement.

SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM: If you did not exclude yourself from one or
more of the classes prior to the December 20, 2021 deadline and
believe you are a Class Member, you will need to complete and
return a claim form to obtain a share of the Settlement Fund. The
claim form, and information on how to submit it, are available on
the Settlement website. Proofs of Claim must be postmarked (if
mailed) or received (if submitted online) on or before October 11,
2022.

OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT: If you object to all or any part of the
Settlement or desire to speak in person at the Fairness Hearing,
you must file a written letter of objection and/or a notice of
intention to speak along with a summary statement with the Court
and with Lead Class Counsel and Counsel for Ranbaxy by July 18,
2022.

Want More Information?

Go to www.RanbaxyTPPLitigation.com, call 1-877-888-9232, email
info@RanbaxyTPPLitigation.com, or write to Ranbaxy TPP Litigation,
P.O. Box 173137, Milwaukee, WI 53217.

Please do not call the Court or the Clerk of the Court for
information about the Settlement.

Cision View original
content:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lowey-dannenberg-pc-and-the-dugan-law-firm-aplc-announce-a-proposed-145-million-class-action-settlement-involving-third-party-payors-payments-for-generic-nexium-esomeprazole-magnesium-brand-or-generic-diovan-valsartan--301547060.html
[GN]

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $485-MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Sullivan, writing for Policy & Medicine, reports that on
March 23, 2022, Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. reached a $485
million settlement to resolve class action lawsuits that alleged
its subsidiary, Ranbaxy, Inc., engaged in an anticompetitive scheme
to delay the release of competitor's generic drugs. The class
action lawsuits started as five actions, which were consolidated in
the United States District Court District of Massachusetts in 2019
and divided into two classes, direct purchaser plaintiffs (DPPs)
and end-payor plaintiffs (EPPs).

The settlement stems from claims by generic drug buyers who claimed
they were owed billions of dollars for being overcharged. DPPs
include wholesalers and distributors and purchase generic drugs
directly from drug manufacturers. EPPs are third-party payors that
indirectly purchase and/or provide reimbursement for generic drugs
at the end of the distribution chain from retailers and other
intermediaries (such as health plans and insurance companies).

The buyers accused Ranbaxy of wrongly obtaining tentative approvals
from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to
produce generic versions of Diovan (a blood pressure medication),
Nexium (an acid reflux medication), and Valcyte (an antiviral
medication).

Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the first company to substantially
complete an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) will have a
180-day period of marketing exclusivity. The FDA may revoke that
exclusivity period of the generic manufacturer does not receive
tentative approval from the FDA within 30 months of submission.

Ranbaxy obtained tentative approval for each of the three drugs in
2007 and 2008. Despite its early success, Ranbaxy failed to secure
final approval for its generic version of Diovan until June 2014
and did not bring that generic to market until July 2014. However,
before Ranbaxy obtained final approval for the generic Nexium and
Valcyte ANDAs, the FDA revoked its tentative approval for both
drugs. Ranbaxy's generic versions of these two drugs were never
brought to market.

Plaintiffs alleged that Ranbaxy violated RICO, federal and state
antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws by submitting
multiple ANDAs with missing, incorrect, or fraudulent information,
thereby fraudulently acquiring exclusivity periods and delaying the
market entry of generic Diovan, Nexium and Valcyte. Plaintiffs
assert that but for defendants' allegedly anti-competitive conduct,
generic versions of those three drugs would have entered the market
and been available at lower prices much sooner. As a result,
plaintiffs contend they paid artificially inflated prices for
Diovan, Nexium and Valcyte during the Class Periods.

Mar 15, 2022
District of Delaware Rules HRSA Exceeded Its Authority in . . .

Mar 10, 2022
Hayat Pharmacy Reaches $2 Million Settlement Over False . . .

Feb 15, 2022
The direct purchasers claimed $7.1 billion in damages, which are
subject to treble damages under RICO and federal antitrust laws.
End payors claimed up to $3.3 billion in damages.

Both parties filed for summary judgment and Judge Gorton denied
both on November 22, 2021. Trial was scheduled to start in April
2022, but this settlement has been submitted to Judge Gorton to
sign off on and prevent trial.

Binding Term Sheet

Sun Pharma submitted a regulatory filing that indicated it signed a
binding term sheet to resolve the lawsuits brought by purchasers of
the drugs, including drug wholesalers and indirect purchasers (such
as health plans), accusing Ranbaxy of racketeering and antitrust
violations.

Sun continues to dispute the allegations, but agreed to the deal to
"resolve this dispute and avoid uncertainty."

While the settlement may seem small to some, Sun is a smaller
company in the pharmaceutical arena, with 2021 total drug sales in
the United States of $370 million.

It will be interesting to see if additional information is outlined
in the settlement agreement, once fully executed and approved, or
if additional comments are made by any of the involved parties.
[GN]

SUNRUN INC: Chapman Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunrun Inc. The case
is styled as Crystal Chapman, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Sunrun Inc., Case No.
4:22-cv-02770-DMR (N.D. Cal., May 10, 2022).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Sunrun Inc. -- https://www.sunrun.com/ -- is an American provider
of residential solar panels and home batteries, headquartered in
San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam J. Schwartz, Esq.
          ADAM J. SCHWARTZ, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Phone: (323) 455-4016
          Email: adam@ajschwartzlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew Heidarpour, Esq.
          HEIDARPOUR LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 190-318
          Washington, DC 20004
          Phone: (202) 234-2727
          Email: AHeidarpour@HLFirm.com

               - and -

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Phone: (617) 485-0018
          Fax: (508) 318-8100
          Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com

               - and -

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
          176 Federal Street, 5th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (617) 738-7080
          Fax: (617) 830-0327
          Email: ted@broderick-law.com


TAMARA LICH: Lawyers Seek to Expand Freedom Convoy Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Fraser, writing for CBC News, reports that a months-old
injunction against Freedom Convoy organizers ended May 2, but the
lawyers responsible for muting incessant honking in February are
focused on expanding and certifying a proposed class-action lawsuit
to ensure Ottawa residents and businesses are compensated.

Lawyers representing Ottawa residents in the proposed lawsuit
against convoy protesters successfully argued for a Mareva
injunction on Feb. 17, a court order to restrict convoy leaders
from "selling, removing, dissipating, alienating, transferring,
assigning" up to $20 million in assets raised around the world.

On May 2, Ontario Superior Court Justice Calum MacLeod said the
injunction would be dissolved.

MacLeod did keep an escrow order that ensures a third-party agent
could continue to hold just more than $5.7 million raised by the
convoy protests until lawyers decide what will happen to the
money.

Paul Champ, one of the lawyers involved in the proposed
class-action lawsuit, originally said a broad net was cast to
capture funds from the Freedom Convoy.

"We've gotten most of the funds that we were trying to freeze now,"
he said.

More money brought into escrow over past month
As of March 30, nearly $2 million in assets were being held by the
third party, according to the escrow agent's last official report.

Then on May 2, the court ordered for roughly $3.8 million Cdn
raised on the U.S.-based crowdfunding site GiveSendGo to be
transferred to escrow.

The site had transferred that money to a Canadian bank account
belonging to the not-for-profit corporation created by organizers.
Instead the money was held by a payment processing company because
of freeze orders put in place in February to prevent the money from
being used by protesters.

More than $400,000 Cdn worth of digital currencies was also moved
into escrow.

Proposed class-action suit set to move forward
Champ and his team are expected to expand the scope of the proposed
class-action lawsuit to include thousands of defendants —
including donors and more truck drivers involved — as they seek
to reimburse downtown residents and businesses.

Defendants would then file their own materials before the court
decides whether to certify the class-action suit.

"We finished our efforts to track and get control of all funds that
were donated to support the convoy truckers and that were donated
to essentially make it possible for the truckers to continue their
occupation of downtown Ottawa and continue the harm of downtown
Ottawa," said Champ.

His team hopes the money now in escrow "will hopefully one day go
to compensating the people of downtown Ottawa."

Most funds raised for convoy returned to donors
The convoy protest in Ottawa raised more than $20 million total
over its three-week stay in the city's downtown.

Tamara Lich, the convoy leader who had access to a significant
amount of money through her role in organizing the protest -- for
which she has since been charged -- helped raise nearly $10.1
million before donations were suspended.

