/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220622.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, June 22, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 118

                            Headlines

AMAZON.COM INC: Shoppers File Class Action Over Prime Membership
AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Hurd Claims
ANAPLAN INC: Stockholder Suit in California Terminated
ARQIT QUANTUM: Vincent Wong Law Office Reminds of July 5 Deadline
ASSESSOR OF VALLEY STREAM: Paolella Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.

AURA BORA: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of July 12 Deadline
BADGLEY MISCHKA: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BINANCE: Faces Class Suit in Calif. Over Terra Stablecoin Crash
BRGR STOP: Faces Smaling Suit Over Unsolicited Sales Calls

BRIGHT HEALTH: Berger Sues for Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
C.R. ENGLAND: Faces Vansickle Suit Over Data Breach
CAREDX INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of July 22 Deadline
CBI DISTRIBUTING: Peralta Sues Over Untimely Payment of Wages
CENGAGE LEARNING: Kleiner Appeals Case Dismissal to 1st Cir.

CLASSIC PREP CHILDRENSWEAR: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CLEAN ADVANTAGE: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended in Bruno
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Aguilo Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Stays Diaz Class Action
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Opioid Abuse

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Edwards Labor Suit in California Court
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settlement in Nevarez Suit Gets Final Nod
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settlement of CA Labor Suit for Court Approval
CREATIVE VENTURES: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Ross Sues Over Unlawful Repossession Notices

DEERE & CO: Hapka Farms Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 1 Deadline
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 1 Deadline
DIGITAL TURBINE: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 5 Deadline
DIGITAL TURBINE: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 5 Deadline

DOUGLAS COMPANY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DULCE TATI: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EHEALTHINSURANCE SERVICES: Faces Ong Labor Suit in California
ELECTRIC BIKE: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ENERGY TRANSFER: Faces Vega Suit Over Share Price Drop

ENERGY TRANSFER: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 2 Deadline
ENERGY TRANSFER: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Jackin FDCPA Suit
EQUINE NETWORK: Davis Files Suit in E.D. Michigan
GOLDTHREAD LLC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

GOOGLE LLC: Settles Gender Discrimination Class Action for $118-MM
HAND HOSPITALITY: Faces Son Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
HESS BAKKEN INVESTMENTS: Penman Files Suit in D. North Dakota
HIGHLAND HILL: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
HIPCAMP INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

HOMESICK BVG: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HUNDREDS IS HUGE: Class Settlement in Murphy Suit Gets Prelim. OK
IN PRIVATE INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KIDS FOR THE FUTURE: Faces Wallace Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
KROGER CO: FOTE's Bid for Summary Judgment in White Suit Granted

KYTE SYSTEMS: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Davis Suit
MIDLAND FUNDING: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Sandoval Suit
MIMA USA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MINES PRESS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

MSCS FINANCIAL: Unlawfully Retains Mutual Fund Fees, MBA Says
MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Kaskela Law Announces Securities Class Action
NCINO INC: Faces Putative Class Suit in North Carolina
NETFLIX INC: Vincent Wong Law Office Reminds of July 5 Deadline
NUTANIX INC: Faces Norton Shareholder Suit in California Court

NUTANIX INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in California Court
OKTA INC: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of July 19 Deadline
OKTA INC: Vincent Wong Law Office Reminds of July 19 Deadline
ORACLE CORP: Women Employees May Lose Pay Bias Class Action
OSCAR HEALTH: Johnson Fistel Reminds of July 11 Deadline

PAPA JOHN'S: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Bazemore Suit Claims
PARKER HANNIFIN: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Harris Says
PATTERSON COS: $1.6MM in Attys.' Fees & Costs Awarded in Plymouth
PEGASYSTEMS INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of July 18 Deadline
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Smith Suit Removed to M.D. Alabama

PUERTO RICO AQUEDUCTS: Maldonado-Gonzalez's TRO Request Denied
QYST INC: District Court Approves $25K Settlement in Short Suit
RIPLEY OPERATOR: Campbell Sues Over Failure to Pay CNAs' Overtime
RYZE CLAIM: $315K Class Settlement in Billings Suit Wins Final OK
SAVE OLD GROWTH: Class Suit Mulled Against Road Blockades' Protests

SPICE ALLIANCE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
STEIFF NORTH AMERICA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Value Drug Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
TELADOC HEALTH: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 5 Deadline
TP APPAREL: Faces Maddy Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

TWITTER INC: Faces Privacy Class Action Lawsuit in California
USAA GENERAL: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Berardi and Smith Suits
VERRICA PHARMA: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 5 Deadline
VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Robbins LLP Reminds of August 5 Deadline
WALMART INC: Court Dismisses Brito-Munoz's Amended Class Complaint


                            *********

AMAZON.COM INC: Shoppers File Class Action Over Prime Membership
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Rosenblatt, writing for The Seattle Times, reports that
Amazon could be facing two legal challenges from shoppers who say
the company misled them and violated state law when it ended free
delivery from Whole Foods Market for Prime members.

Two groups of shoppers separately filed proposed class action
lawsuits against the company in May and June, one accusing Amazon
of breaching its contract by taking away a benefit of the Prime
membership without lowering the subscription price or offering a
refund, and the other arguing Amazon hid extra fees in order to
"bamboozle" customers.

Amazon "pulled the rug out from its customers" in October 2021 when
it ended an offer for free delivery for Prime members on Whole
Foods orders over $35, one lawsuit read. Since then, hundreds of
thousands of shoppers paid for "a service that was unfairly
terminated."

Since acquiring Whole Foods in 2017, Amazon had said under its
ownership the grocery store would expand access to high-quality and
affordable food for its customers, particularly Prime members who
would receive "special savings and in-store benefits."

In February 2018, when Amazon first announced it would offer free
two-hour delivery for Prime members on grocery orders over $35,
Whole Foods Market co-founder and CEO John Mackey said the two
companies "have already lowered prices on many items, and this
offering makes Prime customers' lives even easier."

That April, it increased the price of a Prime membership from $99
to $119 annually, the first increase since 2014, when it went up
from $79 to $99.

Three years later, in September 2021, Amazon told shoppers through
an email blast it was ending free delivery for Prime members, and
tacking on a $9.95 service fee for all grocery orders.

This May, two Prime shoppers from California sued Amazon in a
federal district court in Seattle, accusing the ecommerce company
of violating Washington's Consumer Protection Act when it stopped
offering the free grocery delivery.

The free drop-offs were a "key perk" of Amazon's Prime membership
offerings, the lawsuit read. Amazon ended the benefit after it
increased the price of Prime but without offering Prime members a
refund or an easy way to cancel their subscription as a result of
the change, the plaintiffs argue.

"Amazon has engaged in unfair business practices, breached its duty
of good faith and deprived Prime members of the benefit of their
bargain," the lawsuit read.

The lawsuit comes months after Amazon again raised the price of a
Prime membership, this time from $119 to $139 annually, or from
$12.99 to $14.99 monthly.

In both instances, Chief Financial Officer Brian Olsavsky told
shareholders and consumers the extra cost was coming with extra
benefits. In 2018, he said the price increase was a "natural
consequence" of new perks, pointing specifically to free deliveries
for Whole Foods orders over $35. In February, he championed access
to stream Thursday Night Football and "The Lord of the Rings: The
Rings of Power," as well as the expansion of one-day shipping for
some items.

"It's not a static program," he said on a call with investors.
"We'll continue to add faster shipping, greater video and other
features. . . . We're pretty confident in the value proposition of
our Prime offering."

This year, Olsavsky said the increased price would also bring in
more funds to offset rising expenses related to inflation,
transportation and wages.

Sales from subscription services, including Amazon Prime, increased
11% in the first three months of 2022, compared to the same time
period the year before. That quarter, subscription sales totaled
$8.4 billion, up from $8.1 billion at the start of 2021.

Another Prime member, also in California, sued Amazon separately on
June 7, accusing the company of misleading shoppers with ads that
promised free delivery from Whole Foods as a perk of their Prime
subscription.

Despite ads in print, on TV and displayed on Amazon's own website,
the company tacks on a "hidden delivery fee" as customers move
through the shopping process, the lawsuit alleges, referring to the
$9.95 service fee.

Amazon also automatically adds a $5 tip on each order. That tip is
optional but the text telling customers how to opt-out is small and
hard to find, the lawsuit says.

The practice of initially advertising one price and then revealing
service fees and other charges at the end of a transaction is
called "drip pricing," according to the Federal Trade Commission.

Shoppers "would have wanted to know, as would any reasonable
person, that [Amazon] charges a service fee in connection with
grocery deliveries from Whole Foods Market," the lawsuit read. "And
this information would have changed their and any reasonable
customer's decision to purchase" from Whole Foods in the first
place.

The class action lawsuits, both of which are filed in the U.S.
District Court for Western Washington, could include thousands of
Prime members.

Amazon and Whole Foods could not be reached for comment, nor could
the plaintiff who filed the most recent lawsuit. The shoppers who
sued in May declined to comment through their lawyer, Thiago Coelho
from Wilshire Law Firm. [GN]

AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Hurd Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, RICHARD HURD, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 9:22-cv-03451 (E.D.N.Y., June 10, 2022) arises
from the Defendant's alleged unlawful corporate-wide policies and
practices that violated the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Crew Member and as
a Maintenance Technician from July 2, 2021 until December 23,
2021.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action alleging the
Defendant of failure to timely pay him and other similarly situated
manual workers' wages. Instead of paying on a weekly basis, the
Defendant paid them on a bi-weekly basis.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated manual workers have all been injured as a result of the
Defendant's pay policies, practices, and patterns of conduct. Thus,
on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated manual
workers, the Plaintiff seeks to recover the amount of
underpayments, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the
Court shall deem just and proper, says the suit.

American Multi-Cinema, Inc. operates a movie theater. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
          675 Third Ave., Suite 1810
          New York, NY
          Tel: (718) 669-0714
          E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com

ANAPLAN INC: Stockholder Suit in California Terminated
------------------------------------------------------
Anaplan, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 2, 2022, that a putative class action complaint
was filed against the company but was terminated in September
2021.

In August 24, 2020, a purported stockholder of the company filed a
putative securities class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned
"Grobler v. Anaplan, Inc., et al.," 3:20-cv-05959, against the
company and certain of the company's executive officers.

The court appointed a lead plaintiff on November 12, 2020, and on
January 6, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
captioned "Sakkal v. Anaplan, Inc., et al." The amended complaint
alleged violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, purportedly on behalf
of all persons who purchased Anaplan, Inc. securities between
November 21, 2019, and February 26, 2020, inclusive. The claims
were based upon allegations that the defendants misrepresented
and/or omitted material information in certain of the company's
prior public filings regarding the business, operations and
prospects of the company.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 8, 2021. On August 31, 2021, the court entered an order
dismissing the amended complaint without prejudice. On September
21, 2021, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal
whereby the lead plaintiff agreed not to further litigate the case,
and the Court subsequently terminated the case.

Anaplan, Inc., based in California, provides a cloud-based
Connected Planning platform using a software-as-a-service model.


ARQIT QUANTUM: Vincent Wong Law Office Reminds of July 5 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Attention Arqit Quantum Inc. f/k/a Centricus Acquisition Corp.
("Arqit Quantum Inc. f/k/a Centricus Acquisition Corp.") (NASDAQ:
ARQQ) shareholders:

The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 13 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors. This lawsuit
is on behalf of: (i) all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Arqit securities between September 7, 2021 and
April 18, 2022, inclusive; and/or (ii) all holders of Centricus
securities as of the record date for the special meeting of
shareholders held on August 31, 2021 to consider approval of the
merger between Arqit and Centricus (the "Merger") and entitled to
vote on the Merger.

If you suffered a loss on your investment in Arqit Quantum Inc.
f/k/a Centricus Acquisition Corp., contact us about potential
recovery by using the link below. There is no cost or obligation to
you.

https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/arqit-quantum-inc-f-k-a-centricus-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=28379&wire=4

ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Arqit Quantum Inc. f/k/a
Centricus Acquisition Corp. includes allegations that the Company
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Arqit's proposed encryption technology would
require widespread adoption of new protocols and standards for
telecommunications; (2) British cybersecurity officials questioned
the viability of Arqit's proposed encryption technology in a
meeting in 2020; (3) the British government was not an Arqit
customer but, rather, providing grants to Arqit; (4) Arqit had
little more than an early-stage prototype of its encryption system
at the time of the Merger; and (5) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

DEADLINE: July 5, 2022
Aggrieved Arqit Quantum Inc. f/k/a Centricus Acquisition Corp.
investors only have until July 5, 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]

ASSESSOR OF VALLEY STREAM: Paolella Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Assessor of the
City of Valley Stream, et al. The case is styled as James Paolella,
all other similarly situated Petitioners on the annexed SCHEDULE A,
Petitioners v. The Assessor of the Village of Valley Stream, The
Board of Assessment Review of the Village of Valley Stream,
Respondents, Case No. 607555/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., June
10, 2022).

The case type is stated as "SP-CPLR Article 78 (Body or Officer)."

Valley Stream -- https://www.vsvny.org/ -- is a village in Nassau
County, New York, United States.[BN]

The Petitioner is represented by:

          MAIDENBAUM & STERNBERG LLP
          132 Spruce Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516


AURA BORA: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aura Bora, Inc. The
case is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Aura
Bora, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03430-ARR-TAM (E.D.N.Y., June 10,
2022).

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

Aura Bora -- https://aurabora.com/ -- is a sparkling water made
from real herbs, fruits, and flowers for earthly tastes and
heavenly feelings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


AXSOME THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of July 12 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Attention Axsome Therapeutics, Inc. ("Axsome") (NASDAQ: AXSM)
shareholders:

The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 13 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased
between December 30, 2019 and April 22, 2022.