The website used to raise that money, GoFundMe, then returned most
of those funds to the original donors as of Feb. 5, the company
said.

The almost $1.4 million that remained in Lich's possession was then
transferred into escrow.

Two fundraisers launched on GiveSendGo raised more than $12 million
and during a March 9 court appearance, GiveSendGo co-founder and
chief financial officer Jacob Wells said donations would be
returned to donors.

When asked by CBC, the company refused to disclose the total amount
reimbursed.

Most of the digital currency raised as part of convoy fundraisers
-- 20.7 bitcoins (worth almost $1.1 million Cdn) -- continues to
evade authorities.

Authorities are believed to be monitoring the remaining bitcoins
but it remains unclear if they will be successful in capturing
them. [GN]

THUNDER BAY, ON: Denies Class Claims Over Pinhole Leaks Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Jeffrey, writing for County105, reports that the city of
Thunder Bay is not responsible for any damages sustained as part of
the $350-million Pinhole Leaks Class Action Suit.

In a post shared on the Facebook page of the Thunder Bay Leaky Pipe
Club on April 27th, Patsy Stadnyk shared some information from the
standard letter from Lou Pedron with SCS Insurance Adjusters.

Stadnyk served the city with a suit back in November 2020 over the
problem, which they insist is the result of the city adding sodium
hydroxide to the water supply.

Lawyer David O'Connor stressed that this move will not deter the
case.

"The significance of the letter is relatively low, with all due
respect," said O'Connor. "No one expects a defendant to admit
liability when they are sued, particularly in a class action
(lawsuit). In the 30 years that I've been doing this, I have never
had a single case where the defendant has admitted liability upon
receiving a statement of claim, it is just unheard of."

O'Connor added that the certification material was issued on
February 18th with the Defendant scheduled to deliver any
responding materials by the end of July.

The certification hearing is scheduled for Friday, December 16th.

In a separate case, St. Joseph's Care Group is seeking $350,000 for
water damages to the PR Cook Apartments on Carrie Street.

The city denies that its acts or omissions caused or contributed to
the presence of pinhole leaks in that plaintiff's copper water
pipes.

None of the accusations have been proven in court. [GN]

TRINET GROUP: Faces ERISA Suit in Florida Court
-----------------------------------------------
Trinet Group, Inc. 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 a class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida in September 29, 2020 on behalf of participants in two
retirement plans available to TriNet's eligible worksite employees,
the TriNet 401(k) Plan and the TriNet Select 401(k) Plan.

Defendants allegedly violated certain fiduciary obligations to Plan
participants under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) of 1974 with respect to overseeing plan investment and
recordkeeping fees.

TriNet is a provider of HR expertise, payroll services, employee
benefits, employment risk mitigation services and human capital
management software.


TURNPOINT SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, D'Arcy Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON D'ARCY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOE CORPORATION d/b/a TURNPOINT SERVICES;
HUNTER SUPER TECHS SERVICE CORPORATION; DOE CORPORATION 1-25; JOHN
DOE 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 6:22-cv-00144-KEW (E.D., Okla., May
10, 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 D'Arcy was employed by the Defendants as technician.

TURNPOINT SERVICES provides heating, ventilation, air conditioning,
plumbing, and electrical services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Taylot, Esq.
          JEFFREY a. TAYLOR, P.C.
          5613 North Classen Boulevard
          Oklahoma City, OK 73118
          Telephone: (405) 286-1600
          Facsimile: (405) 842-6132
          Email: taylorjeff@mac.com

               - and -

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          Emily A. Hubbard, Esq.
          Biller & Kimble, LLC
          8044 Montgomery Road, Suite 515
          Cincinnati, OH 45236
          Telephone: (513) 202-0710
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          Email: abiller@billerkimble.com
                 akimble@billerkimble.com
                 ehubbard@billerkimble.com

TWITTER INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of June 13 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Twitter, Inc. (NYSE: TWTR) investors who sold
shares while Elon Musk secretly built a large position in Twitter
to submit your transactions now.

Relevant Selling Period: Mar. 24, 2022 - Apr. 1, 2022
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 13, 2022
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/TWTR
Contact An Attorney Now: TWTR@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

Twitter, Inc. (TWTR) Securities Fraud Class Action:

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of investors who sold Twitter
securities between Mar. 24, 2022, and April 1, 2022, inclusive.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Musk began acquiring
Twitter shares in Jan. 2022, and by Mar. 14, 2022 Musk had acquired
over 5% of Twitter's outstanding shares - requiring Musk to
disclose his stake in Twitter by Mar. 24, 2022. Musk, however, did
not disclose his stake but secretly built it to a 9.1% stake.

On Apr. 4, 2022 Musk belatedly disclosed that he acquired over 73
million Twitter shares, or about 9.1% of the Company. He further
claimed his purchases were for investment purposes only and that he
agreed with Twitter's board of directors that he would not acquire
a total stake in the Company's shares exceeding 14.9%.

But, on Apr. 14, 2022 Musk announced he proposed acquiring all the
outstanding Twitter shares for $54.20 per share.

On Apr. 25, 2022 the Company announced it entered into a definitive
agreement to be acquired by an entity wholly owned by Musk for
$54.20 per share in cash.

"Musk has been accused of manipulating a company's share price
before, and in this case, we're focused on selling investors' lost
profits and proving Musk intentionally concealed his transactions
and lied about his intentions," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens
Berman partner leading the investigation.

If you invested in Twitter and sold shares while Musk secretly
built his stake in the Company, or have knowledge that may assist
the firm's investigation, click here to discuss your legal rights
with Hagens Berman.

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

About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law
firm focusing on corporate accountability through class-action law.
The firm is home to a robust securities litigation practice and
represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers
and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by
corporate negligence and fraud.

Contact:
Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN]

UNITED KINGDOM: Lawsuit Mulled Over Ukrainian Refugee Visa Delays
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jemma Crew, writing for Independent, reports that would-be sponsors
under the Homes for Ukraine visa scheme are threatening home
secretary Priti Patel with legal action on behalf of hundreds of
Ukrainian refugees who have spent weeks waiting to come to the UK.

A class action lawsuit is being prepared over "inordinate and
unreasonable delays" in processing hundreds of visa applications
made in March.

Figures shared with the PA News Agency, compiled by would-be hosts,
show there were at least 800 Ukrainian refugees still waiting for
visas after applying within the first two weeks of the scheme
opening.

The groups behind the action, Vigil 4 Visas and Taking Action Over
the Homes for Ukraine Visa Delays, say the delays have put people
in Ukraine and border countries at risk, and heaped "considerable
pressure and strain" on UK hosts.

Lawyers for the groups are planning to send a pre-action protocol
letter to the Home Office.

Katherine Klinger, who has helped organise vigils outside the Home
Office, told PA: "Perhaps the most striking thing I've noticed is
the utter despair, shame and sense of responsibility so many hosts
report.

"Hosts are in tears sometimes when they report to us what has
happened in the past six weeks -- dozens of emails, phone calls,
letters, trips to the Home Office, MPs' involvement etc -- it's
very humbling."

The groups are due to launch an online Crowdfunder on May 3 to
raise up to £15,000 to help pay for the legal costs.

The legal letter will highlight ten cases of Ukrainians who are
still waiting for their visas after applying during the days after
the Homes for Ukraine scheme first opened on March 18.

These include the case of a Ukrainian mother and her daughter, aged
under 10, who applied for their visas around five weeks ago.

The mother received her visa on April 18 but the little girl is
still waiting.

PA has reported on multiple similar cases where family members,
usually with young children, are waiting for longer than their
relatives for permission to travel.

The legal action is being prepared by Amanda Jones, an immigration
and public law barrister, and follows a previous successful
individual challenge, the group said.

They said the judicial review would be brought on the grounds that
the Home Office has a policy of delaying the March applications,
and deciding later applications instead; or that the system is so
chaotic and unstable that it is unreasonable.

A Government spokesperson said: "In response to Putin's barbaric
invasion we launched one of the fastest and biggest visa schemes in
UK history. Over 86,000 visas have been issued so Ukrainians can
live and work in the UK.

"The changes the Home Office has made to streamline the visa
system, including simplifying the forms and boosting staff numbers,
are working and we are now processing visas as quickly as they come
in -- enabling thousands more Ukrainians to come through our
uncapped routes." [GN]

UNITED SERVICES: Court Certifies Class in Sampson's Valuation Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ARTHUR SAMPSON, JR., ET AL. v. UNITED SERVICES
AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Case No. 6:19-CV-00896 (W.D. La.), Judge
James D. Cain, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana, Lafayette Division, granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification.

I. Background

The lawsuit is one of several pending in United States district
courts, challenging the valuation systems used by car insurers to
determine cash value of vehicles on total loss claims. The
Plaintiffs in the matter, Arthur Sampson, Jr. and Lovely M.
Feagins, are two Louisiana residents who had insurance policies
through USAA. Under the terms of these policies, USAA agreed to pay
the owner the actual cash value ("ACV") of the insured vehicle upon
the occurrence of a total loss. To determine the ACV, USAA used a
valuation product known as the CCC One Market Valuation Report
("CCC"), which was developed by CCC Information Services, Inc. and
sold to USAA and other insurance companies.

Plaintiff Sampson filed a claim under his collision coverage, after
his 2012 Mazda 6 Sport was damaged in an accident occurring on or
about Feb. 8, 2017. Under the CCC valuation report, USAA determined
that his vehicle had a base value of $6,643 and adjusted value of
$5,999.00. Plaintiff Feagin's valuation under the CCC valuation
report was $12,651.

The Plaintiffs allege, the National Automobile Dealers Association
Appraisal ("NADA") Guides suggest "clean retail" values of $6,725
and $13,775 for their vehicles, respectively, after adjustments
"for mileage and options."

The Plaintiffs challenged the CCC valuation reports by filing suit
in the Court on July 12, 2019. They allege that the CCC valuation
system undervalued their vehicles by unjustifiably applying certain
condition adjustments, and that USAA's intentional failure to fully
compensate the Plaintiffs for the loss of their vehicles amounts to
a bad faith breach of contract. They also maintain that USAA
violated the Louisiana Insurance Code by using the CCC valuation
system because it is not one of the methods under Louisiana Revised
Statute 22:1892(B)(5), and violated its duty of good faith and fair
dealing under Louisiana Revised Statute Section 22:1973.

Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
(Filed Under Seal), individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated.

The Plaintiffs move the Court for certification of the instant
lawsuit as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3) on behalf of the following class: All persons
insured by USAA and USAA General Indemnity Company who have made a
claim for first party total loss, which claim USAA and USAA General
Indemnity Company evaluated using CCC, or a predecessor product
from August 15, 2010 to the present date and whose CCC Base Value
was less than the NADA Fully Adjusted Value (Clean Retail).

The Plaintiffs further move that Arthur Sampson, Jr. and Lovely M.
Feagins be appointed as representatives for the defined class and
that the following attorneys be appointed to serve as the class
counsel for the above-defined class: J.R. Whaley; Kenneth D. St.
Pe; Stephen B. Murray, Jr.; and Kenneth W. DeJean.

The Court held oral arguments on April 27, 2022, concerning the
Motion for Class Certification.

II. Discussion

The class action is a nontraditional litigation procedure
permitting a representative with typical claims to sue or defend on
behalf of, and stand in judgment for, a class of similarly situated
persons when the question is one of common or general interest to
persons so numerous as to make impracticable to bring them all
before the court." The party seeking class certification bears the
burden of establishing that it is appropriate under the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, by a
preponderance of the evidence. To this end the district court must
"conduct a rigorous analysis of the Rule 23 prerequisites before
certifying a class." At issue are the four requirements set forth
under Rule 23(a) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy
of representation) as well as Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirement that
common questions predominate over individual ones.

The Plaintiffs contend that in the vast majority of cases, the CCC
system valuation provides substantially lower valuations than that
of a "generally recognized used motor vehicle industry source,"
such as NADA. For example, Feagins' evaluation under the CCC One
Market Valuation Report was $12,651, whereas the NADA clean retail
value for the vehicle was $13,775.25 Sampson's evaluation under the
CCC One Market Valuation Report was $5,99926, whereas the NADA
clean retail value was $6,725.

Judge Cain (i) finds that the Defendant's concerns would not
preclude the Plaintiffs' from adequately defining the class and the
Plaintiffs will bear the cost of identifying class members; (ii)
the Defendants do not challenge the numerosity; (iii) the
Plaintiffs has satisfied the common question requirement by common
proof that USAA violated the requirements of Louisiana Revised
Statute Section 22:1892; (iv) the question of whether USAA's use of
CCC's method of determining ACV of loss vehicles was a violation of
its duty to fairly adjust claims under Section 1892, is a question
that can be answered class-wide and thus meets both the commonality
and the predominance requirements; and (v) Plaintiffs Feagins and
Sampson adequately represent the class and that their claims are
typical of any putative class member.

Judge CaIn further finds that USAA has not challenged the
superiority requirement. The Plaintiffs argue that the claims at
issue have a "negative value."

III. Conclusion

For the reasons he set forth, Judge Cain granted the Motion for
Class Certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2022 Memorandum Ruling is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4ur47e8n from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Bid to Seal in NorCal Suit v. IRS Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NorCal Tea Party Patriots, et al., Plaintiffs v.
Internal Revenue Service, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:13cv341
(S.D. Ohio), Judge Michael R. Barrett of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, issued an
Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part:

   (1) the Motion to Unseal Court Filings and Open the May 19,
       2017 Hearing to the Public filed by Plaintiffs Americans
       Against Oppressive Laws, Inc., NorCal Tea Party Patriots,
       San Angelo Tea Party, South Dakota Citizens for Liberty,
       Inc., and Texas Patriots Tea Party;

   (2) the Motion to Unseal filed by Interested Party The
       Cincinnati Enquirer;

   (3) the Motion to Seal filed by Defendants Lois Lerner and
       Holly Paz; and

   (4) the Expedited Motion to Unseal Documents 331, 332, 333,
       334, and 344 filed by The Cincinnati Enquirer.

I. Background

Plaintiff Texas Patriots Tea Party (TPTP) joined with nine other
self-described dissenting groups -- groups that oppose the policies
of the current presidential administration -- to file suit against
the Government for violating their statutory and constitutional
rights in the processing of their applications for tax exemption.
Plaintiffs allege that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) subjected
their applications to heightened scrutiny and unnecessary delays
because of the groups' political viewpoints, specifically because
their group names included terms such as Tea Party, Patriots, or
9/12 Project or because their group focuses included issues such as
government spending.

The allegations that underlie the lawsuit -- allegations that the
IRS discriminated against dissenting groups when processing their
application for tax-exempt status based on the groups' political
viewpoints -- were the subject of investigations by the Treasury
Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), the Senate
Finance Committee, and the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations for the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs (Senate PSI). TIGTA issued its initial report
on May 14, 2013 and a supplemental report on March 27, 2015. The
Senate Finance Committee issued its report on Aug. 5, 2015. The
Senate PSI issued its report on Sept. 5, 2014.

The Plaintiffs brought their claims on behalf of a class of all
dissenting groups who applied for tax-exempt status and were
targeted for special scrutiny.

Since the filing of the case in 2013, Lerner and Paz have been the
subject of hate-filled online comments, harassed outside their
homes, and received death threats via telephone messages, emails
and letters. These threats have also extended to members of their
families. Paz's children were forced to hide in their rooms when a
man tried to forcibly enter her home. On another occasion, a
stranger followed Paz's son home from the bus stop after school.
For over a year, Lerner's husband received multiple threatening
emails at work. Lerner's 89-year-old mother-in-law also received a
threatening letter.

For that reason, Lerner and Paz filed a Motion for Protective Order
seeking to have their depositions prospectively placed under seal
before their depositions were taken. In addition, they sought to
have the briefing on the Motion for Protective Order sealed. The
Plaintiffs responded by filing their Motion to Unseal Court Filings
which sought to unseal the briefing and the depositions. The Court
granted Lerner and Paz's Motion for Protective Order to the extent
it sought to have the briefing filed under seal.

As to whether the yet-to-be-taken depositions should be sealed, the
Court scheduled a hearing to address this remaining issue. However,
the May 19, 2017 hearing was vacated because the Court ruled that
it was impossible to conduct the analysis required under Shane
Group, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, 825 F.3d 299, 306 (6th Cir.
2016) if the depositions did not yet exist.