If you suffered a loss on your investment in Axsome, contact us
about potential recovery by using the link below. There is no cost
or obligation to you.
https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/axsome-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=28385&wire=4

ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Axsome includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Axsome's
chemistry, manufacturing, and control ("CMC") practices were
deficient with respect to AXS-07, the Company's medicine for the
acute treatment of migraine, and its manufacturing process; (ii) as
a result, Axsome was unlikely to submit the AXS-07 New Drug
Application ("NDA") on its initially represented timeline; (iii)
the foregoing CMC issues remained unresolved at the time that the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") reviewed the AXS-07 NDA;
(iv) accordingly, the FDA was unlikely to approve the AXS-07 NDA;
(v) as a result of all the foregoing, Axsome had overstated
AXS-07's regulatory and commercial prospects; and (vi) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

DEADLINE: July 12, 2022

Aggrieved Axsome investors only have until July 12, 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]

BADGLEY MISCHKA: Lawal Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Badgley Mischka
Licensing, LLC. The case is styled as Rafia Lawal, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Badgley Mischka
Licensing, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04870-MKV (S.D.N.Y., June 10,
2022).

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

Badgley Mischka Licensing LLC -- http://www.badgleymischka.com/--
provides women apparel and accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
          701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Phone: (845) 367-7146
          Fax: (732) 298-6256
          Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


BINANCE: Faces Class Suit in Calif. Over Terra Stablecoin Crash
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Kessler and Oliver Knight, writing for CoinDesk, report that
"Those of you waiting for the earth to become unstable - I'm afraid
you will be waiting until the age of men expires."

These confident words tweeted by Terra blockchain founder Do Kwon
sought to convince crypto investors to put their trust (and money)
into terraUSD (UST), a stablecoin that Kwon promised would always
stay priced at exactly $1. Unfortunately, Kwon's confidence was not
enough to save UST and the rest of Terra as his entire project
dropped to zero.

Now, over 2,000 Terra investors say false marketing is what caused
them to lose their money.

In a class-action lawsuit filed on June 13 in The United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, centralized
cryptocurrency exchange Binance.US has been accused of misleading
investors surrounding the Terra blockchain ecosystem.

The suit marks the first major U.S.-based court filing relating to
Terra, whose UST and LUNC tokens wiped out around $40 billion in
investor funds when they crashed to pennies last month.

The suit, which was filled by U.S.-based law firm Roche Freedman
LLP, alleges that Binance.US marketed Terra's dollar-based UST as
more stable than it actually was. According to the suit, when UST
and its sister token luna classic (LUNC) crashed to zero in May,
thousands of unsuspecting retail investors were caught completely
off guard. Misleading advertising is what the suit says is to blame
for those losses.

The lawsuit also alleges that Binance.US is not registered as a
broker-deal or an exchange, which may be in violation of securities
law after it listed what might be an unregistered security in UST.

The suit is also aimed at Binance.US CEO Brian Shroder.
In a statement provided to CoinDesk, Kyle Roche, one of Roche
Freedman's founding partners, said "Binance U.S. recklessly listed
and promoted UST as a 'safe' stablecoin to those seeking to avoid
the volatility of other cryptocurrencies. They, as well as other
exchanges that listed UST, should be held accountable."

Binance.US disputes the allegations made in the lawsuit.
"Binance.US is registered by FinCEN and adheres to all applicable
regulations. These assertions are without merit and we will defend
ourselves vigorously," the company said in a statement to
CoinDesk.

While a successful suit would send chills down the spines of some
decentralized finance (DeFi) founders and centralized exchange
CEOs, it would embolden DeFi advocates who think decentralized
tools for participating in crypto finance -- rather than
centralized exchanges -- are necessary to avoid government
censorship and burdensome regulations moving forward.

The Terra crash
Along with seasoned big-money backers like Hashed and Jump Crypto,
the Terra collapse drained the wallets of thousands of unsuspecting
retail investors. In the days following Terra's decline, its
largest Reddit forum was filled with accounts of suicides (and
above them, extensive resources on how those struggling could find
help).

The forum also featured criticism of Terra's highly vocal
co-founder -- Do Kwon. Kwon, according to some Terra watchers, is
primarily to blame for hyping up the promise that UST would always
sit safely at $1. Just as he was making brash assurances around the
security of UST, Kwon was building a system that onlookers like
Kevin Zhou of crypto hedge fund Galois Capital said was built to
fail.

Upon these questionable foundations, Kwon nonetheless promoted the
safety of UST (and its luna sister token) ceaselessly across social
media -- loudly dismissing critics like Zhou. Even as UST first
began to wobble off of its $1 peg (just a few days before it
ultimately crashed), Kwon tweeted "Anon, you could listen to CT
influensooors about UST depegging for the 69th time, Or you could
remember they're all now poor, and go for a run instead."

Deriding critics with adjectives like "poor" was not out of
character for Kwon, but the founder was unusually silent for
several days as his ecosystem eventually cratered.
The question now is whether Kwon or his company will ultimately
join Binance.US in facing potential legal penalties for their role
in promoting Terra.

A government panel is already awaiting Kwon in his native South
Korea, and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has
been nipping at Terraform Labs' heels for years. Kwon has
reportedly been living in Singapore for the last several months,
but the lawsuit adds to the evidence that Kwon will soon face legal
battles around the world.

Even so, Kwon's Terraform Labs -- which held a central role in
creating the Terra ecosystem -- has yet to face a class-action
lawsuit like this one.

Apparently, it won't have to wait for long.
According to FatMan -- a member of the Terra Research Forum and a
vocal critic of Terra with a large Twitter following -- a suit
against Terraform Labs is also coming, and it is likely to look
similar to this one.

FatMan helped orchestrate the June 13 suit by organizing a group of
2,000 aggrieved Terra investors who allege they were misled by a
number of entities.

FatMan told CoinDesk: "We will begin by filing mass arbitrations &
class actions against the various exchanges. I will be helping them
with some outreach (connecting to victims) but I have no real
special role in the exchange suits. Then soon after we will file
against TFL/Jump."

On the Binance.US suit, they added: "Centralized exchanges have
become highly accessible to the general public -- even my parents
use them -- and as such, it is virtually a moral imperative for
them to uphold a high standard of truth and risk disclosure.
Telling people an asset is fiat-backed when it is not is
fraudulent.

"Telling people a coin is 1:1 pegged to the US dollar and selling
it alongside USDC and USDT without the relevant risk disclosures is
scummy. People were roped in with siren calls of 'safe, stable
yields' -- but no attempt to help them actually understand what
they were buying was made. This is morally unconscionable, and, in
my opinion, it should be illegal."

Looking ahead

Should the suit succeed, it will prove monumental in defining the
legal status of DeFi, which has thus far avoided clear regulations
or heavy government oversight.

Moreover, the fact that the suit seeks to hold a centralized
exchange culpable for a token's advertising -- rather than the
organization that launched it -- will hold wide implications for
the shape of DeFi moving forward. It may portend a world where
centralized exchanges are forced to more closely vet the tokens
they support on their platforms. [GN]

BRGR STOP: Faces Smaling Suit Over Unsolicited Sales Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH SMALING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BRGR STOP CONCEPTS, LLC d/b/a BRGR STOP,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-008114 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial,
Broward Cty., June 3, 2022) is an action against the Defendant
asserting a class action claim for monetary and treble damages
pursuant to the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant made or caused to be made
calls and/ or sent texts into Florida without the requisite "prior
express written consent" in violation of the FTSA. The purpose of
Defendant's telephonic sales call was solely to solicit the sale of
consumer goods and/or services, says the suit.

The complaint further asserts that Defendant's unsolicited text
messages caused Plaintiff harm, including invasion of privacy,
aggravation, and annoyance. Defendant's call also inconvenienced
Plaintiff, caused disruptions to Plaintiffs daily life, and caused
Plaintiff to waste time dealing with Defendant's unsolicited text
message/calls.

BRGR Stop Concepts, LLC, d/b/a BRGR STOP, is a gourmet burger bar
and gastropub.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy Dover, Esq.   
          DEMESMIN & DOVER, PLLC
          1650 SE 17th Street, Suite 100
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (866) 954-6673
          Facsimile (954) 916-8499
          E-mail: dover@attorneysoftheinjured.com

BRIGHT HEALTH: Berger Sues for Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
---------------------------------------------------------
PAUL BERGER, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
holders of BRIGHT HEALTH GROUP, INC., Plaintiff v. KENDRICK D.
ADKINS, JR., NAOMI ALLEN, LINDA GOODEN, JEFFREY R. IMMELT, MANUEL
KADRE, STEVEN KRAUS, MOHAMAD MAKHZOUMI, MATTHEW G. MANDERS, G. MIKE
MIKAN, ADAIR NEWHALL, ROBERT J. SHEEHY, ANDREW SLAVITT, and BRIGHT
HEALTH GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2022-0487 (Del. Ch., June
3, 2022) is a verified complaint brought by the Plaintiff for
declarative and injunctive relief against the BHG board of
directors for their breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with
their approval of BHG's entry into an Investment Agreement with
entities affiliated with New Enterprise Associates and Cigna
Corporation.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff brings this action to
compel the termination of the Investment Agreement as it
constitutes an abuse of corporate power by BHG's fiduciaries.
Allegedly, the Board used that Agreement to entrench itself by
insulating the Board from potential challenges from unknown,
unidentified, and purely hypothetical "activist" stockholders by
contractually barring NEA and Cigna, who with individual members of
the Board, now control over 50% of the outstanding shares of the
Company, from mounting any challenges to the Board or Company
management or even communicating with other "activist"
shareholders, says the suit.

Following BHG's initial public offering last June, the Company has
performed poorly, and its stock price has fallen in kind. In
response, BHG's Board has sought to immunize itself from any
attempts to replace them or Company management, adds the suit.

The Plaintiff owns shares of BHG common stock, and has continuously
owned BHG common stock since August 3, 2021.

Bright Health Group, Inc. is a health insurance company
incorporated in Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Barry, Esq.
          Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq.
          John C. Kairis, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street, 7th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000

C.R. ENGLAND: Faces Vansickle Suit Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------
JIM VANSICKLE, an individual on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C.R. ENGLAND, INC., a Utah
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00374-DBP (D. Utah, June
3, 2022) is brought against the Defendant for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of contract, including the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment,
invasion of privacy, violations of the California Consumer Privacy
Act and the Unfair Competition Law, and declaratory judgment and
injunctive relief.

On October 30, 2021, C.R. England discovered that it lost control
over at least 224,572 former and current students' and employees'
highly sensitive personal records in a data breach by
cybercriminals. Upon information and belief, the stolen personal
identifying information included, at least, students' and
employees' names and Social Security numbers, says the suit.

According to the complaint, C.R. England's misconduct has injured
the Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class in a number of
ways, including: (i) the lost or diminished value of their personal
identifying information; (ii) costs associated with the prevention,
detection, and recovery from identity theft, tax fraud, and other
unauthorized use of their data; (iii) lost opportunity costs to
mitigate the data breach's consequences, including lost time; and
(iv) emotional distress associated with the loss of control over
their highly sensitive personal identifying information.

Mr. Vansickle is a former C.R. England student and employee and his
personal identifying information was compromised by the alleged
data breach.

C.R. England is a national refrigerated carrier and trucker
training school.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason R. Hull, Esq.
          Trevor C. Lang, Esq.
          MARSHALL OLSON & HULL, PC
          Newhouse Building
          Ten Exchange Place, Suite 350
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 456-7655
          E-mail: jhull@mohtrial.com
                  tlang@mohtrial.com

               - and -

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

CAREDX INC: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of July 22 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Attention CareDx, Inc. ("CareDx") (NASDAQ: CDNA) shareholders:

The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 13 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors. This lawsuit
is on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased CareDx common
stock between February 24, 2021, and May 5, 2022.

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

https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/caredx-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=28388&wire=4

ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against CareDx includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
defendants had engaged in a variety of improper and illegal schemes
to inflate testing services revenue and demand, including pushing a
surveillance protocol through inaccurate marketing materials,
offering extravagant inducements or kickbacks to physicians and
other providers, and improperly bundling expensive testing services
with other blood tests as part of the Company's RemoTraC service
for remote, home-based, blood-drawing; (2) these practices, and
others, subjected CareDx to an undisclosed risk of regulatory
scrutiny; (3) these practices rendered the Company's testing
services revenue reported throughout the class period artificially
inflated; and (4) as a result, defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

DEADLINE: July 22, 2022

Aggrieved CareDx investors only have until July 22, 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]

CBI DISTRIBUTING: Peralta Sues Over Untimely Payment of Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
KIARA PERALTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CBI DISTRIBUTING CORP., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-04864 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2022) is a class action complaint
brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant from approximately
November 2018 to June 2021 as a manual laborer.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay her and
other similarly situated manual laborers on a timely basis as
required by NYLL Section 191(1)(a). The Plaintiff seeks to recover
from the Defendant the amount of their untimely paid wages as
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and pre-
and post-judgment interest.

CBI Distributing Corp. owns and operates a chain of Claire's retail
stores. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CENGAGE LEARNING: Kleiner Appeals Case Dismissal to 1st Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Fred Kleiner filed an appeal from a court ruling entered
in the lawsuit entitled FRED KLEINER, Plaintiff, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. CENGAGE LEARNING
HOLDINGS II, INC., CENGAGE LEARNING, INC., and DOE AFFILIATED
ENTITIES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-10245-RGS, in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
Boston.

This is an action filed on February 14, 2022 pursuant to Chapter
93A of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, and the common
law, arising out of the unfair and deceptive practices engaged in
by Cengage -- publishers of textbooks and other learning products
authored by individuals like Plaintiff, Dr. Fred Kleiner.

Acting on his own behalf and on behalf of similarly-situated
parties, Dr. Kleiner seeks to rectify Defendants' unfair and
deceptive royalty-reporting practices, which are designed to
conceal from authors that Defendants systematically underreport and
underpay royalties due and owed to Class Members, in the range of
10-30% of the royalties earned. Based on Cengage's annual reported
revenues approaching $1.5 billion, and typical royalties amounts
due to authors of 8-12% on sales, Cengage's practices conceal the
underreporting of $12-$18 million, annually, in underpaid
royalties, says the suit.

On April 11, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim which the Court granted on May 25, 2022,
through an Order entered by Judge Richard G. Stearns.

The Plaintiff seeks a review of this ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as Kleiner v. Cengage Learning
Holdings II, Inc., et al., Case No. 22-1451, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on June 6, 2022.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that appearance
form and docketing statement are due today, June 22, 2022.[BN]

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

          Edward Vincent Colbert, III, Esq.
          CASNER & EDWARDS LLP
          303 Congress St
          Boston, MA 02210-0000
          Telephone: (617) 426-5900

               - and -

          David Slarskey, Esq.
          Richard Weingarten, Esq.
          SLARSKEY LLC
          420 Lexington Ave., Ste 2525
          New York, NY 10170
          Telephone: (212) 658-0661  

Defendants-Appellees CENGAGE LEARNING HOLDINGS II, INC. and CENGAGE
LEARNING, INC. are represented by:

          Michael H. Gibson, Esq.
          Alanna B. Newman, Esq.
          SATTERLEE STEPHENS BURKE & BURKE LLP
          230 Park Ave
          New York, NY 10169-0000
          Telephone: (212) 404-8726

               - and -

          Michael Ross Gottfried, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          100 High St Ste 2400
          Boston, MA 02110-1724
          Telephone: (857) 488-4212

CLASSIC PREP CHILDRENSWEAR: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Classic Prep
Childrenswear, Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Classic Prep Childrenswear, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04872 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 10, 2022).

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

Classic Prep Childrenswear -- https://classicprep.com/ -- designs
and manufactures classic, preppy kids' clothes of exceptional
quality for babies and toddlers to tweens.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


CLEAN ADVANTAGE: Filing of Class Cert Bid Extended in Bruno
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vasquez Bruno v. Clean
Advantage Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-00816 (D.D.C.), the Hon.
Judge Amit P. Mehta entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion for extension of time to file motion for class
certification.

The deadline for filing a motion for class certification is stayed
until the initial scheduling conference, says Judge Mehta.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
involving denial of overtime compensation

Clean Advantage is a janitorial company that delivers cleaning and
disinfection services for commercial and residential sectors.[CC]


COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Aguilo Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AALIYAH AGUILO, et al., Plaintiffs v. COGNIZANT
TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS U.S. CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
8:21-cv-2054-KKM-AEP (M.D. Fla.), Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa
Division, grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

I. Background

Based on a written contract, Cognizant provided content moderation
services to Facebook. Those services involved reviewing media
content reported by Facebook's users and removing any content that
violated Facebook's terms of use--in other words, moderating
Facebook's content. While content moderation can be done either
electronically using algorithms or through human review, Cognizant
provided the latter kind.

To determine if the content violated Facebook's terms of use,
Cognizant's content moderators reviewed large amounts of graphic
and vile content posted on Facebook--such as murders, tortures,
child pornography, and rapes. Early in 2020, Cognizant shut down
its operations, including its Tampa location, and terminated all
its content moderators.

On Feb. 5, 2020, 13 former Cognizant content moderators filed a
putative class action against both Cognizant and Facebook in state
court, which Cognizant then removed to federal court --
Garrett-Alfred v. Facebook, Inc., No. 8:20-cv-0585 (M.D. Fla.
2020). The plaintiffs in that action, who purported to represent a
class of all Cognizant-employed content moderators in Florida and
Arizona, alleged that Cognizant failed to disclose the inherent
dangers associated with content moderation and that the plaintiffs
suffered from PTSD and other physical and psychological harms from
reviewing large amounts of graphic content.

The plaintiffs in that first action asserted claims against
Cognizant for fraudulent concealment or fraudulent
misrepresentation and for violating FDUPTA. The Court dismissed the
plaintiffs' FDUPTA claim with prejudice and the fraudulent
concealment or fraudulent misrepresentation claim without
prejudice. While the plaintiffs did not bring a separate medical
monitoring claim, the dismissal order explained that, even if they
had separately alleged a medical monitoring claim, the claim was
most likely inapplicable to the alleged facts. The plaintiffs in
the prior action never sought leave to amend.

Instead, on July 27, 2021, 131 former employees who worked at
Cognizant's Tampa location, including the 13 named plaintiffs from
the first action, brought the present action against Cognizant in
state court. The Plaintiffs jointly assert one claim for fraudulent
concealment or fraudulent misrepresentation (as in the former
action) and one standalone claim for medical monitoring.

The Plaintiffs' theory of liability remains the same as the
putative class action: They seek damages and a medical monitoring
fund to treat "the psychological trauma and related physical
injuries" Cognizant caused by "deliberately concealing" and
"fraudulently misrepresenting" to the Plaintiffs the known dangers
of long-term and unmitigated content moderation.

Cognizant removed the action, and moves to dismiss the Complaint
with prejudice. The Plaintiffs oppose that motion.

II. Analysis

Cognizant argues that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim either
for fraudulent concealment and fraudulent misrepresentation (Count
I) or medical monitoring (Count II). As to the former, Cognizant
argues that the Complaint lacks sufficient facts to satisfy the
particularity requirements of Rule 9(b). Further, Cognizant
contends that the fraudulent concealment claim fails because
Cognizant owed Plaintiffs no duty to disclose this information and,
regardless, a reasonable person exercising due diligence would know
that repeated exposure to graphic content could negatively impact
mental health. As for medical monitoring, Cognizant argues that
claim fails because Florida law does not recognize medical
monitoring for psychological harms and because Plaintiffs fail to
adequately allege facts supporting each element.

Judge Mizelle concludes that the Plaintiffs' fraudulent concealment
and fraudulent misrepresentation claim fails to comply with Rule
9(b) as to each individual Plaintiff and is dismissed on that
basis. Additionally, the fraudulent concealment claim fails because
-- as currently alleged -- Cognizant had no duty to disclose the
dangers of content moderation to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs
also fail to state a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation.
Finally, the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for medical
monitoring because Florida courts have not applied medical
monitoring to claims based on psychological harm and because they
fail to adequately allege the elements of a medical monitoring
claim.

III. Disposition

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Mizelle grants the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss. She dismisses the Plaintiffs' claim for
fraudulent concealment and fraudulent misrepresentation against the
Defendant without prejudice. She dismisses the Plaintiffs' claim
for medical monitoring against the Defendant is with prejudice.

If the Plaintiffs elect to proceed in the action, they must file an
amended complaint no later than June 24, 2022.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/44e4zhfb from Leagle.com.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Stays Diaz Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2022, that in March
2022, an employee filed a class action against the company alleging
violations of the California Labor Code regarding the failure to
pay wages, provide meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, timely pay final wages, and reimburse business expenses
under case captioned "Diaz v. Costco Wholesale Corp.," Case No.
22STCV09513, Los Angeles Superior Court.

The Court stayed the case, including the company's filing of a
responsive pleading, pending the initial status conference.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington corporation, operates
membership warehouses and e-commerce websites.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Opioid Abuse
-----------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2022, that it is
named in a consolidated multi-district litigation captioned "In re
National Prescription Opiate Litigation," MDL No. 2804, N.D. Ohio.

Beginning in December 2017, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation consolidated numerous cases concerning the
impacts of opioid abuses filed against various defendants by
counties, cities, hospitals, Native American tribes, third-party
payers, and others.

Included are cases that name the company, including actions filed
by counties and cities in Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon, Virginia
and South Carolina, a third-party payer in Ohio, and a hospital in
Texas, class actions filed on behalf of infants born with
opioid-related medical conditions in 40 states, and class actions
and individual actions filed on behalf of individuals seeking to
recover alleged increased insurance costs associated with opioid
abuse in 43 states and American Samoa. Claims against the company
in state courts in New Jersey, Oklahoma, Utah, and Arizona have
been dismissed.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington corporation, operates
membership warehouses and e-commerce websites.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Edwards Labor Suit in California Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2022, that it is
facing a labor suit captioned "Edwards v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,"
Case No. 5:21-cv-00716 (C.D. Cal.).

In February 2021, a former employee filed a class action against
the company alleging violations of California Labor Code regarding
payment of wages, meal and rest periods, wage statements,
reimbursement of expenses, payment of final wages to terminated
employees, and for unfair business practices.

In May 2021, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
which was granted with leave to amend. In June 2021, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint, which the company moved to dismiss
later that month. The court granted the motion in part in July 2021
with leave to amend.

In August 2021, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint and
filed a separate representative action under PAGA asserting the
same Labor Code claims and seeking civil penalties and attorneys'
fees. The company filed an answer to the second amended class
action complaint, denying the material allegations.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington corporation, operates
membership warehouses and e-commerce websites.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settlement in Nevarez Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2022, that the court
granted a settlement a March 2019 employees' class action captioned
"Nevarez v. Costco Wholesale Corp.," Case No. 2:19-cv-03454 (C.D.
Cal.) against the company alleging claims under California law for
failure to pay overtime, to provide meal and rest periods and
itemized wage statements, to timely pay wages due to terminating
employees, to pay minimum wages, and for unfair business practices
and sought, under the California Labor Code, civil penalties and
attorneys' fees.

The company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the
complaint. In December 2019, the court issued an order denying
class certification. In January 2020, the plaintiffs dismissed
their Labor Code claims without prejudice, and the court remanded
the action to state court. Settlement for an immaterial amount was
agreed upon in February 2021. Final court approval of the
settlement was granted on May 3, 2022.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington corporation, operates
membership warehouses and e-commerce websites.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Settlement of CA Labor Suit for Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2022, that a
settlement for a class action against the company alleging
violations of the California Labor Code filed in September 2021 by
an employee captioned "De Benning v. Costco Wholesale Corp.," Case
No. 34-2021-00309030-CU-OE-GDS, Sacramento Superior Court, was
agreed upon and subject to court approval.

Said action alleges violations of the California Labor Code
regarding the alleged failure to provide sick pay, failure to
timely pay wages due at separation from employment, and for
violations of California's unfair competition law. The company
answered the complaint in January 2022, denying its material
allegations. In April 2022, a settlement for an immaterial amount
was agreed upon, subject to court approval.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington corporation, operates
membership warehouses and e-commerce websites.


CREATIVE VENTURES: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Creative Ventures,
Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Davis, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Creative Ventures, Inc., Case
No. 1:22-cv-04869 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2022).

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

Creative Ventures -- https://creativeventures.vc/ -- is a deep tech
venture firm investing in early-stage companies solving humanity's
most critical crises.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Ross Sues Over Unlawful Repossession Notices
---------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS ROSS, JAMAL MOORE, ROBERT SMITH and REGINA SMITH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
220600443 (Pa. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., June 3, 2022) is a
consumer class action brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated people, who have had their motor
vehicle repossessed by the Defendant in Pennsylvania and were
subsequently sent a post-repossession consumer disclosure notice
and/or post-sale explanation of deficiency notice.

The complaint seeks monetary relief in the form of minimum
statutory damages to address an unlawful and deceptive pattern of
wrongdoing by CAC, which includes failure to comply with the strict
statutory requirements of the Uniform Commercial Code,
independently, and in pari materia with the state's Motor Vehicle
Sales Finance Act, regarding notices of repossession and post-sale
notices, says the suit.

Credit Acceptance Corporation is an auto finance company providing
automobile loans and other related financial products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard Shenkan, Esq.
          SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
          P.O. Box 7255
          New Castle, PA 16107
          Telephone: (412) 716-5800
          Facsimile: (888) 769-1774

DEERE & CO: Hapka Farms Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Hapka Farms, Inc., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Deere & Co. doing business as:
John Deere, Case No. 0:22-cv-00503 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 10, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-50203 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust for Antitrust
Litigation.

Deere & Co. doing business as John Deere --
https://www.deere.com/en/index.html -- is an American corporation
that manufactures agricultural machinery, heavy equipment, forestry
machinery, diesel engines, drivetrains used in heavy equipment, and
lawn care equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          E1250 First National Bank Bldg.
          332 Minnesota Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Phone: (651) 287-2100
          Email: r.yard@rwblawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Benjamin L. Ellison, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          90 South Seventh Street, Suite 4950
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 217-8800
          Email: bellison@jonesday.com


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 1 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 12
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Dentsply Sirona Inc. (NASDAQ:
XRAY) between June 9, 2021 and May 9, 2022, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you
must move the Court no later than August 1, 2022.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Dentsply common stock 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 Dentsply class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6111 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 August 1, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) defendants orchestrated a
scheme to inflate Dentsply's revenue and earnings by manipulating
its accounting for a distributor rebate program in order for senior
executives to be eligible for significant cash and stock-based
incentive compensation; (2) in order to facilitate this scheme,
Dentsply and its executives made numerous false and misleading
statements to investors during the Class Period; (3) accordingly,
Dentsply's financial statements were not prepared in accordance
with GAAP and SEC rules, and Dentsply's internal controls over
financial reporting were deficient throughout the Class Period; and
(4) as a result of defendants' misrepresentations, Dentsply's
common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period. As a result of the foregoing, When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.  

To join the Dentsply class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6111 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

DENTSPLY SIRONA: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 1 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attention Dentsply Sirona Inc. ("Dentsply") (NASDAQ: XRAY)
shareholders:

The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 13 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors. This lawsuit
is on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Dentsply's
common stock between June 9, 2021, and May 9, 2022.

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

https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/dentsply-sirona-inc-loss-submission-form-2?prid=28390&wire=4

ABOUT THE ACTION: According to the filed complaint, defendants
orchestrated a scheme to inflate Dentsply's revenue and earnings by
manipulating the Company's accounting for a distributor rebate
program so that senior executives would be eligible for significant
cash and stock-based incentive compensation. In order to facilitate
this scheme, Dentsply and its executives made numerous false and
misleading statements to investors during the class period. As a
result of defendants' misrepresentations, Dentsply's common stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the class period.