Instead, on May 18, 2017, the Court entered a limited protective
order which provided: "the litigants, which for purposes of this
Order also includes Movants, may designate (not seal) the Paz and
Lerner depositions as 'Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only.' Such a
designation will serve to restrict access, dissemination, and use
of the designated materials to counsel for Plaintiffs, Defendants,
and Former Individual Management Defendants Lois G. Lerner and
Holly Paz, in this action." The Court reserved ruling on whether
the Paz and Lerner depositions should be sealed until the
depositions were complete and the matter of sealing the depositions
was properly before the Court.

The Plaintiffs took Lerner's deposition on June 8, 2017, and Paz's
deposition on July 7, 2017. Thereafter, the parties began filing
dispositive motions. While the dispositive motions were being
briefed, the parties began engaging in settlement discussions. To
assist in those discussions, the Court modified its previous
limited protective order of May 18, 2017.

On Oct. 25, 2017, the parties notified the Court that they had
reached a settlement resolving all remaining claims. Members of the
class released their claims for a payment of $3.5 million by the
United States. On Aug. 8, 2018, the Court entered final approval of
the class action settlement but reserved its decision of whether
the Lerner and Paz depositions should be unsealed. On Jan. 29,
2019, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal of all claims
with prejudice.

The Plaintiffs argue that the Court should go back and lift its
provisional seal of the briefing pertaining to the Motion for
Protective Order. Lerner and Paz agree that the briefs identified
by the Plaintiffs may be released to the public, but only after
they make redactions to the portions of those briefs that implicate
their privacy interests or which could potentially inspire further
criminal violence against them, including all references to the
three sealed declarations and exhibits.

While the parties appear to agree on these documents, a
disagreement still exists over other materials. The Plaintiffs
remain steadfast in seeking an order from the Court unsealing the
deposition transcripts of Lerner and Paz and any unredacted filings
referencing the transcripts. However, Lerner and Paz request that
these documents remain sealed. They explain that the Court did not
need to consider their deposition testimony because the United
States and Plaintiffs reached a settlement. They also maintain that
the public dissemination of the transcripts would threaten their
physical safety and that of their loved ones.

The Cincinnati Enquirer also seeks an order unsealing the
unredacted version of the Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to
the United States' Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs'
Statement of Material Facts and Response to the United States'
Statement of Proposed Undisputed Facts.

II. Analysis

The Plaintiffs argue that evidence of the public's interest in this
case is overwhelming: "the events giving rise to this litigation
have been the subject of congressional inquiries and reports,
inspector general inquiries and reports, and involve the IRS'
viewpoint-based targeting of more than four hundred public interest
groups from coast to coast." They also point out that the Attorney
General of the United States issued a press release regarding the
Government's agreement to settle the litigation.

Judge Barrett opines that the difficulty for the Court is that any
time Lerner and Paz are placed in the public spotlight, they seem
to be at risk, regardless of what they have actually said in their
depositions. This is because the comments, letters and death
threats they and their families have received are untethered from
the facts and legal issues in the case. Instead, members of the
public have chosen to use this case as an opportunity to air any
grievances they might have with the government. There is no
legitimate public interest in the death threats and harassment
faced by Lerner and Paz and their families. Their families are not
parties to the litigation and these incidents have no bearing on
the merits of the underlying case.

In keeping with their agreement to publicly file redacted copies of
the briefing on their Motion for Protective Order, Judge Barrett
directs Lerner and Paz to file the following documents with
redactions which will protect their security and privacy, and the
security and privacy of their families: (1) Memorandum in Support
of Former Individual Management Defendants' Motion for Protective
Order; (2) the Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion
for Protective Order filed by Lois Lerner and Holly Paz; (3) the
Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Unseal Court Filings
and Open the May 19, 2017 Hearing to the Public; (4) Reply Brief in
Support of Certain Former Individual Management Defendants' Motion
for Protective Order.

However, Judge Barrett holds that the declarations and exhibits
filed in conjunction with these briefs (Docs. 332, 333, 334) will
remain under seal. The sensitive information included these
declarations and exhibits relates to family members of Lerner and
Paz who have no connection to the litigation. The public's interest
in accessing the records is not outweighed by the concerns for the
safety and privacy of Lerner and Paz and their families. Given the
direction regarding the filing of the redacted documents, the
request for these documents to remain sealed is narrowly tailored.

As to the Lerner and Paz depositions and the summary judgment
materials, the Court must stop at this juncture. The public and the
class have had access to everything except for a small percentage
of documents. As Lerner and Paz have pointed out, the government
produced over 16,000 documents to the Plaintiffs which were not
subject to a protective order. In addition, the class members could
access the depositions of at least 21 other current or former IRS
employees. While the Lerner and Paz depositions were filed under
seal, the United States' summary judgment motion itself was not
filed under seal but was instead filed with redactions where there
were citations to the Lerner and Paz depositions or summaries of
their testimony. Any public interest in this filing could largely
be satisfied by a review of the publicly available materials,
regardless of access to the Lerner and Paz depositions.

However, Judge Barrett notes that unlike the redactions to the
briefing on the Motion for Protective Order, the redactions to
these documents do not address the death threats and harassment
faced by Lerner and Paz and their families. Instead, the redactions
appear to be an attempt to avoid inspiring further harassment,
threats or actual acts of violence against Lerner, Paz and their
families. While the balance between the public's interest in these
documents and the potential for violence is a tough call, the Court
is hopeful that the passage of time will protect Lerner, Paz and
their families. In addition, any references to personal information
in the depositions and summary judgment materials will remain under
seal so that the sealed portions of the documents are narrowly
tailored to the concerns for the safety and privacy of Lerner, Paz
and their families.

Therefore, Lerner and Paz will file copies of the following
documents with redactions to the names of their family members or
personal friends, any home addresses or any other personal
identifiers: (1) Holly Paz Merits Deposition, Exhibit 43 in Support
of United States' Motion for Summary Judgment; (2) Lois Lerner
Merits Deposition, Exhibit 44 in Support of United States' Motion
for Summary Judgment; and (3) United States' Statement of Proposed
Undisputed Material Facts In Support of Its Motion for Summary
Judgment on Class Action Claim.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are permitted to file a redacted
version of the Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for
Summary Judgment; a redacted version of the Plaintiffs' Statement
of Material Facts and Response to IRS's Statement of Proposed
Undisputed Facts; and a redacted version of Holly Paz Class
Certification Deposition, Exhibit 54 in Opposition to United
States' Motion for Summary Judgment which exclude references to the
names of Lerner and Paz's family members or personal friends, any
home addresses, or any other personal identifiers.

Finally, the Plaintiffs seek to unseal Exhibit 104 to Plaintiffs'
Opposition to United States' Motion for Summary Judgment. It
appears that this document was produced as part of a Freedom of
Information Act request and is already in the public domain.
Therefore, this document will be unsealed. The Plaintiffs are
permitted to file an unsealed version of Exhibit 104 to the
Plaintiffs' Opposition to United States' Motion for Summary
Judgment.

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Judge Barrett granted in part and denied in
part (i) the Plaintiffs' Motion to Unseal Court Filings and Open
the May 19, 2017 Hearing to the Public; (ii) Cincinnati Enquirer's
Motion to Unseal; (ii) Defendants Lerner and Paz's Motion to Seal;
and (iv) Cincinnati Enquirer's Expedited Motion to Unseal
Document.

Defendants Lois Lerner and Holly Paz will file copies of the
briefing on their Motion for Protective Order with redactions to
the sensitive and personal information included in those briefs,
including references to their supporting declarations and exhibits
documenting the harassment and death threats they and their
families have faced within 90 days of entry of the Order.

Defendants Lois Lerner and Holly Paz will file copies of the
following documents with redactions to the names of their family
members or personal friends, any home addresses or any other
personal identifiers within 90 days of entry of the Order: (1)
Holly Paz Merits Deposition, Exhibit 43 in Support of United
States' Motion for Summary Judgment; (2) Lois Lerner Merits
Deposition, Exhibit 44 in Support of United States' Motion for
Summary Judgment; and (3) United States' Statement of Proposed
Undisputed Material Facts In Support of Its Motion for Summary
Judgment on Class Action Claim.

The Plaintiffs are permitted to file a redacted version of
Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary
Judgment; a redacted version of Plaintiffs' Statement of Material
Facts and Response to IRS's Statement of Proposed Undisputed Facts;
and a redacted version of Holly Paz Class Certification Deposition,
Exhibit 54 in Opposition to United States' Motion for Summary
Judgment which exclude references to the names of Lerner and Paz's
family members or personal friends, any home addresses, or any
other personal identifiers.

The Plaintiffs are permitted to file an unsealed version of Exhibit
104 to Plaintiffs' Opposition to United States' Motion for Summary
Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 3, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4z9es4a5 from Leagle.com.


UNITED STATES: Casa Libre Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CASA LIBRE/FREEDOM HOUSE;
ET AL., v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY; ET AL., Case No. 2:22-cv-01510-ODW-JPR (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying
the case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the following
classes of similarly situated persons:

   (a) All persons who have or will submit SIJ petitions (Form
   I-360) to the United States Citizenship and Immigration
   Services ("USCIS"), and who are deemed ineligible to apply
   for or receive employment authorization until their SIJ
   petitions have been approved and they have been granted
   deferred action status or their priority dates are current
   and they may apply for Adjustment of Status.

   (b) All persons who have or will file SIJ petitions (Form I-
   360) with the USCIS, and whose SIJ petitions are not
   adjudicated within 180 days of being filed, except as to
   members of the certified class in the case entitled Moreno-
   Galvez v. Cuccinelli, Case No. C19-0321RSL (U.S. District
   Court for the Western District of Washington).

The proposed class representatives for Class (a) are Plaintiffs
Rene Gabriel Flores Merino, Hildner Eduardo Coronado Ajtun, Carlos
Abel Hernandez Arevalo, Axel Yafeth Mayorga Aguilera, Rene Isai
Serrano Montes, and Pamela Alejandra Rivera Cambara.

The proposed class representative for Class (b) is Plaintiff Rene
Isai Serrano Montes.

The Plaintiffs challenge Defendants' refusal to permit abused,
neglected, and abandoned immigrant youth seeking SIJ status to
apply for or be granted Employment Authorization documents (EADs)
until their SIJ petitions are approved and the Defendants, in the
exercise of their discretion and on a "case by case" basis, decide
whether to grant them "deferred action" status, or until their
priority dates are current at which time the Defendants allow them
to apply for Adjustment of Status and EADs.

The United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S.
federal executive department responsible for public security,
roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other
countries.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated April 25,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/39Wrvbx
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter A. Schey, Esq.
          Daniel Bral, Esq.
          CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS & CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
          256 South Occidental Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90057
          Telephone: (213) 388-8693, ext. 309
          Facsimile: (213) 386-9484
          E-mail: pschey@centerforhumanrights.org
                  daniel@centerforhumanrights.org

               - and -

          Camila Alvarez, Esq.
          Ruth N. Calvillo, Esq.
          Lilit M. Elkonyan, Esq.
          CENTRAL AMERICAN RESOURCE CENTER (CARECEN-LA)
          2845 W 7th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 9005
          Telephone: (213) 385-7800, extension 161
          E-mail: CAlvarez@carecen-la.org
                  RCalvillo@carecen-la.org
                  LMelkonyan@carecen-la.org

               - and -

          Stephany A Rzaga, Esq.
          Cynthia H. Enning, Esq.
          Claudia Q. Uintana, Esq.
          LEGAL SERVICES FOR CHILDREN
          1254 Market St. -- 3rd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 863-3762
          E-mail: stephany@lsc-sf.org
                  cynthia@lsc-sf.org
                  claudiaq@lsc-sf.org

               - and -

          Carl Bergquist, Esq.
          Maritza Agundez, Esq.
          COALITION FOR HUMANE
          IMMIGRANT RIGHTS (CHIRLA)
          2533 West Third St., Suite 101
          Los Angeles, CA 90057
          Telephone: (213) 201-3781
          E-mail: magundez@chirla.org

               - and -

          Stephen Rosenbaum, Esq.
          Marcos Pacheco, Esq.
          LA RAZA CENTRO LEGAL, INC.
          474 Valencia Street, #295
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 575-3500
          E-mail: srosenbaum@law.berkeley.edu
                  marcos@lrcl.org

               - and -

          Alex Holguin, Esq.
          DREAM ACT LAWYERS
          714 W Olympic Blvd, No. 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90015
          Telephone: (213) 765-6084
          E-mail: aholguin@dalimmigration.com

               - and -

          Silvia Aguirre, Esq.
          THE AGUIRRE LAW FIRM, APC
          3521 Whittier Blvd
          Los Angeles, CA 90023-1709
          Telephone: (213) 386-4649
          E-mail: silvia@getjustice.us

               - and -

          Cristel Martinez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARTINEZ, NGUYEN & MAGANA
          13200 Crossroads Pkwy. N., Suite 115
          Industry, CA 91746
          Telephone: (213) 246-2197
          E-mail: abogada@cristelmartinez.com

               - and -

          Jim Tom Haynes, Esq.
          HAYNES NOVICK IMMIGRATION
          2001 S Street NW, Suite 550
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 350-3933 direct
          E-mail jimtom@dcimmigrationattorney.com

               - and -

          Genevieve Augustin, Esq.
          CENTRAL AMERICAN RESOURCE CENTER (CARECEN-DC)
          1460 Columbia Road NW, Suite C-1
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 328-9799
          E-mail: Genevieve.Augustin@carecendc.org

UPSTART HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California captioned Ward v. Upstart Holdings,
Inc., et al., Case No. 22-cv-2856, on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Upstart Holdings,
Inc. ("Upstart" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: UPST) securities between
November 9, 2021 and May 9, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from this
notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.

If you suffered a loss on your Upstart 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/upstart-holdings-inc/. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

On May 9, 2022, after the market closed, Upstart announced its
first quarter 2022 financial results in a press release. Therein,
the Company reduced its fiscal 2022 guidance, expecting revenue of
approximately $1.25 billion and contribution margin of 48%. During
the related conference call, Upstart's Chief Financial Officer
cited "rising interest rates and rising consumer delinquencies [as]
putting downward pressure on conversion."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $43.52, or 56%, to
close at $33.61 per share on May 10, 2022.

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 Upstart's AI model could not adequately account
for macroeconomic factors such as interest rates that impact the
market-clearing price for loans; (2) that, as a result, Upstart was
experiencing negative impact on its conversion rate; (3) that, as a
result, the Company was reasonably likely to use its balance sheet
to fund loans; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Upstart securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from
this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To
be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time;
you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain
an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit
our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

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

VIACOMCBS INC: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Continued to August 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARA DEROSA, individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. VIACOMCBS INC.; CBS
TELEVISION STUDIOS, A DIVISION OF CBS STUDIOS, INC.; SESSIONS
PAYROLL MANAGEMENT, INC.; FIRSTHAND PRODUCTIONS, INC.; EAST END
PRODUCTIONS, INC.; SNAPSHOT PRODUCTIONS, INC.; GAIL LEVINE; GREGG
LEVINE; BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE AFTRA RETIREMENT FUND; BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE SAG PRODUCERS PENSION PLAN; BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE SAG-AFTRA HEALTH PLAN; and DOES 1-50, Case No.
2:20-cv-02965-MCS-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order that
the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall
be continued from August 1, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. to August 8, 2022 at
9:00 a.m.

ViacomCBS is a global media and entertainment company that creates
content and experiences for audiences worldwide.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 26, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PjdDYP at no extra charge.[CC]

VINNIE FISCHETTI: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Canales Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN JULIO CANALES, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VINNIE FISCHETTI & SON, INC.; and
ROBERT FISCHETTI, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02718 (E.D.N.Y., May
10, 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 Canales was employed by the Defendants as laborer.

VINNIE FISCHETTI & SON, INC. provides landscaping services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter A. Romero, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, N.Y. 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588
          Email: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com


VIRGIN AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Suit Over Undisclosed Financial Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Dowling at australianaviation.com.au reports that former
Virgin Australia bondholders have filed a class action suit against
the airline's former and current directors and senior executives in
the Federal Court, after months of speculation.