DEADLINE: August 1, 2022

Aggrieved Dentsply investors only have until August 1, 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]

DIGITAL TURBINE: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 5 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 12
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Digital Turbine, Inc. (NASDAQ:
APPS) between August 9, 2021 and May 17, 2022, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you
must move the Court no later than August 5, 2022.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Digital Turbine 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 Digital Turbine class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6272 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 August 5, 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: The complaint filed in this class action
alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose to investors that: (1) the Company's recent acquisitions,
AdColony and Fyber, act as agents in certain of their respective
product lines; (2) as a result, revenues for those product lines
must be reported net of license fees and revenue share, rather than
on a gross basis; (3) the Company's internal control over financial
reporting as to revenue recognition was deficient; (4) as a result
of the foregoing, the Company's net revenues was overstated
throughout fiscal 2022; 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.

To join the Digital Turbine class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6272 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

DIGITAL TURBINE: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 5 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attention Digital Turbine, Inc. ("Digital Turbine") (NASDAQ: APPS)
shareholders:

The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 13 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased
between August 9, 2021 and May 17, 2022.

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

https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/digital-turbine-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=28393&wire=4

ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Digital Turbine includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
Company's recent acquisitions, AdColony and Fyber, act as agents in
certain of their respective product lines; (2) as a result,
revenues for those product lines must be reported net of license
fees and revenue share, rather than on a gross basis; (3) the
Company's internal control over financial reporting as to revenue
recognition was deficient; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
the Company's net revenues was overstated throughout fiscal 2022;
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: August 5, 2022

Aggrieved Digital Turbine investors only have until August 5, 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]

DOUGLAS COMPANY: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Douglas Company, Inc.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Douglas Company, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04876 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2022).

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

Douglas -- https://douglascuddletoy.com/ -- creates soft and cuddly
toys and offers a great selection of breed-specific plush, baby
toys, lovable stuffed animals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


DULCE TATI: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dulce Tati LTD. The
case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Dulce Tati LTD., Case No.
1:22-cv-04916 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2022).

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

Dulce Tati LTD. is a business entity located in Brooklyn, New
York.[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


EHEALTHINSURANCE SERVICES: Faces Ong Labor Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW ONG, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EHEALTHINSURANCE SERVICES, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
22CV398881 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., June 3, 2022) is brought
against the Defendants for penalties and/or damages for violations
of the California Labor Code, and restitution for unfair business
practices in violation of Business and Professions Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to: (a) properly
pay minimum, regular and overtime wages for all hours worked
off-the-clock; (b) provide compliant meal breaks, or pay meal
period premiums in lieu thereof; (c) properly calculate the regular
rate of pay for purposes of paying meal and/or rest period premium
pay; (d) pay sick pay at the regular rate of pay; (e) pay all wages
owed upon separation of employment; and (f) provide accurate
itemized wage statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee from July 2021 until April 4, 2022.

eHealthlnsurance Services, Inc. provides insurance services. The
Company offers accidental, travel, health, life, dental, vision,
pet, and other insurance services for individuals, families, and
businesses. eHealthInsurance Services operates in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Max W. Gavron, Esq.
          Mai Tulyathan, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
                  mgavron@diversitylaw.com
                  ktulyathan@diversitylaw.com

               - and -

          Kelsey Webber, Esq.
          Shaelyn A. Stewart, Esq.
          WEBBER LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1215 K Street, 17th Floor
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 588-0683
          E-mail: Kelsey.Webber@WebberLawGroup.com
                  Shaelyn.Stewart@webberlawgroup.com

ELECTRIC BIKE: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Electric Bike
Technologies Inc. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Electric Bike
Technologies Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04867 (S.D.N.Y., June 10,
2022).

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

Electric Bike Technologies, Inc. --
https://electricbiketechnologies.com/ -- offers performance
electric bicycles and tricycles, electric bike motors, electric
bike batteries, electric bike conversion kits and various other
electric bicycle products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


ENERGY TRANSFER: Faces Vega Suit Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------
MIKE VEGA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ENERGY TRANSFER LP, KELCY L. WARREN, THOMAS E. LONG,
MARSHALL S. MCCREA III, BRADFORD DICKERSON WHITEHURST, AND JOHN W.
MCREYNOLDS, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04614 (S.D.N.Y., June 3,
2022) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired common shares of Energy Transfer stock between
April 13, 2017 and December 20, 2021, both dates inclusive, seeking
to recover damages caused by Defendants' violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Partnership and certain of its top
officials.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants concealed and misrepresented that: (a) Energy Transfer
had inadequate internal controls and procedures to prevent
contractors from engaging in illegal conduct with regards to
drilling activities, and/or failed to properly mitigate known
issues related to such controls and procedures; (b) Energy Transfer
through its subsidiary Rover Pipeline, LLC hired third-party
contractor to conduct Horizontal Directional Drilling Activities
for the Rover Pipeline Project, whose conduct of adding illegal
additives in the drilling mud caused severe pollution near the
Tuscarawas River when a large inadvertent release took place on
April 13, 2017; (c) Energy Transfer continually downplayed its
potential civil liabilities when the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) was actively investigating the Partnership's
wrongdoing related to the April 13 Release and consistently
provided it with updated information about FERC's findings on this
matter. These omissions and misrepresentations caused Energy
Transfer's stock price to trade at artificially inflated prices
throughout the Class Period, says the suit.

On December 16, 2021, FERC publicly issued to Energy Transfer an
Order To Show Cause And Notice of Proposed Penalty, which proposed
a $40 million fine for the inadvertent release incident. On this
news, the price of Energy Transfer shares declined $0.24, or 2.8%
over the course of two trading days, to close at $8.25, on December
20, 2021. As a result of Energy Transfer's wrongful acts and
omissions, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the suit alleges.

Energy Transfer LP is a company engaged in natural gas and propane
pipeline transport. It is organized under Delaware state laws and
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrea Farah, Esq.
          Yuanchen Lu, Esq.
          Lowey Dannenberg, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          E-mail: afarah@lowey.com ylu@lowey.com

ENERGY TRANSFER: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of August 2 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 12
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Energy Transfer LP (NYSE: ET)
between April 13, 2017 and December 20, 2021, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you
must move the Court no later than August 2, 2022.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Energy Transfer 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 Energy Transfer class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6844 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 August 2, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or concealed and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Energy
Transfer had inadequate internal controls and procedures to prevent
contractors from engaging in illegal conduct with regards to
drilling activities, and/or failed to properly mitigate known
issues related to such controls and procedures; (2) Energy Transfer
through its subsidiary hired third-party contractors to conduct
horizontal directional drilling activities ("HDDs") for the Rover
Pipeline Project, whose conduct of adding illegal additives in the
drilling mud caused severe pollution near the Tuscarawas River in
Ohio when the April 13, 2017 release of drilling mud near the
Tuscarawas River (the "April 13 Release") took place; and (3)
Energy Transfer continually downplayed its potential civil
liabilities when Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") was
actively investigating Energy Transfer's wrongdoing related to the
April 13 Release and consistently provided it with updated
information about FERC's findings on this matter. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

To join the Energy Transfer class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=6844 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

ENERGY TRANSFER: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Attention Energy Transfer LP ("Energy Transfer") (NYSE: ET)
shareholders:

The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 13 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors. This lawsuit
is on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common
shares of Energy Transfer stock between April 13, 2017 and December
20, 2021, both dates inclusive.

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

https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/energy-transfer-lp-loss-submission-form-2?prid=28392&wire=4

ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Energy Transfer includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Energy
Transfer had inadequate internal controls and procedures to prevent
contractors from engaging in illegal conduct with regards to
drilling activities, and/or failed to properly mitigate known
issues related to such controls and procedures; (b) Energy
Transfer, through its subsidiary Rover Pipeline, LLC, hired a
third-party contractor to conduct Horizontal Directional Drilling
Activities for the Rover Pipeline Project, whose conduct of adding
illegal additives in the drilling mud caused severe pollution near
the Tuscarawas River when a large inadvertent release took place on
April 13, 2017; (c) Energy Transfer continually downplayed its
potential civil liabilities when the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission ("FERC") was actively investigating the Energy
Transfer's wrongdoing related to the April 13 release and
consistently provided it with updated information about FERC's
findings on this matter.

DEADLINE: August 2, 2022
Aggrieved Energy Transfer investors only have until August 2, 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]

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Jackin FDCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JILL JACKIN, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, d/b/a
Enhanced Resource Centers, d/b/a ERC, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-00234-SMJ (E.D. Wash.), Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr., of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington denies
the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

I. Background

Plaintiff Jackin brings the class action under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq.,
against the Defendant, on behalf of Washington consumers whose
private debt-related information was allegedly disclosed by the
Defendant to an unauthorized third party in the collection of the
consumers' debt. At bottom, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant has a practice of providing protected consumer
debt-related information to unauthorized third-party mail vendors
in violation of the FDCPA.

The Plaintiff's grievance stems from a debt collection letter she
received on Jan. 13, 2021. At some point, the Plaintiff owed a
consumer debt. The Defendant, a debt collector as defined under the
FDCPA, attempted to collect on the debt. The letter the Plaintiff
received on Jan. 13, 2021 identified the Defendant as a debt
collector and stated: "this is a debt collector attempting to
collect a debt. Any information obtained will be used for that
purpose." The letter identified the creditor to whom the Plaintiff
owed the debt, the account and reference numbers, and the amount of
the debt.

Upon inspection of the letter, the Plaintiff noticed that the
return address did not match the Defendant's address. In fact, the
return address was a P.O. Box in Oaks, Pennsylvania, even though
the Defendant does not have a Pennsylvania address. Upon further
inspection, the Plaintiff determined that the letter was sent by
RevSpring, a third-party mail vendor and software company. By
providing RevSpring the letter, the Defendant conveyed to RevSpring
information regarding the Plaintiff and the debt owed -- including
the Plaintiff's name and address, the amount of the debt, the
creditor of the debt, and other details. RevSpring then printed and
mailed the letter to the Plaintiff. At no time did the Plaintiff
give the Defendant consent to disclose the information contained in
the letter to RevSpring.

The Plaintiff alleges this practice violates the FDCPA and brings
the action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. The
Defendant now moves to dismiss the action, arguing that its use of
a commercial mail vendor to collect consumer debts does not violate
the FDCPA.

II. Discussion

The FDCPA was enacted as a broad remedial statute designed to
eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors.
Under the Act, without the prior consent of the consumer, "a debt
collector may not communicate, in connection with the collection of
any debt, with any person other than the consumer, his attorney, a
consumer reporting agency if otherwise permitted by law, the
creditor, the attorney of the creditor, or the attorney of the debt
collector." Though the Act does not explicitly permit debt
collectors to communicate debt-related information to third-party
mail vendors, the Defendant contends that disclosures to these
commercial vendors are not actionable under the Act.

Upon review of the record, Judge Mendoza finds that the Plaintiff
has adequately alleged a violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692c(b)
and has therefore plausibly stated a claim against the Defendant.
Section 1692c(b) broadly prohibits debt collectors from
"communicating with third parties in connection with a consumer's
debt." While this prohibition is subject to several carefully
defined exceptions, the statute does not explicitly provide an
exception for commercial mail vendors.

The single question before the Court, then, is whether the FDCPA
nonetheless exempts from liability debt collectors who transmit
consumer debt-related information to mail vendors. Upon review of
the record and the relevant legal authority, Judge Mendoza finds
that in enacting the FDCPA, Congress used language that, on its
face, bars debt collectors from communicating consumer-debt related
information to mail vendors. As such, "the Court must assume that
Congress meant what it said, and it will enforce the statute that
way."

III. Conclusion

Judge Mendoza recognizes the economic burden that his holding may
have on the Defendant, as the Defendant can no longer legally
outsource its collection efforts to commercial mail vendors in the
same manner. But the Court must take Congress at its word, which
here bars the Defendant's outsourcing practice. The statute
explicitly provides for several disclosure exemptions, but mail
vendors are not included in those exemption. Judge Mendoza,
therefore, denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

The Clerk's Office is directed to enter the Order and provide
copies to all counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mpjcc678 from Leagle.com.


EQUINE NETWORK: Davis Files Suit in E.D. Michigan
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equine Network, LLC.
The case is styled as Amy Davis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Equine Network, LLC, Case No.
2:22-cv-11289-NGE-CI (E.D. Mich., June 10, 2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Equine Network -- https://www.equinenetwork.com/ -- provide the
equine community with best-in-class competitions, content,
products, and services that deepens their love for horses and horse
sports.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (646) 837-7150
          Fax: (212) 989-9163
          Email: pfraietta@bursor.com


GOLDTHREAD LLC: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goldthread LLC. The
case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Goldthread LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04892
(S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2022).

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

Goldthread -- https://drinkgoldthread.com/ -- offers Plant Based
Tonics that are expertly-formulated and packed with super-herbs,
spices and adaptogens.[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


GOOGLE LLC: Settles Gender Discrimination Class Action for $118-MM
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Burnson, writing for Insurance Journal, report that Alphabet
Inc.'s Google agreed to pay $118 million to settle a gender
discrimination lawsuit with about 15,500 female employees, lawfirms
representing the women said in a statement.

In addition, an independent expert will analyze Google's hiring
practices and and independent labor economist will review the
company's pay equity studies, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
LLP and Altshuler Berzon LLP said in the statement on June 10. The
settlement couldn't be confirmed on the court docket.

"As a woman who's spent her entire career in the tech industry, I'm
optimistic that the actions Google has agreed to take as part of
this settlement will ensure more equity for women," Holly Pease,
one of the plaintiffs, said in the statement.

The settlement was reached on the same day a judge in another
long-running Silicon Valley pay bias case - involving Oracle Corp.
- tentatively decertified its class action status, ruling that it
would be unmanageable to proceed to trial with a class of more than
3,000 employees in 125 different job classifications suing.

The Google settlement involves women in 236 different job titles,
according to the law firms. Similar lawsuits against Twitter Inc.
and Microsoft Corp. have failed to gain class-action status.

The Google deal must be approved by a judge. A hearing on a
preliminary approval is scheduled for June 21, the law firms said.

The women leading the Google suit said in a court filing that the
company paid female employees approximately $16,794 less per year
than a "the similarly situated man," citing an analysis by David
Neumark, an economist at University of California at Irvine.

The case is Ellis v. Google LLC, No. CGC-17-561299, San Francisco
Superior Court. [GN]

HAND HOSPITALITY: Faces Son Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Soonja Son and Mi Ae Kang on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HAND Hospitality LLC, Cho Dang
Gol LLC, Toledo 53 Inc., Yeonhee Kim, Chanhong Min, and Kihyun Lee,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04639 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022) is
brought against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act and the New York Labor Law for failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages, illegal retention of employee gratuities, failure
to pay for all hours worked, failure to provide accurate wage
notices, failure to provide wage statements, and for unlawful
retaliation.

Plaintiffs Soonja Son and Mi Ae Kang were employed by Defendants as
servers at Cho Dang Gol from May 1, 2021, to the present and from
July 11, 2021, to the present, respectively.

HAND Hospitality LLC and Cho Dang Gol LLC are Korean tapas
restaurants based in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

HESS BAKKEN INVESTMENTS: Penman Files Suit in D. North Dakota
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hess Bakken
Investments II, LLC. The case is styled as Ronald Penman, on behalf
of himself and a Class of similarly situated royalty owners v. The
Mines Press, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00097-DMT-CRH (D.N.D., June 10,
2022).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Hess -- http://www.hess.com/-- is an American global independent
energy company involved in the exploration and production of crude
oil and natural gas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George A. Barton, Esq.
          Stacy Burrows, Esq.
          BARTON AND BURROWS LLC
          5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110
          Mission, KS 66205
          Phone: (913) 563-6250
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com
                 stacy@bartonburrows.com

               - and -

          Joshua A. Swanson, Esq.
          Robert B. Stock, Esq.
          VOGEL LAW FIRM (FARGO)
          218 NP Avenue
          PO Box 1389
          Fargo, ND 58107-1389
          Phone: (701) 237-6983
          Email: jswanson@vogellaw.com
                 rbslitgroup@vogellaw.com


HIGHLAND HILL: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Highland Hill Capital
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Terry Fabricant, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Highland Hill Capital
LLC, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No.
2:22-cv-03983 (C.D. Cal., June 10, 2022).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Highland Hill Capital -- https://www.highlandhillcap.com/ -- is a
nationally accredited financing company driven by the desire to
provide purposeful solutions to each one of our clients.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Phone: (323) 306-4234
          Fax: (866) 633-0228
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com


HIPCAMP INC: Martinez Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hipcamp Inc. The case
is styled as Pedro Martinez, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly situated persons v. Hipcamp Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-03431-DG-RER (E.D.N.Y., June 10, 2022).

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

Hipcamp -- https://www.hipcamp.com/en-US -- is an online
marketplace company that offers outdoor stays and camping
experiences via a website and mobile app.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Phone: (917) 373-9128
          Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com



HOMESICK BVG: Luis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Homesick BVG, LLC.
The case is styled as Kevin Yan Luis, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Homesick BVG, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04899-PGG (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2022).

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

Homesick -- https://homesick.com/ -- offers natural soy wax blend
scented candles and fragrance oils.[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


HUNDREDS IS HUGE: Class Settlement in Murphy Suit Gets Prelim. OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY HAMOND MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE HUNDREDS IS HUGE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00204 (Erie) (W.D. Pa.), Magistrate
Judge Richard A. Lanzillo of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania grants the Plaintiff's unopposed
Motion to Certify Class for Settlement Purposes and for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
Rule 23(e).

It appears to the Court on a preliminary basis that the Settlement
Agreement satisfies the elements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23 and is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Judge Lanzillo
preliminarily certified the proposed Settlement Class pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2) for purposes of settlement.

The Settlement Class is defined as: All Blind or Visually Impaired
individuals who use screen reader auxiliary aids to navigate
digital content and who have accessed, attempted to access, or been
deterred from attempting to access, or who will access, attempt to
access, or be deterred from accessing The Hundreds Is Huge Inc.'s
Digital Properties including its Website at
https://www.thehundredsishuge.com and/or Mobile Appl from the
United States.

Judge Lanzillo approves and designates Plaintiff Murphy as the
representative of the Settlement Class.

Upon oral motion by Attorney Kevin W. Tucker, Esq., Judge Lanzillo
appoints Attorney Chandler Steiger and Attorney Stephanie Moore of
East End Trial Group, LLC as additional Class Counsel for the
Settlement Class.

The Notice and Notice Plan are approved.

Within 21 days of the Order (Notice Deadline), the Defendant
shall:

      a. cause the Notice to be published on a
search-engine-optimized settlement website operated by a stipulated
class action settlement administrator or similar entity;

      b. add invisible anchor text in the header of the Website's
homepage which reads, Click to view our ADA Class Action Settlement
Notice and which links to the Notice published by the stipulated
class action settlement administrator or similar entity; and

     c. request that Achieva, American Council of the Blind,
American Foundation for the Blind, Blinded American Veterans
Foundation, Blinded Veterans Association, Foundation Fighting
Blindness, Guide Dogs for the Blind, National Association of Blind
Merchants, National Council on Disability, National Federation of
the Blind, Foundation for the Blind, Blinded American Veterans
Foundation, Blinded Veterans Association, Foundation Fighting
Blindness, Guide Dogs for the Blind, Lighthouse Guild
International, National Association of Blind Merchants, and the
National Council on Disability, publish a link to the Notice in
their respective electronic newsletters so that notice is sent out
within 60 days of the Preliminary Approval.

Within 10 days prior to the Fairness Hearing, the Defendant or its
counsel will file a declaration evidencing compliance with the
notice provisions of the Order.

Within 10 days prior to the Fairness Hearing, the Class Counsel
will file its motion for attorneys' fees and costs.

The Fairness Hearing will be held before the Court on Sept. 15,
2022, beginning at 10:30 a.m.

Any Settlement Class Member may object to the Settlement Agreement
by filing, within 60 days after the Notice Deadline set by the
Court, written objections with the Clerk of the Court. Only such
objecting Settlement Class Members will have the right, and only if
they expressly seek it in their objections, to present objections
orally at the Fairness Hearing. Responses by Representative
Plaintiff to any timely-filed objections will be made no less than
five days before the Fairness Hearing.

The counsel for the parties are authorized to utilize all
reasonable procedures in connection with the administration of the
Settlement Agreement which are not materially inconsistent with
either the Order or the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2h6fv4c3 from Leagle.com.


IN PRIVATE INC: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against In Private Inc. The
case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. In Private Inc.., Case No.
1:22-cv-04893-AT (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2022).

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

In Private Inc. is located in New York City and is part of the Cut
and Sew Apparel Manufacturing Industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


KIDS FOR THE FUTURE: Faces Wallace Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
ROBBIE WALLACE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KIDS FOR THE FUTURE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:22-cv-00105-BSM (E.D. Ark., June 10, 2022) is a collective
action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged
willful violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the overtime provisions of the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
Qualified Behavior Provider (QBP) from November 2019 until April
2022.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated QBPs regularly worked more than 40 hours each week.
However, the Defendant failed to record the total hours worked by
its QBPs, thereby failing to properly compensate them for the all
the hours they have worked over 40 per workweek. The Defendant also
failed to reimburse them for mileage or travel expenses, says the
suit.

Kids for the Future, Inc. offers rehabilitative services for
children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral issues.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laura Edmondson, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          Kirkpatrick Plaza
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Tel: (800) 615-4946
          Fax: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: laura@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

KROGER CO: FOTE's Bid for Summary Judgment in White Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PHILLIP WHITE, Plaintiff v. THE KROGER CO., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-08004-RS (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard
Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California grants Defendant Fruit of the Earth, Inc.'s motion for
summary judgment.

I. Background

In this putative class action, named Plaintiff White contends that
sunscreen products sold by Defendant Kroger under its "house
brand," are misleadingly labeled as "reef friendly," when they in
fact contain ingredients with the potential to damage reefs. White
alleges he purchased one specific product, Kroger(R) Sport
Sunscreen, Spray, SPF 50, in a 5.5-oz package. White also seeks
relief, however, with respect to more than a dozen other products,
which he acknowledges he never purchased, but which he alleges are
"substantially similar" to the purchased product.

Defendant Fruit of the Earth, Inc. ("FOTE") is alleged to be "one
of the owners, manufacturers, and/or distributors" of the products
listed in the complaint as misleadingly labeled. The undisputed
evidence, however, is that FOTE did not manufacture, distribute, or
have any connection with the purchased product. FOTE is the
manufacturer of four of the other products listed in the complaint,
which White did not purchase.

Arguing that White has no standing to pursue any claim against it,
FOTE seeks summary judgment. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b),
the motion is suitable for disposition without oral argument, and
the hearing set for June 16, 2022, is vacated.

II. Discussion

FOTE has presented evidence that it has nothing to do with the
manufacture or distribution of the product White purchased,
Kroger(R) Sport Sunscreen, Spray, SPF 50, in a 5.5-oz package.
White does not argue otherwise, or contend there is any triable
issue of fact on that point. The sole basis of White's opposition
is his contention that the court already decided to postpone until
the class certification stage the question of whether White may
properly serve as the class representative for products that he did
not purchase, but which other putative class members did. Indeed,
the order denying Kroger's motion to dismiss (to which FOTE was not
a party) declined to dismiss or strike allegations in the complaint
asserting claims arising from products White did not purchase.

FOTE is not in the same position as Kroger, however. In Kroger's
case, it was undisputed (at least at the pleading stage) that
Kroger sells all of the listed products and is therefore
potentially liable for misrepresentations made in connection with
sales of those products. Whether White may serve as the class
representative as to unpurchased products is a question for another
day. FOTE, in contrast, does not manufacture, distribute, or sell
the product White purchased. FOTE does not even have potential
liability to White, or to any putative class member, for any
misrepresentations in the sale of that product.

Nor is there a question that more appropriately should be
adjudicated at the class certification stage. As to the claims
against Kroger, the alleged "substantial similarity" among all the
challenged products it sells either will or will not be sufficient
to give White a right to represent the class as to products he did
not personally purchase. There are no putative class members,
however, who have claims against FOTE arising from sales of
Kroger(R) Sport Sunscreen, Spray, SPF 50, in a 5.5-oz package.
"Substantial similarity" is therefore irrelevant.

As noted, FOTE apparently does manufacture and distribute some of
the other products listed in the complaint. Given the basis on
which summary judgment is being granted, this order and any final
judgment resulting from it will not have a preclusive effect should
any putative class members who purchased those products seek to
name FOTE as a defendant with respect to those products, either as
newly named plaintiffs in the action or in a separate action.
Nevertheless, FOTE's motion for summary judgment must be granted at
this juncture. If the parties believe entry of a separate judgment
under Rule 54(b) is appropriate at this time, they may propose
one.

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Judge Seeborg grants FOTE's motion for
summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mw82yzbb from Leagle.com.


KYTE SYSTEMS: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kyte Systems Inc. The
case is styled as Kevin Davis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Kyte Systems Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04871 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2022).

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

Kyte -- https://drivekyte.com/ -- is the best way to get a car.
Kyte offers cars delivered to people's doorsteps.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Davis Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings filed an appeal from a
court ruling granting class certification in the lawsuit entitled
LUKE DAVIS, JULIAN VARGAS, et al., v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF
AMERICA HOLDINGS, Case No. 2:20-cv-00893-FMO-KS, in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

The Plaintiffs assert claims for violations of: (1) the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA); (2) California's Unruh Civil Rights
Act; and (3) California's Disabled Persons Act (CDPA). The Unruh
Act and CDPA claims are brought by Vargas on behalf of himself and
a putative California class, while the remaining federal claims are
brought by plaintiffs on behalf of the Nationwide Injunctive
Class.

The Plaintiffs allege that LabCorp discriminates against them and
other visually impaired individuals, "by refusing and failing to
provide auxiliary aids and services to Plaintiffs, and by requiring
[them] to rely upon other means of communication that are
inadequate to provide equal opportunity to participate in and
benefit from Defendant's health care services free from
discrimination."

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 6, 2022, the Hon.
Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order:

   1. certifying the following classes:

      -- Nationwide Injunctive Class

         "All legally blind individuals in the United States who
         visited a LabCorp patient service center in the United
         States during the applicable limitations period and
         were denied full and equal enjoyment of the goods,
         services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
         accommodations due to LabCorp's failure to make its e-
         check-in kiosks accessible to legally blind
         individuals;" and

      -- California Class

         "All legally blind individuals in California who
         visited a LabCorp patient service center in California
         during the applicable limitations period and were
         denied full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,
         facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations
         due to LabCorp's failure to make its e-check-in kiosks
         accessible to legally blind individuals;"

   2. appointing Luke Davis and Julian Vargas as the
      representatives of the Nationwide Class and Vargas as the
      representative of the California Class; and

   3. appointing the law firms of Nye, Stirling, Hale & Miller,
      LLP and Handley, 4 Farah & Anderson, PLLC as class
      counsel.

The Defendant now seeks a review of this order.

The appellate case is captioned as Luke Davis, et al. v. Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings, Case No. 22-80053, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 6,
2022.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS,
and Does 1-10 are represented by:

          Robert Steiner, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN, LLP
          3 World Trade Center
          175 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 808-7965

               - and -

          Becca Wahlquist, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN, LLP
          350 S Grand Avenue, Suite 3800
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 547-4916

Plaintiffs-Respondents LUKE DAVIS, JULIAN VARGAS, and AMERICAN
COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Alison Marie Bernal, Esq.
          Jonathan Miller, Esq.
          NYE, PEABODY, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER, LLP
          33 West Mission Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 963-2345

               - and -

          Matthew Keith Handley, Esq.
          HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON, PLLC
          200 Massachusetts Avenue, NW 7th Floor
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 559-2411

               - and -

          Benjamin Sweet, Esq.
          NYE STIRLING HALE AND MILLER
          1145 Bower Hill Road, Suite 104
          Pittsburgh, PA 15243
          Telephone: (412) 857-5350

MIDLAND FUNDING: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in Sandoval Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GEORGINA C. SANDOVAL and TODD M. NORTH, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MIDLAND
FUNDING, LLC, MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., and JOHN DOES 1 to
10, Defendants, Civil Action No. 18-09396 (SDW) (AME) (D.N.J.),
Judge Susan D. Wigenton of the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey issued an Opinion:

   a. granting Defendants Midland Funding, LLC and Midland Credit
      Management, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment; and

   b. denying Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion to Dismiss the Amended
      Complaint.