The lawsuit alleges that Virgin Australia, along with former CEO
Paul Scurrah and former chairman Elizabeth Bryan, failed to
disclose crucial financial information from a 2019 prospectus,
including on the airline's ability to meet its loan obligations.

Virgin stated it is aware of the legal proceedings, however "does
not expect any financial consequence to the company from these
proceedings", as it was extinguished of any such responsibility
during its sale to Bain Capital in November 2020.

It comes after unsecured creditors, including bondholders, received
between just nine and 13 cents on the dollar on their investment
following the sale of Virgin Australia to Bain Capital in 2020.

The lawsuit is being driven by Melbourne-based law firm Corrs
Chambers Westgarth and funded by London-based Balance Legal
Capital, who previously called on anyone who purchased unsecured
notes in Virgin Australia following the 2019 prospectus to take
part in the class action.

Corrs Chambers Westgarth also previously provided advice to
bondholders during Virgin's voluntary administration.

According to a report by The Australian, the class action alleges
that Virgin failed to disclose its true financial position in the
prospectus, ahead of its planned $700 million capital raise to fund
its acquisitions of the Velocity Frequent Flyer program.[GN]

WALMART INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Hawkins, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Walmart
Inc. lost another bid to dismiss or delay a class lawsuit brought
by a customer alleging a data breach compromised the personal
information of 25,000 Walmart pharmacy patients.

Willard Bays filed a would-be class action against Walmart and
CaptureRx, a pharmaceutical company, alleging that the companies
didn't reasonably protect and monitor customer data, which led to
the exposure of their contact information, Social Security numbers,
account numbers, insurance information, and medical data.

CaptureRx has since been dismissed from the lawsuit.

Walmart argued that Bays' complaint should be dismissed because he
relied on group pleading allegations. [GN]

WELLS FARGO: Baker Settlement Class Initially Certified
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yvonne Becker, Christopher
Nobles, Rosa Ramirez, Valerie Seyler and Jannien Weiner, v. Wells
Fargo & Co.; Employee Benefit Review Committee; Wells Fargo Bank,
National Association; and John and Jane Does, 1-20, Case No.
0:20-cv-02016-KMM-BRT (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Menendez
entered an order:

   1. preliminarily certifying the following Settlement Class
      under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1):

      "All Participants of the Wells Fargo & Company 401(k) Plan
      at any time between March 13, 2014, through the date on
      which the Settlement becomes Final;"

      Excluded from the Settlement Class are members of the
      Employee Benefit Review Committee from March 13, 2014
      through the date on which the Settlement becomes Final.

   2. appointing the Plaintiffs Yvonne Becker, Christopher
      Nobles, Rosa Ramirez, Valerie Seyler, and Jannien Weiner
      as Class Representatives;

   3. appointing their counsel -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
      PLLC, Keller Rohrback LLP, and Zimmerman Reed LLP -- as
      Class Counsel; and

   4. approving the text of the Class Notice and the method of
      giving direct notice to Settlement Class members by email
      and, if no email address is available, by U.S. mail.

   5. appointing Analytics, LLC as the Settlement Administrator
      and shall be required to perform all the duties of the
      Settlement Administrator as set forth in the Settlement
      Agreement, the Plan of Allocation, and this Order; and

   6. appointing EagleBank as the Escrow Agent and shall perform
      all the duties of the Escrow Agent set forth in the
      Settlement Agreement.

Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company
with corporate headquarters in San Francisco, California,
operational headquarters in Manhattan, and managerial offices
throughout the United States and internationally.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 25, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wo7q5f at no extra charge.[CC]

WEST BEND, WI: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Gatzke Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT GATZKE, et al., Plaintiffs v. CITY OF WEST
BEND, WISCONSIN, et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-C-0243 (E.D.
Wis.), Judge Lynn Adelman of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin granted West Bend's motion for
summary judgment.

I. Background

The Plaintiffs in the action propose to represent a class of
residents and property owners in the Villa Park subdivision of the
City of West Bend, Wisconsin. They allege that, for decades, toxic
chemicals from a city-owned landfill, known as the Schuster Drive
Landfill, adjacent to the subdivision have been leaching into the
groundwater and migrating to surrounding properties. West Bend has
been aware of the groundwater contamination since the early 1980s
and has taken measures to control and mitigate the harm, including
closing the landfill and replacing contaminated well water with
municipal water. The Plaintiffs, however, believe that West Bend
has not done enough to protect their properties from the
contaminants and that it has failed to properly inform them of the
extent of the contamination and its associated risks.

In their latest complaint, the Plaintiffs seek damages for
"economic losses," such as loss of property value, caused by the
contamination of their properties, and an order requiring the
defendants to fully remediate the contamination. Although the
Plaintiffs claim that the contamination presents a risk of harm to
human health, no Plaintiff claims to have suffered bodily harm,
sickness, or disease from exposure to contaminants. The Defendants
are the City of West Bend, two of its officers, and several private
companies that may have disposed of hazardous waste at the landfill
or succeeded to the liability of companies that did so.

The Plaintiffs allege that all the Defendants are liable under
various state-law theories, including negligence, strict liability,
and creation of a nuisance. Because the parties are not completely
diverse, these claims do not fall within the subject-matter
jurisdiction of a federal court. However, the Plaintiffs also
allege that West Bend's failure to properly respond to the release
of chemicals from the landfill has resulted in violations of their
constitutional rights. They allege claims for damages under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 against West Bend and two of its officers, Jay
Shambeau (who has been City Administrator since 2016) and Doug
Neumann (who has been Director of Public Works since 2015), in
their personal capacities. The Plaintiffs allege that the presence
of these federal claims provides a basis for supplemental
jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

The City of West Bend and its officers, Neumann, and Shambeau, now
move for summary judgment on the federal claims. These Defendants
argue that, if the federal claims are dismissed, the Court should
relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(c).

In responding to this motion, the Plaintiffs filed a request that
the Court defers consideration of the motion until they have had a
chance to further investigate their claims. The Plaintiffs' counsel
has filed a declaration in which he identifies the matters on which
the Plaintiffs believe factual development is needed. However, the
Plaintiffs also oppose the motion for summary judgment on the
merits.

II. Discussion

A. Unreasonable Seizure

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Neumann and Shambeau are
liable for damages because they each "caused an unlawful seizure by
allowing Plaintiffs' and the class members' properties to be
unreasonably destroyed." In briefing this claim, the parties argue
over whether any Plaintiff could prove that his or her property has
been "destroyed." The Defendants note that each Plaintiff continues
to live in his or her home, that each home receives municipal water
rather than well water drawn from the contaminated groundwater on
site, that no residence has been shown to have dangerous
concentrations of VOCs in the indoor air, and that a homeowner in
the contaminated area recently sold his home for 24% more than he
paid for it three years earlier. The Plaintiffs, in turn, state
that they intend to retain an expert who "may" opine that "homes on
contaminated groundwater have no value."

Judge Adelman holds that the Plaintiffs do not, and cannot, allege
that Defendants Shambeau and Neumann intended to interfere with
their property rights. These men did not dump toxic chemicals into
the landfill or allow others to do so with the intent that the
chemicals would reach the Plaintiffs' properties and interfere with
their possessory interests. Indeed, they did not even hold their
offices until 2015 and 2016, long after the landfill was closed and
dumping had ceased. The Plaintiffs have not pleaded a claim for
unreasonable seizure against the City of West Bend itself.

At the very least, Judge Adelman says Shambeau and Neumann are
entitled to qualified immunity from liability under the Fourth
Amendment. The Plaintiffs have not cited, and she has not found,
any case even hinting at the possibility that a government official
seizes property within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment by
failing to prevent an unintentional interference with the property.
Accordingly, Shambeau and Neumann could not have acted in defiance
of clearly established Fourth Amendment law. Summary judgment will
be granted on this claim.

B. Bodily Integrity

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Neumann and Shambeau violated
their right to bodily integrity, which is safeguarded by the
substantive component of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. They allege that these Defendants violated this right by
allowing them to inhale the VOCs that had migrated into their homes
from the contaminated plume and by failing to properly disclose the
risk of vapor intrusion.