I. Background

The Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit against Defendants Midland
Funding ("MF"), Midland Credit Management ("MCM"), and John Does 1
to 10, alleging that the Defendants violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq.,
by sending "falsely threatening" collection letters to the
Plaintiffs in May and June of 2017 containing language stating that
"you are hereby notified that a negative report on your credit
record may be submitted to a credit reporting agency if you fail to
meet the terms of your credit obligations" (the "Credit Reporting
Language"). The Plaintiffs claim that the letters were false and
misleading because MCM had allegedly already begun reporting their
accounts to credit reporting agencies ("CRAs") before sending the
collection letters.

Ms. Sandoval opened a Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. credit card
account. On Dec. 17, 2015, the Sandoval Account was sold to MF and
thereafter serviced by MCM. On Jan. 6, 2016, MCM mailed to Sandoval
a LT1Y letter (the "Welcome Letter") advising Sandoval that her
account was sold to MF. The Welcome Letter also contained the
Credit Reporting Language advising that "you are hereby notified
that a negative credit report reflecting on your credit record may
be submitted to a credit-reporting agency if you fail to fulfill
the terms of your credit obligations."

Thereafter, the Defendants mailed Sandoval a series of collection
letters containing the Credit Reporting Language, which advised
Sandoval of her obligations and the Defendants' rights. At a
November 2019 deposition, Sandoval testified that she was not
confused by the Credit Reporting Language and was aware that the
Credit Reporting Language in the Welcome Letter and the May 2017
Collection Letter meant that the Sandoval Account may be reported
to the credit reporting agencies if payments were not made.

Ms. Sandoval further testified that she was aware that the Sandoval
Account was reporting on her credit report prior to May 2017.
Sandoval did not call, write, or make a payment to Defendants after
receiving the May 2017 Collection Letter. She admitted that nothing
in the Welcome Letter or May 2017 Collection Letter prevented her
from making payment on the Sandoval Account or disputing the debt
on the Sandoval Account. Instead, in December 2017, Sandoval sent a
letter to MCM requesting a copy of the credit card agreement for
the Sandoval Account. Thereafter, MCM opened an investigation
regarding the letter and ultimately requested that the credit
reporting agencies change the status of the Sandoval Account to
"Disputed."

Mr. North opened a Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. credit card
account. On April 20, 2015, the North Account was sold to MF and
thereafter serviced by MCM. On May 1, 2015, MCM mailed to the
Plaintiff a LT1U Letter containing the Credit Reporting Language
stating that "as required by law, you are hereby notified that a
negative credit report reflecting on your credit record may be
submitted to a credit reporting agency if you fail to fulfill the
terms of your credit obligations." Thereafter, the Defendants
mailed to North multiple collection letters containing the Credit
Reporting Language, which advised as to North's obligations and the
Defendants' rights.

At a January 2022 deposition, North testified that he was not
confused by the Credit Reporting Language and understood that the
North Account would be reported to credit reporting agencies on a
recurring basis as a result of failing to make payments. North
testified that he was aware that the North Account was reporting on
his credit report prior to receiving the June 2017 Collection
Letter. He did not contact the Defendants, dispute the debt owed,
or express confusion regarding the Credit Reporting Language. He
admitted that nothing in the June 2017 Collection Letter prevented
North from making payment on the North Account or forced North to
make payment on the North Account.

Prior to reporting a consumer's account to the CRAs, MCM asserts
that it sends multiple letters to the consumer containing the
Credit Reporting Language advising that the consumer's account may
be reported to the CRAs if payments are not made. It asserts that
it does not report accounts to the CRAs that are paid in full.
Thus, only after a consumer chooses not to pay his or her
delinquent account will MCM begin reporting the account to the
CRAs.

On May 17, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed their initial class action
complaint, followed by their First Amended Complaint on June 1,
2018, and Second Amended Complaint on Jan. 15, 2019. They assert
claims against the Defendants alleging that the Defendants violated
the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. Thereafter, on Feb. 20,
2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting an Order certifying
this case to proceed as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) to
adjudicate their FDCPA claims against the Defendants.

On April 19, 2021, the Defendants opposed certification and the
Plaintiffs replied on April 26, 2021. On July 7, 2021, the Court
denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Following
discovery, the Defendants filed the instant Motion for Summary
Judgment on Dec. 20, 2021. The Plaintiffs then cross-moved to
dismiss their Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. All subsequent briefing was timely filed.

II. Discussion

A. The Plaintiffs Have Suffered No Concrete Harm Sufficient to
Confer Article III Standing to Pursue Their FDCPA Claims Against
Defendants

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs lack constitutional
standing under Article III because the Plaintiffs cannot prove a
concrete harm and have put forward no evidence to show that they
suffered any concrete harm.  Notably, in the wake of Ramirez, the
Plaintiffs have conceded that they have suffered no concrete harm.
However, at the outset of the action and throughout its course, the
Plaintiffs strenuously argued that they suffered harm arising from
their receipt of collection letters from Defendants containing the
Credit Reporting Language because Defendants had already begun
credit reporting before sending the collection letters. The
Plaintiffs alleged that they were misled to believe that meeting
the terms of their credit obligations would prevent negative
reporting on their credit record.

Significantly, Judge Wigenton holds that the evidence at summary
judgment does not support such claims. The record evidence clearly
shows that the Plaintiffs did not make any payments on their debts
after receiving the May 2017 Collection Letter and June 2017
Collection Letter and failed to make payment because of their
financial means to do so. She says, it is evident that the
Plaintiffs did not rely on the Credit Reporting Language and have
suffered no harm from reading the Credit Reporting Language. The
record evidence further establishes that Plaintiffs received
multiple letters containing, inter alia, the Credit Reporting
Language before Defendants began reporting the Sandoval Account and
North Account to the CRAs.

Accordingly, Judge Wigenton rules that the Plaintiffs' Motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction is denied. The decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez,
141 S.Ct. 2190, 2200 (2021) underscores any harm that the
Plaintiffs previously alleged or could have alleged. Thus, Judge
Wigenton need not reach the issue of subject matter jurisdiction
because the record evidence unequivocally establishes that the
Plaintiffs have suffered no concrete harm sufficient to confer
Article III standing.

B. Applying the Least Sophisticated Debtor Standard to the Credit
Reporting Language, the Credit Reporting Language Was Not
Misleading or Threatening

The FDCPA provides a private cause of action to consumers who have
suffered "the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection
practices."  Section 1692e of the FDCPA generally prohibits the use
of "any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in
connection with the collection of any debt" and includes a
non-exhaustive list of prohibited conduct including, but not
limited to, using "any false representation or deceptive means to
collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information
concerning a consumer."

Judge Wigenton holds that applying the least sophisticated debtor
standard, the Credit Reporting Language stating was not "false,
deceptive, or misleading." The least sophisticated debtor would not
be misled by such simple, non-threatening language because the
Credit Reporting Language in the various collection letters only
provided notice that the delinquent accounts were subject to credit
reporting and advised Plaintiffs that negative credit reports may
be submitted for continuing to fail to pay their debts. The Credit
Reporting Language, as the Plaintiffs admitted, merely reflected
that Defendants had the right to submit credit reports indicating
that the accounts remained unpaid, which is synonymous with a
widely known fact that failure to pay debts that are owed might
adversely affect one's credit record.

Importantly, Judge Wigenton finds that the record evidence has
demonstrated that the Plaintiffs received multiple letters from MCM
containing the Credit Reporting Language before any credit
reporting was ever submitted on their accounts due to Plaintiffs'
unpaid accounts. Therefore, summary judgment is also warranted
because the Credit Reporting Language in the collection letters was
not "false, deceptive, or misleading" in violation of the FDCPA.

Moreover, the Plaintiffs do not address or dispute the Defendants'
argument that the language at issue plainly does not violate the
FDCPA. They have maintained throughout the course of the action up
until the Defendants moved for summary judgment that the Plaintiffs
have suffered an injury. It is only now, in what could be
considered "gamesmanship" that the Plaintiffs admit that they have
suffered no injury and the matter should be dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

For the reasons, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is
granted.

III. Conclusion

The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted with
prejudice, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss is denied, and the
Defendants' Request for Sanctions is denied. An appropriate order
follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/tv9pr9sc from Leagle.com.


MIMA USA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mima USA LLC. The
case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Mima USA LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04912 (S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2022).

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

Mima Kids USA -- https://www.mimakidsusa.com/ -- offers the perfect
luxury strollers, high chairs, & baby accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


MINES PRESS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Mines Press, Inc.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. The Mines Press, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04914 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2022).

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

The Mines Press -- https://www.minespress.com/ -- provides online
printing services and marketing supplies for businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


MSCS FINANCIAL: Unlawfully Retains Mutual Fund Fees, MBA Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
MBA ENGINEERING, INC., as Sponsor and Administrator of the MBA
ENGINEERING, INC. EMPLOYEES 401K) PLAN and the MBA ENGINEERING,
INC. CASH BALANCE PLAN, and CRAIG MEIDINGER, as Trustee of the MBA
Engineering, Inc. Employees 401(k) Plan and the MBA Engineering,
Inc. Cash Balance Plan, Individually and as representative of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MSCS FINANCIAL SERVICES
DIVISION OF BROADRIDGE BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING, LLC, MATRIX
TRUST COMPANY, and MATRIX SETTLEMENT AND CLEARANCE SERVICES, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01221-K (N.D. Tex., June 3, 2022) is
brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
arising from Defendants' unlawful conduct of retaining and
transferring substantial amounts of funds from more than 100,000
account holders through nondisclosure and concealment.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have retained and
transferred, without satisfying strict disclosure obligations,
three categories of funds: shareholder servicing fees, finders
fees, and sub-administration fees (collectively, the "Mutual Fund
Fees"). The Defendants worked together to collect the Mutual Fund
Fees, retain a portion of them, and transfer more than 90% of them
to third parties-in-interest, e.g. third party administrators, says
the suit.

The Defendants' actions constitute multiple violations of ERISA as
well as state laws for those putative class members which were not
governed by ERISA, the suit added.

Plaintiff MBA Engineering, Inc. 401(k) Plan is a qualified plan
under ERISA with legal status to sue in its own right.

MSCS Financial Services Division of Broadridge Business Process
Outsourcing, LLC is owned by the same parent company as Matrix
Trust with its principal place of business in Denver, Colorado.
Matrix contracted with MSCS Financial to perform services for the
putative class members in securities transactions as Defendants'
affiliated FINRA-member registered broker-dealer.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arnold Shokouhi, Esq.
          Justin N. Bryan, Esq.
          D. Aaron Dekle, Esq.
          3710 Rawlins Street, Suite 1600
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 741-2662
          Facsimile: (214) 741-1741    
          E-mail: arnolds@mccathernlaw.com
                  jbryan@mccathernlaw.com
                  adekle@mccathernlaw.com

               - and -

          Evan Selik, Esq.
          523 West Sixth Street, Suite 830
          Los Angeles, CA 90014
          Telephone: (213) 225-6150  
          Facsimile: (213) 225-6151
          E-mail: eselik@mccathernlaw.com

MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: Kaskela Law Announces Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC on June 13 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Mullen Automotive, Inc. ("Mullen") (NASDAQ:
MULN) on behalf of investors who purchased shares of the company's
securities between June 15, 2020 and April 6, 2022, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, Mullen and
certain of the company's executive officers failed to disclose
material information to investors concerning the company's
business, operations, and financial results. Among other things,
the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that: (i)
Mullen overstated its ability and timeline regarding production;
(ii) Mullen overstated its deals with business partners; (iii)
Mullen overstated its battery technology and capabilities; and (iv)
Mullen overstated its ability to sell its branded products.

On April 6, 2022, Hindenburg Research issued a report entitled
"Mullen Automotive: Yet Another Fast Talking EV Hustle," which
detailed several alleged issues with the Company.  Following the
release of that report, shares of Mullen's stock declined over 10%
in value, to close on April 6, 2022 at $2.38 per share.

Mullen investors who purchased shares of the company's stock prior
to April 6, 2022 are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D.
Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (484) 229-0750, or
by email (abell@kaskelalaw.com) or online at
https://kaskelalaw.com/cases/mullen-automotive-inc/, for additional
information about this investigation and their legal rights and
options.

Kaskela Law LLC represents investors in securities fraud, corporate
governance, and merger & acquisition litigation. For additional
information about Kaskela Law LLC please visit www.kaskelalaw.com.
This notice may constitute attorney advertising in certain
jurisdictions.

CONTACT:

D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
18 Campus Blvd., Suite 100
Newtown Square, PA 19073
(888) 715-1740
(484) 229-0750
www.kaskelalaw.com [GN]

NCINO INC: Faces Putative Class Suit in North Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------
nCino, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 1, 2022, that on March 12, 2021, a putative
class action complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

Suit alleges a contract, combination or conspiracy between and
among the company, Live Oak Bancshares, Inc. and Apiture, Inc. not
to solicit or hire each other's employees in violation of Section 1
of the Sherman Act and North Carolina Gen. Stat. Sections 75-1 and
75-2. The complaint seeks treble damages and additional remedies,
including restitution, disgorgement, reasonable attorneys' fees,
the costs of the suit, and pre-judgment and post judgment interest.
The complaint does not allege any specific damages.

nCino is a financial technology company.


NETFLIX INC: Vincent Wong Law Office Reminds of July 5 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attention Netflix, Inc. ("Netflix, Inc.") (NASDAQ: NFLX)
shareholders:

The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 13 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 Netflix common stock or call options, or sold put options,
between January 19, 2021 and April 19, 2022, inclusive.

If you suffered a loss on your investment in Netflix, 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/netflix-inc-loss-submission-form-2?prid=28380&wire=4

ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Netflix, Inc. includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Netflix
was exhibiting slower acquisition growth due to, among other
things, account sharing by customers and increased competition from
other streaming services; (2) the Company was experiencing
difficulties retaining customers; (3) as a result of the foregoing,
the Company was losing subscribers on a net basis (4) as a result,
the Company's financial results were being adversely affected; and
(5) 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.

DEADLINE: July 5, 2022

Aggrieved Netflix, Inc. investors only have until July 5, 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]

NUTANIX INC: Faces Norton Shareholder Suit in California Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nutanix, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 2, 2022, that on May 28, 2021, John P. Norton on
behalf of the Norton Family Living Trust UAD 11/15/2002, filed a
class action complaint in the Northern District of California on
behalf of a class of persons or entities who transacted in publicly
traded call options and/or put options on Nutanix stock during the
period from November 30, 2017 and May 30, 2019, containing
allegations substantively the same as those alleged in the Current
Complaint (the Options Class Action) and naming the same
defendants.

On September 8, 2021, the court appointed John P. Norton on behalf
of the Norton Family Living Trust UAD 11/15/2002 as the lead
plaintiff in the Options Class Action. In April 26, 2022, the
parties met for mediation, which did not result in a settlement.

Nutanix Inc. provides a cloud platform, the Nutanix Cloud Platform,
based in California.


NUTANIX INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in California Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Nutanix, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ended April 30, 2022, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 2, 2022, that class action complaints were filed
against the company alleging violations of the Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5. In July 2019, the court consolidated the actions into a
single action, and appointed a lead plaintiff, who then filed a
consolidated amended complaint.

Beginning on March 29, 2019, several purported securities class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the company and two of its
officers. The initial complaints generally alleged that the
defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.

The action was brought on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's stock between November 30, 2017
and May 30, 2019, inclusive. The defendants subsequently filed a
motion to dismiss the Original Complaint, which the court granted
on March 9, 2020, while providing the lead plaintiff leave to
amend.

On April 17, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint, again naming the company and two of its officers as
defendants. It alleges the same class period, includes many of the
same factual allegations as the original complaint, and again
alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5. It seeks monetary
damages in an unspecified amount.

In September 11, 2020, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss and held that the lead plaintiff adequately stated a claim
with respect to certain statements regarding the company's new
customer growth and sales productivity.

Nutanix Inc. provides a cloud platform, the Nutanix Cloud Platform,
based in California.


OKTA INC: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of July 19 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until July 19, 2022 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against Okta, Inc. ("Okta" or
the "Company") (NasdaqGS:OKTA), if they purchased the Company's
securities between March 5, 2021 and March 22, 2022, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

What You May Do

If you purchased securities of Okta as above and would like to
discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and
your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn
toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-okta/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by July 19, 2022.

About the Lawsuit

Okta and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On March 22, 2022, the Company disclosed that it had detected an
attempted hacking attack in late January 2022, and that, "[b]ased
on our investigation to date, there is no evidence of ongoing
malicious activity beyond the activity detected in January." Later
that same day, the Company disclosed that "[a]fter a thorough
analysis of [the hackers'] claims, we have concluded that a small
percentage of customers - approximately 2.5% - have potentially
been impacted and whose data may have been viewed or acted upon."

On this news, shares of Okta fell $17.88 per share, or 10.74%, to
close at $148.55 per share on March 23, 2022.

The case is City of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers'
Retirement Trust v. Okta, Inc., No. 22-cv-02990.

About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients --
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors -- in seeking recoveries for
investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by
publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California,
Louisiana and New Jersey.

To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. [GN]

OKTA INC: Vincent Wong Law Office Reminds of July 19 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attention Okta, Inc. ("Okta") (NASDAQ: OKTA) shareholders:

The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 13 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased
between March 5, 2021 and March 22, 2022.

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

https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/okta-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=28387&wire=4

ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Okta includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Okta had
inadequate cybersecurity contrAols; (ii) as a result, Okta's
systems were vulnerable to data breaches; (iii) Okta ultimately did
experience a data breach caused by a hacking group, which
potentially affected hundreds of Okta customers; (iv) Okta
initially did not disclose and subsequently downplayed the severity
of the data breach; (v) all the foregoing, once revealed, was
likely to have a material negative impact on Okta's business,
financial condition, and reputation; and (vi) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

DEADLINE: July 19, 2022
Aggrieved Okta investors only have until July 19, 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]

ORACLE CORP: Women Employees May Lose Pay Bias Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Malathi Nayak and Robert Burnson, writing for Bloomberg, report
that women at Oracle Corp. suing over alleged pay disparities took
a big step backward, while more than 15,000 female workers at
Google crossed the finish line.

Under a judge's tentative ruling on June 10, the Oracle women are
poised to lose the class-action status they earlier won that gave
them powerful leverage in a five-year court fight with their
employer.

Alphabet Inc.'s Google, meanwhile, agreed to pay $118 million to
resolve claims filed under California's Equal Pay Act that the
company pays men more than women for doing the same job.

A California state judge agreed with Oracle on that it would be
unmanageable to proceed to trial with a class of more than 3,000
female employees in 125 different job classifications.

In 2020, the three women leading the suit against Oracle achieved a
milestone by becoming the first to win class-action status in a
discrimination case against a large technology company. Aggregating
claims on behalf of a large group allows plaintiffs to pool
resources and negotiate for a much bigger payout.

Female engineers at both Twitter Inc. and Microsoft Corp. failed to
persuade judges to let their gender-bias cases proceed as class
actions and those rulings were upheld on appeal.

The women suing Google fared better, winning a ruling in 2021 that
allowed the case to advance on behalf of 11,000 women seeking more
than $600 million.

The women said in a court filing that the company paid female
employees approximately $16,794 less per year than a "the similarly
situated man," citing an analysis by an economist at University of
California at Irvine.

The accord announced on June 10 by lawyers for the plaintiffs
covers about 15,500 women at Google in 236 different job titles.

In addition to the settlement fund, an independent expert will
analyze Google's hiring practices and and independent labor
economist will review the company's pay equity studies, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP and Altshuler Berzon LLP said in
the statement on June 10. The settlement couldn't be confirmed on
the court docket.

"As a woman who's spent her entire career in the tech industry, I'm
optimistic that the actions Google has agreed to take as part of
this settlement will ensure more equity for women," Holly Pease,
one of the plaintiffs, said in the statement.

The Google deal must be approved by a judge. A hearing on a
preliminary approval is scheduled for June 21, the law firms said.
Alphabet representatives didn't respond after regular business
hours to a request for comment.

In the Oracle case, San Mateo County Superior Court Judge V.
Raymond Swope, who tentatively granted the company's request to
decertify the class, set a hearing on the matter for June 13 in
Redwood City.

Before the 2020 ruling, Oracle argued that the lawsuit wrongly
compares women and men tagged with the same job codes even though
such coding doesn't mean the work requires similar skills, effort
or responsibility, because Oracle's products and services vary so
widely.

Jim Finberg, an attorney representing the women, said he plans to
persuade the judge to change his tentative ruling. If that doesn't
work, "it is fair to say that, at some point, we will appeal the
decision," he said.

An Oracle spokesperson didn't immediately respond to a request for
comment.

The Oracle case is Jewett v. Oracle America Inc., 17-CIV-02669,
California Superior Court, County of San Mateo (Redwood City). The
Google case is Ellis v. Google LLC, CGC-17-561299, California
Superior Court, County of San Francisco. [GN]

OSCAR HEALTH: Johnson Fistel Reminds of July 11 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP on June 12
disclosed 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"). Lead plaintiff motions for the Oscar Health class action
lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than July 11, 2022.
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, LLP:
Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. Johnson Fistel
seeks to recover losses incurred due to violations of federal
securities laws. For more information about the firm and its
attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney
advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Contact:
Johnson Fistel, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]

PAPA JOHN'S: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Bazemore Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW BAZEMORE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PAPA JOHN'S USA, INC. and PAPA JOHN'S
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00311-RGJ (W.D.
Ky., June 10, 2022) is a class and collective action complaint
brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a delivery driver
since the fall of 2019 to the present.

According to the complaint, the Defendant required the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated delivery drivers to maintain and pay
for safe, legally operable, and insured automobiles to use to
deliver pizza and food items. As a result, they have incurred
automobile expenses while delivering pizza and other food items for
the primary benefits of the Defendants. However, the Defendants
have employed an allegedly flawed reimbursement policy which
reimburses their delivery drivers below the IRS business mileage
reimbursement rate and/or much less than a reasonable approximation
of their automobile expenses. Because of the Defendants' systemic
failure to adequately reimburse automobile expenses, the
Plaintiff's and other similarly situated delivery drivers' net
wages diminished beneath the minimum wage requirements, says the
suit.

The Plaintiff seeks judgment against the Defendants for himself and
all other similarly situated delivery drivers to recover all unpaid
and underpaid wages. The Plaintiff also seeks prejudgment interest,
liquidated damages, litigation costs, expenses, and attorneys'
fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper in equity
and under the law.

The Corporate Defendants comprise a single integrated enterprise
and jointly operate hundreds of Papa John's pizza stores in the
U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN
             & GARRISSON, LLC
          Philips Plaza
          414 Union St., Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Tel: (615) 244-2202
          Fax: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

                - and –

          J. Chris Sanders, Esq.
          BAHE, COOK, CANTLEY & NEFZGER PLC
          1041 Goss Avenue
          Louisville, KY 40217
          Tel: (502) 587-2002
          E-mail: csanders@bccnlaw.com

PARKER HANNIFIN: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Harris Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
EVELYN HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 1:22-cv-00943-CEF (N.D. Ohio, June 3, 2022) is brought against
the Defendant for negligence, invasion of privacy, unjust
enrichment, bailment, breach of implied contract, breach of
confidence arising from its failure to prevent the occurrence of
data breach because it did not adhere to commonly accepted security
standards and failure to detect that its databases were subject to
a security breach.

On May 13, 2022, Defendant announced in a press release that it was
investigating a data security incident that occurred on March 14,
2022. The Defendant's investigation included assistance of a
forensic investigation firm and other third-party cyber security
and incident response professionals.

According to the complaint, as a direct and proximate result of
Defendant's actions and omissions in failing to protect Plaintiff's
personally identifiable information (PII), Plaintiff and the Class
have been damaged.

Additionally, Plaintiff and the Class have suffered or are at
increased risk of suffering from the loss of the opportunity to
control how their PII is used, the diminution in the value and/or
use of their PII entrusted to Defendant, and loss of privacy, the
suit adds.

The Plaintiff and Class members are current and former employees of
Defendant who provided certain personal identifying information to
Defendant which is required as a condition of employment and to
obtain employment benefits.

Parker Hannifin is a multinational manufacturing and engineering
company that specializes in motion and control technologies
throughout the United States and the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
          Todd B. Naylor, Esq.
          Robert B. Sherwood, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
          4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
          Cincinnati, OH 45242
          Telephone: (513) 345-8291
          Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
          E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
                  tnaylor@gs-legal.com
                  rsherwood@gs-legal.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

PATTERSON COS: $1.6MM in Attys.' Fees & Costs Awarded in Plymouth
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. PATTERSON
COMPANIES, NC., et al., Defendants, Civ. No. 0:18-cv-00871-MJD-HB
(D. Minn.), Judge Michael J. Davis of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota grants the Lead Counsel's Motion for an
Award of Attorneys' Fees and Awards to Plaintiffs Pursuant to 15
U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(4).

Pursuant to and in compliance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and the Court's Order Granting Preliminary Approval
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1) and Permitting Notice to the
Class dated Feb. 3, 2022, due and adequate notice was directed to
all the Class Members, and there were no objections to the request
for attorneys' fees and expenses.

Judge Davis awards the Lead Counsel attorneys' fees of 33-1/3% of
the Settlement Amount, plus expenses in the amount of
$1,563,412.71, together with the interest earned on both amounts
for the same time period and at the same rate as that earned on the
Settlement Fund until paid. He finds that the amount of fees
awarded is appropriate and that the amount of fees awarded is fair
and reasonable under the "percentage-of-recovery" method.

The fees and expenses will be allocated among the Lead Plaintiffs'
Counsel in a manner which, in the Lead Counsel's good-faith
judgment, reflects each such counsel's contribution to the
institution, prosecution, and resolution of the Litigation.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(4), Class Representatives
Plymouth County Retirement Association, Pembroke Pines Pension Fund
for Firefighters and Police Officers, Central Laborers Pension
Plan, and Gwinnett County Public Employees Retirement System are
awarded $7,087.95, $5,715.68, $8,866.50, and $9,375.00,
respectively, for their representation of the Class during the
Litigation.

The awarded attorneys' fees and expenses and interest earned
thereon will immediately be paid to the Lead Counsel subject to the
terms, conditions, and obligations of the Stipulation.

Any appeal or any challenge affecting the Court's approval of any
attorneys' fee and expense application will in no way disturb or
affect the finality of the Order and Final Judgment entered with
respect to the Settlement.

The Court retains exclusive jurisdiction over the parties and Class
Members for all matters relating to the Litigation, including the
administration, interpretation, effectuation, or enforcement of the
Stipulation and the Order.

If the Settlement is terminated or the Effective Date of the
Settlement otherwise fails to occur, the Order will be rendered
null and void to the extent provided by the Stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/dfybyeh4 from Leagle.com.


PEGASYSTEMS INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of July 18 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 Pegasystems, Inc. (NASDAQ:
PEGA), Humbl, Inc. (OTCMKTS: HMBL), Okta, Inc. (NASDAQ: OKTA), and
Enservco Corp. (NYSE American: ENSV). 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.