Judge Adelman concludes that Neumann and Shambeau could not have
deprived the Plaintiffs of their right to bodily integrity.
Moreover, given the absence of any case law holding that a
government official can be liable under a bodily-integrity theory
for failing to prevent or warn of harm not of the official's own
making, Neumann and Shambeau are entitled to qualified immunity.

Before moving on, however, Judge Adelman notes that the Plaintiffs'
bodily-integrity claim is similar to their claim based on
state-created danger, in that each claim alleges that the
Defendants engaged in conduct that shocks the conscience. She
analyzes the element of shocking the conscience in the next section
and concludes that the Plaintiffs have not pleaded and cannot prove
that Neumann or Shambeau engaged in conscience-shocking behavior.
The same analysis applies to the Plaintiffs' claim for deprivation
of the right to bodily integrity and provides additional grounds
for granting summary judgment on this claim.

C. State Created Danger

In their remaining federal claim, the Plaintiffs allege that the
City of West Bend, Neumann, and Shambeau are liable for due-process
deprivations caused by a state-created danger.

Judge Adelman holds that the Defendants are entitled to summary
judgment on the Plaintiffs' due-process claim premised on
state-created danger. She finds that she does not have to determine
whether Neumann and Shambeau committed an "affirmative act" because
the claim against them fails for other reasons.

First, the Plaintiffs do not even hypothesize a set of facts under
which the Defendants' conduct could reasonably be described as
conscience-shocking. Second, their experts do not opine that West
Bend acted recklessly in failing to immediately remediate the
groundwater. Third, a small city government with no environmental
staff could not have been expected to know in the early 1980s that
failing to remediate the contamination would lead to the potential
for vapor intrusion. Fourth, the Plaintiffs' argument seems to be
that anything short of immediate, complete remediation was
irresponsible, but nothing supports that claim. Fifth, nothing in
the sequence of events even plausibly suggests that city officials
acted egregiously.

Sixth, unless the professional both thought that vapor intrusion
was a concern at the landfill and notified the city that the safety
of residents was at stake, the city could not be thought to have
acted recklessly. Seventh, even if the Plaintiffs were to find
evidence that the city was aware of dangerous vapor intrusion at
properties surrounding the landfill prior to 2018, such evidence
would not support the due-process claims that the plaintiffs have
brought in the case. Eighth, the fact that the Plaintiffs might not
have been aware of some this information does not imply that the
Defendants were engaged in a cover-up. Finally, the alleged
deprivations of property occurred when the contamination migrated
to the groundwater and soil of each tract of private property.

D. Relinquish Supplemental Jurisdiction

Because all federal claims have been dismissed, Judge Adelman will
relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims
under 28 U.S.C. 1367(c)(3).

III. Conclusion

For the reasons she stated, Judge Adelman granted West Bend's
motion for summary judgment. The federal claims against the City of
West Bend, Doug Neumann, and Jay Shambeau are dismissed on the
merits. The Court relinquishes supplemental jurisdiction over the
state-law claims asserted against all Defendants.

The Clerk of Court will enter final judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 4, 2022 Decision & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yx5e77pc from Leagle.com.


[*] Fisher Phillips Attorneys Discuss Court Rulings in WTPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa (Osipoff) Camire, Esq., Justin Reiter, Esq., and Henry
Thomson-Smith, Esq., of Fisher Phillips, disclosed that a federal
judge in New York recently held that workers cannot assert claims
for violations of New York's Wage Theft Prevention Act (WTPA) in
federal court - a ruling that further helps employers defend
against these challenging and costly actions. State law requires
New York employers to provide their employees with a "wage notice"
at the time of hiring, and also to provide their employees with
wage statements each payday. Failure to comply can lead to hefty
civil claims and fines that can add up quickly, particularly when
WTPA violations are raised in a class action lawsuit - a common
tactic with plaintiffs' attorneys. But a series of recent decisions
out of the Eastern District of New York will make it more
challenging for employees to successfully pursue remedies for
violations of the WTPA, particularly on a class-wide basis. Here's
what employers need to know about these favorable court decisions.

Wage Theft Prevention Act Summary

The WTPA, which took effect in 2011, was enacted to protect
employees from wage theft. In part, the law requires employees to
give each employee a written notice at their time of hire
containing information such as the employee's rate of pay
(including overtime rate of pay if applicable), how the employee is
paid (for example, hourly, by shift, day, week, commission, etc.)
and regular payday. Additionally, the WTPA mandates that employers
give employees a wage statement or paystub each payday that
contains, among other things, the dates covered by that pay period,
the hours the employee worked, rates of pay, the employee's gross
and net wages, and deductions.

Failure to provide an employee with either their wage notice at
time of hire or their wage statement can have serious consequences
for employers. Specifically, employers that do not provide their
employees with a wage notice upon hire face damages of up to $50
per day per employee, for each workday that the violation occurred,
up to a maximum of $5,000.  Likewise, an employee who does not
receive compliant wage statements with each payment of wages may
recover up to $250 for each day that the violation occurred or
continued to occur, also up to a maximum of $5,000. Thus, mere
technical violations of the WTPA could lead to damages of up to
$10,000 per employee -- and that is not including costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees that could potentially be recovered as
well.

Judge Chen's Decisions Bode Well for Employers

Judge Pamela Chen of the United States District Court of the
Eastern District of New York recently issued three decisions on
consecutive days that will make it more challenging for plaintiffs
to recover damages for technical violations of the law:

Francisco v. NY Tex Care, Inc., 19-CV-1649 (PKC) (ST) (E.D.N.Y.
Mar. 28, 2022);
Wang v. XBB, Inc., No. 18-CV-7341 (PKC) (ST) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29,
2022); and
Sevilla v. House of Salads One LLC, No. 20-cv-6072 (E.D.N.Y. Mar.
30, 2022).
In Sevilla -- Judge Chen's most recent of the three decisions -- a
group of employees brought claims on behalf of a putative class
alleging that their employer failed to provide the required wage
notice and wage statements, and sought the maximum damages
allowable by law. Though Judge Chen noted that the employer "did
not provide proper wage notice and statements to Plaintiffs," she
nonetheless held that the workers could not maintain these claims.


In dismissing these claims, Judge Chen noted that the workers could
not sustain what's known as "Article III standing" in federal court
because they were technical violations that did not lead to a
"tangible injury" or "something akin to a traditional cause of
action." Accordingly, Judge Chen ruled that the court lacked
subject matter over the claims. Her decisions in the Francisco and
Wang cases followed this same reasoning.

What Does This Decision Mean for Employers Moving Forward?

Judge Chen's decision brings welcome relief for employers who fear
steep damages in class action lawsuits for technical violations of
the law. Section 901(b) of the New York Civil Practice Law and
Rules (CPLR) prohibits plaintiffs from bringing claims in state
court to recover penalties on a class-wide basis unless a statute
specifically authorizes such claims, which the WTPA does not.
Accordingly, plaintiffs have already been precluded from bringing
WTPA claims on a class-wide basis in state court, and instead,
plaintiffs often assert WTPA notice claims on a putative class
action basis in federal court.

In light of the Court's rulings in Sevilla, Francisco, and Wang,
however, potential plaintiffs in New York are limited to bringing
WTPA claims in state court on an individual basis rather than on a
putative class action basis. You should coordinate with your
workplace litigation counsel to determine how these decisions will
impact your strategy going forward. [GN]

[*] K&L Gates Attorney Discusses PFAS Class Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Matthew G. Ball, Esq., of K&L Gates, in an article for The National
Law Review, reports that defending consumer class action claims
alleging false and misleading product labeling based on the
presence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) is similar
to the defense of other food and beverage labeling class actions,
but there are nuances the food and beverage industry should
consider.  

What Are PFAS?

As noted in the recent edition, PFAS are per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances used for their flame-retardant and water-resistant
properties. They are used in clothing, cosmetics, and food
packaging. PFAS can also be found in municipal water supplies.

How Do PFAS Relate to Consumer Class Actions?
Plaintiffs' counsel have brought consumer class actions against the
makers and sellers of food and beverages alleging that the presence
of PFAS in the labeled product renders the labeling false and
misleading. Consumer class actions involving PFAS typically allege
that the presence of PFAS renders affirmative representations on
the product labeling false or misleading, or that the presence of
PFAS must be disclosed on the label.

For example, both of these theories are at play in the case of
Davenport v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. The complaint asserts that (1) the
representations that L'Oreal's waterproof mascaras are safe,
effective, high quality, and appropriate for use on consumers'
eyelashes are false or misleading due to the presence of PFAS; and
(2) L'Oreal failed to disclose to consumers that PFAS are present
in detectable amounts in its waterproof mascaras.1

How is the Defense of PFAS Consumer Class Actions Similar to the
Defense of Other Consumer Class Actions?
In most instances, the defense of consumer class actions involving
PFAS allegations does not differ substantially from the defense of
other types of consumer class actions. In the case of an alleged
affirmative misrepresentation, the inquiry is the same on a
pleadings challenge – whether the labeling is likely to mislead a
reasonable person given the presence of PFAS in the product.

Moreover, plaintiffs typically assert a "premium price" theory,
meaning the plaintiff claims he or she would not have purchased the
item, or would have paid less, had the PFAS been properly
disclosed. These allegations provide the defense with an
opportunity to attack the damages model on class certification,
similar to other types of consumer class actions.  

How is the Defense of PFAS Consumer Class Actions Different From
the Defense of Other Consumer Class Actions?
The defense of consumer class actions involving PFAS will differ
from other consumer class actions in two key ways, depending on the
allegations.

First, given the current lack of regulations governing the presence
of PFAS in food and beverage products, the food and beverage
industry should be aware that there is generally no duty to
disclose the presence of PFAS in the absence of a relevant false or
misleading statement on the product labeling. This lack of
regulations provides an additional avenue for a pleadings challenge
that may not otherwise succeed.

Second, scientific testing will be critical to determining whether
there are any, or a uniform quantity of, PFAS present across the
entire product line. PFAS variations between product exemplars may
provide an additional avenue to defeat class certification.

Takeaway
Unfortunately, it appears that the food and beverage industry will
see a new wave of class action litigation focused on the presence
of PFAS in products. However, it also appears that many tried and
true defense strategies will be applicable to such claims, and the
unique nature of PFAS litigation will provide class defendants with
additional strategies. [GN]

[*] Over 500 New Advertising Class Actions Filed in 2021
--------------------------------------------------------
Anisha Shenai-Khatkhate, Esq., Baldassare Vinti, Esq., Jeffrey
Warshafsky, Esq., and Jennifer Yang, Esq., of Proskauer, in an
article for JDSupra, report that 2021 saw well over 500 new class
actions in the advertising space. With the number of these cases
increasing, it is more important than ever for businesses to stay
on top of the latest trends, including the types of products and
claims that are being targeted. Proskauer's full report goes into
detail on these points and others. This post summarizes some of the
key takeaways.

Food & Beverage

As in past years, the Food & Beverage industry remained a main
target of the plaintiffs' bar in 2021. Ingredient claims remained
the main focus. While 2020 was the year of "vanilla" litigations,
the plaintiffs' bar branched out to other flavors in 2021,
including "chocolate," "smoked," "fudge," "strawberry," and
"honey."

Other class action trends in this industry in 2021 include:

   -- "Natural" and "no artificial flavors" cases – particularly
with respect to products containing malic acid, citric acid,
ascorbic acid, xylitol, and maltodextrin;
   -- Cases against coffee product manufacturers, alleging that
they falsely advertise the number of servings in their products;
   -- Place of origin claims, alleging advertisers deceptively
market where their product is made; and
Environmental and animal welfare claims, alleging that advertisers
misrepresent the sustainability or living conditions of the source
of their food products, or that they deceptively market their
packaging as recyclable.

Consumer Packaged Goods

The Consumer Packaged Goods industry (including personal care,
household cleaning, cosmetics, pet, baby, and other consumer
products) faced over 250 advertising class actions in 2021. These
included:

   -- Class actions challenging safety claims and alleging a
failure to disclose alleged health risks;
   -- Cases against manufacturers of sanitizing products,
challenging allegedly deceptive claims that the products kill a
certain percentage of germs; and
   -- Cases involving "natural" claims.

Drugs & Supplements

Although the pandemic continued to rage on in 2021, the focus of
advertising class actions involving drugs & supplements shifted
largely away from immune and COVID-19-related claims this year.
Instead, homeopathic products came under fire. Proskauer
successfully represented the defendant in one such case -- Yamasaki
v. Zicam, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150394 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2021).
Plaintiff challenged Zicam's claims that its cold remedy products
are "clinically proven" to shorten colds. In granting Zicam's
motion to dismiss, the court found that none of plaintiff's
allegations supported a reasonable inference that this claim is
false.

Other trends in drug & supplement advertising class actions
included:

   -- "Natural" cases; and
   -- Claims regarding a product's ability to improve mental acuity
or mental health.

The full report provides further analysis on the above trends, and
much more, including insights into the biggest names in the
plaintiffs' bar, analyses of 2021 trends in advertising class
action resolutions and settlements, and litigation trends in other
industries. [GN]

[*] Senate Bill 47 With FLSA Provisions to Take Effect on July 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward H. Chyun, Esq., Shannon Patton, Esq., Alex Frondorf, Esq.,
and Trevor Hardy, Esq., of Littler, disclosed that Ohio Governor
Mike DeWine signed Senate Bill 47 (SB 47) into law on April 6,
2022. SB 47 goes into effect on July 6, 2022 and includes new Ohio
Revised Code Section 4111.031, which limits an employer's
obligation to pay overtime for certain work-related tasks that
occur outside of the workday. Section 4111.031 largely mirrors
Sections 2 and 4 of the Portal to Portal Act of 1947, an amendment
to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and incorporates the FLSA's
"opt-in" requirement for individuals who seek to join a collective
action involving state-law claims for failure to pay overtime
wages, making both state-law claims for failure to pay overtime or
minimum wage "opt-in" under the Ohio law.1

Exceptions to Overtime Wages – and Some Caveats

The new O.R.C. Section 4111.031 states that employers are not
required to pay overtime wages for any time that employees spend
on:

  -- Walking, riding, or traveling to and from the actual place of
performance of the principal activity or activities that the
employee is employed to perform (e.g., commuting to and from
work);
  -- Activities that are preliminary to or postliminary to the
principal activity or activities (e.g., showering after a shift,
but before going home);
  -- Activities requiring insubstantial or insignificant periods of
time beyond the employee's scheduled work hours (e.g., quickly
checking email after hours).

However, the foregoing exclusion for "preliminary and postliminary"
activities does not apply if the employee performs the tasks: (1)
during the regular workday or prescribed work hours; or (2) at the
specific direction of the employer. Also, none of the foregoing
exclusions apply if the employee performs the activity "pursuant to
an express provision of a written or unwritten contract in effect,
at the time of performance, between the employee or the employee's
agent or collective bargaining representative and the employee's
employer" or if the employee performs the activity pursuant to a
custom or practice applicable to the activity which is not
inconsistent with such a contract. Ohio employers should seek legal
guidance to familiarize themselves with these exceptions.

Adoption of the FLSA's Opt-in Requirement

For employees interested in joining a civil action to recover
allegedly unpaid overtime wages under Ohio law, SB 47 contains
another new provision codified at O.R.C. Section 4111.10(C), which
requires potential party plaintiffs to affirmatively join the
lawsuit by filing a written consent to become a party plaintiff
with the court in which the action is brought. This provision
mirrors the "opt-in" provision found in FLSA Section 216(b).
Presently, Ohio law requires only that plaintiffs pursuing minimum
wage claims "opt in" to the litigation, whereas claims for unpaid
overtime compensation may proceed as a Rule 23 class action,
whereby class members must affirmatively "opt out" of the
litigation if they do not wish to participate. Ohio's adoption of
the FLSA's opt-in provision will prevent future hybrid class and
collective actions in favor of permitting workers to pursue opt-in
collective actions only for alleged unpaid overtime wages.

Conclusion

SB 47 incorporates federal law to further limit the differences
between Ohio and federal overtime laws.  By adopting the "opt-in"
provision in FLSA Section 216(b), SB 47 also streamlines lawsuits
seeking alleged unpaid overtime wages so that Ohio employers will
not face hybrid class/collective actions under Ohio and federal
law.  SB 47 provides employers with a better understanding of their
relationship with their employees and clarifies how employers
should compensate hourly workers who engage in work-related tasks
outside of their normal workday. [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 ***