Pegasystems, Inc. (NASDAQ: PEGA)

advertisement
Class Period: May 29, 2020 - May 9, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 18, 2022

PEGA develops customer relationship management software. In its SEC
filings during the Class Period, PEGA consistently informed
investors that its internal "research and development organization
is responsible for product architecture, core technology
development, product testing, and quality assurance." The Company
also stated that it maintained a written Code of Conduct applicable
to its board of directors and all employees "including our
principal executive officer," which included an express commitment:
"Never [to] use illegal or questionable means to acquire a
competitor's trade secrets or other confidential information, such
as . . . stealing, seeking confidential information from a new
employee who recently worked for a competitor, or misrepresenting
your identity in hopes of obtaining confidential information."

On May 29, 2020, Appian Corporation ("Appian"), a principal
competitor of PEGA, filed a civil complaint in the Circuit Court
for Fairfax County, Virginia against PEGA and fan employee of a
government contractor using Appian software, alleging claims for
trade secret misappropriation, violation of the Virginia Computer
Crimes Act, tortious interference, and statutory business and
common law conspiracy (the "Appian Litigation"). The Appian
complaint alleged efforts by PEGA to obtain Appian trade secrets
through the contractor's employee, who had access to Appian's
software and materials. The complaint further alleged that PEGA's
own employees, including its Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"),
misrepresented themselves as potential customers of Appian partners
to improperly gain access to Appian's trial software.

Despite the obvious materiality of the Appian Litigation, including
its allegation that PEGA had essentially stolen Appian's trade
secrets and caused Appian massive damages, in violation of SEC
reporting regulations, for nearly two full years during the Class
Period Defendants never disclosed or described the Appian
Litigation in its quarterly reports on Form 10-Q or annual reports
on Form 10-K. When they did finally discuss the Appian Litigation,
Defendants falsely assured investors that the claims asserted in
the litigation were "without merit," PEGA faced no exposure in the
litigation because Appian's alleged damages "are not supported by
the necessary legal standard of proximate cause," and, even if PEGA
was found liable, it was "unable to reasonably estimate possible
damages."

The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) PEGA had engaged
in corporate espionage and misappropriation of trade secrets to
better compete against Appian; (2) Defendants' product development
and associated success was, in significant part, not the result of
its own research and product testing but rather the result of such
corporate espionage and trade secret theft; (3) Defendants had
engaged in a scheme to steal Appian trade secrets, which was not
only known to, but carried out through the personal involvement of
PEGA's CEO; (4) PEGA's CEO and other officers and employees did not
comply with PEGA's written Code of Conduct; (5) PEGA was "unable to
reasonably estimate damages" in the Appian Litigation; and (6) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about PEGA's
business, operations, prospects, legal compliance, and potential
damages exposure in the Appian Litigation were materially false
and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis when made.

The truth regarding PEGA's fraudulent conduct was revealed after
the close of the markets on May 9, 2022, when PEGA issued a press
release announcing that the jury in the Appian Litigation had
awarded Appian more than $2 billion for PEGA's misappropriation of
trade secrets.

In response to this news, PEGA's stock price fell 21%, from a
closing price of $65.93 per share on May 9, 2022, to a closing
price of $52.25 on May 10, 2022. As the market continued to digest
the verdict, PEGA's stock price dropped another 8% to close at
$48.07 per share the following day.

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

Humbl, Inc. (OTCMKTS: HMBL)

Class Period: November 1, 2020 - May 19, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 19, 2022

Humbl is a mobile financial services company that offers investors
various financial products associated with "Web 3" technology and
decentralized finance.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated provisions of the
Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements concerning
the Company's growth prospects, technological advancements,
international partnerships, and financial benefits for Humbl common
stock and digital asset investors, as well as using selectively
timed announcements to keep Humbl stock price high so that Company
insiders could sell off their holdings into artificially created
volume. The complaint also alleges that Defendants violated
provisions of the Securities Act by selling its unregistered
securities (BLOCK ETX digital assets) to investors.

On April 25, 2022, the price of the Humbl common stock hit a low of
$0.11 per share, down from a price high of $6.84 during the Class
Period, which it has not been able to recover. Likewise, the price
of BLOCK ETX has dropped over 87% from its height during the Class
Period and has not recovered.

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

Okta, Inc. (NASDAQ: OKTA)

Class Period: March 5, 2021 - March 22, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 19, 2022

Okta provides identity solutions for enterprises, small and
medium-sized businesses, universities, non-profits, and government
agencies in the U.S. and internationally. The Company offers a
variety of cybersecurity products and services. Following its
completed merger with Auth0, Inc., a Delaware corporation
("Auth0"), on May 3, 2021 (the "Merger"), Okta began providing
additional Auth0 products related to cybersecurity and login
solutions.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations,
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Okta had
inadequate cybersecurity controls; (ii) as a result, Okta's systems
were vulnerable to data breaches; (iii) Okta ultimately did
experience a data breach caused by a hacking group, which
potentially affected hundreds of Okta customers; (iv) Okta
initially did not disclose and subsequently downplayed the severity
of the data breach; (v) all the foregoing, once revealed, was
likely to have a material negative impact on Okta's business,
financial condition, and reputation; and (vi) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On or around March 21, 2022, hackers known as LAPSUS$ posted
screenshots on their Telegram1 channel showing what they claimed
was Okta's internal company environment. Thereafter, on March 22,
2022, the Company's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), Defendant Todd
McKinnon ("McKinnon"), posted a statement on his Twitter account,
disclosing that, "[i]n late January 2022, Okta detected an attempt
to compromise the account of a third party customer support
engineer working for one of our subprocessors"; that "[t]he matter
was investigated and contained by the subprocessor"; that "[w]e
believe the screenshots shared online are connected to this January
event"; and that, "[b]ased on our investigation to date, there is
no evidence of ongoing malicious activity beyond the activity
detected in January."

On this news, Okta's stock price fell $2.98 per share, or 1.76%, to
close at $166.43 per share on March 22, 2022.

Later, on March 22, 2022, during after-market hours, in a statement
on Okta's website, the Company's Chief Security Officer ("CSO"),
Defendant David Bradbury ("Bradbury"), disclosed, inter alia, that
"[a]fter a thorough analysis of [the LAPSUS$] claims, we have
concluded that a small percentage of customers - approximately 2.5%
- have potentially been impacted and whose data may have been
viewed or acted upon."

Following Okta's updated statement, multiple news outlets reported
that hundreds of the Company's clients were potentially affected by
the January 2022 data breach. For example, on March 23, 2022, CNN
published an article entitled "Okta concedes hundreds of clients
could be affected by breach[,]" noting that, despite the Company's
statement that "a small percentage of customers -- approximately
2.5% -- have potentially been impacted[,]" the Company "has over
15,000 customers, according to its website." That same day, Reuters
and others published similar reports.

Separately, Okta was downgraded by Raymond James from "strong buy"
to "market perform," noting, among other things, that "[w]hile
partners were willing to trust Okta's track record, the handling of
its latest security incident adds to our mounting concerns."

Following Okta's after-market update and Raymond James downgrade,
the Company's stock price fell $17.88 per share, or 10.74%, to
close at $148.55 per share on March 23, 2022.

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

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

Enservco Corp. (NYSE American: ENSV)

Class Period: May 13, 2021 - April 18, 2022

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 19, 2022

Enservco, through its subsidiaries, provides well enhancement and
fluid management services to the onshore oil and natural gas
industry in the United States.

Recently, the Company has employed several tactics in an apparent
effort to strengthen its balance sheets. For example, in August
2020, Enservco's Board of Directors approved a transaction to,
inter alia, exchange 50% of the Company's subordinated debt with
Cross River Partners, L.P. ("Cross River Partners"), a related
party. Enservco's Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Richard A.
Murphy, is managing member of Cross River Capital Management, LLC,
the general partner of Cross River Partners. On February 3, 2021,
Enservco exchanged the remaining 50% of its subordinated debt with
Cross River Partners. In addition, the Company awarded a warrant to
Cross River Partners to purchase up to 150,418 additional shares of
the Company's common stock in the future at an exercise price of
$2.507 per share.

Moreover, during the second quarter of 2021, Enservco amended
payroll tax returns originally filed for the third and fourth
quarters of 2020 to claim refundable Employee Retention Credits
("ERCs")—a type of tax credit provided for under the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the "CARES Act")—for
those periods.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Enservco had defective
disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting; (ii) as a result, there were errors in
Enservco's financial statements relating to, inter alia, its
transactions with Cross River Partners and accounting for ERCs;
(iii) accordingly, the Company would need to restate certain of its
financial statements and delay the filing of its 2021 annual report
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"); (iv) the
Company downplayed the true scope and severity of its financial
reporting issues; (v) accordingly, the Company could not file its
delayed 2021 annual report with the SEC within its initially
represented timeline; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On March 28, 2022, Enservco disclosed in an SEC filing that it had
"concluded that the Company's previously issued condensed
consolidated financial statements as of and for the quarters ended
March 31, 2021, June 30, 2021 and September 30, 2021"
(collectively, the "Relevant Periods") "should no longer be relied
upon largely because of the Company's accounting for a conversion
of debt to equity with a related party," namely, Cross River
Partners. The Company further advised that it had "misinterpret[ed
the] eligibility for certain employee retention tax credits under
relevant provisions of the [CARES Act]" and would "amend its
Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the Relevant Periods to reflect
restatements of its condensed consolidated financial statements for
the Relevant Periods."

On this news, Enservco's stock price fell $0.45 per share, or
12.3%, to close at $3.21 per share on March 28, 2022.

On March 31, 2022, Enservco disclosed in an SEC filing that it
could not timely file the Company's annual report on Form 10-K with
the SEC for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2021 because
the Company was "in the process of restating [its] financial
statements and preparing amendments to its Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q filings for the Relevant Periods, which must be completed
prior to the completion and filing of the [Company]'s Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2021."

On this news, Enservco's stock price fell $0.21 per share, or
7.78%, to close at $2.49 per share on April 1, 2022.

On April 4, 2022, Enservco disclosed in an SEC filing that its
Chief Financial Officer, Defendant Marjorie A. Hargrave, "is
departing the Company and will no longer be an executive officer
and employee of the Company effective April 22, 2022."

On this news, Enservco's stock price fell $0.19 per share, or
7.48%, to close at $2.35 per share on April 5, 2022.

On April 11, 2022, Enservco filed amended quarterly reports with
the SEC for the Relevant Periods, each of which reported adjusted
net losses that increased, and adjusted other income that
decreased, significantly for their respective periods.

Then, on April 18, 2022, Enservco disclosed in an SEC filing that
the Company "will not be filing its Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2021 within the 15-day extension period provided
by the Company's 12b-25 filing" because it "intends to [again]
amend its Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the Relevant Periods
to reflect restatements of its condensed consolidated financial
statements for the Relevant Periods."

On this news, Enservco's stock price fell $0.38 per share, or
10.47%, to close at $3.25 per share on April 19, 2022.

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

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.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]

PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Smith Suit Removed to M.D. Alabama
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Smith, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company,
Case No. 03-CV-22-900553 was removed from the Circuit Court of
Montgomery County, Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Alabama on June 10, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:22-cv-00355-ECM-SMD to
the proceeding.

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

The Progressive Corporation -- https://www.progressive.com/ -- is
an American insurance company, the third largest insurance carrier
and the No. 1 commercial auto insurer in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Hiett Waller, Esq.
          WALLER LAW OFFICE, PC
          3595 Grandview Pkwy; Ste. 500
          Birmingham, AL 35243
          Phone: (205) 313-7330
          Email: jwaller@waller-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ariana Bernard, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Mesko, Esq.
          Karl A. Bekeny, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          950 Main Ave., Suite 1100
          Cleveland, OH 44113

               - and -

          M. Wesley Smithart, Esq.
          Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq.
          LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE
          400 20th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Phone: (205) 581-1571
          Email: wsmithart@lightfootlaw.com
                 wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com


PUERTO RICO AQUEDUCTS: Maldonado-Gonzalez's TRO Request Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARMEN MALDONADO-GONZALEZ, et al., Plaintiffs v.
PUERTO RICO AQUEDUCTS AND SEWER AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants,
Civil No. 22-1250 (RAM) (D.P.R.), Judge Paul M. Arias-Marxuach of
the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico denies the
Plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order.

I. Background

Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Verified Complaint seeking
damages, injunctive and declaratory relief due to the allegedly
inadequate water service provided by the Puerto Rico Aqueducts and
Sewer Authority ("PRASA") to subscribers residing in the
Municipality of Morovis.

On June 2, 2022, Plaintiffs the Municipality, Carmen
Maldonado-Gonzalez, in her personal and official capacity as Mayor
of the Municipality, and six residents of the Municipality, all of
whom are PRASA subscribers, filed a putative civil rights class
action under 28 U.S.C. Section 1343 and 42 U.S.C. Sectuib 1983
against PRASA, its Executive Director Doriel Pagan-Crespo, its
Regional Executive Director Jose A. Rivera-Ortiz, and its unnamed
insurance company. The Plaintiffs contend that as subscribers, they
have a constitutionally protected right to continued and adequate
water service from PRASA. Despite this, they claim that for years,
the Municipality has continuously lacked adequate water service
that the problem has worsened since 2017, after Hurricane María.
As remedies, the Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief
as well as damages.

In the relevant part, the Verified Compliant asks the Court to
issue a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and
permanent injunction against the Defendants: (1) ordering the
Defendants to continuously provide adequate water service to
PRASA's subscribers in the Municipality of Morovis, (2) enjoining
the Defendants from shutting down the water service in the
Municipality of Morovis, (3) ordering Defendants to take
affirmative and immediate steps to fix the water service problem in
the Municipality of Morovis, including of connecting the
Municipality of Morovis' water system to PRASA's superaqueduct, and
(4) imposing monetary sanctions on the Defendants, including
co-Defendant Insurance Company ABC, for each day (or part of the
day) that PRASA fails to provide water to its subscribers in the
Municipality of Morovis, at a rate of $1,000 per day, per Plaintiff
and/or class member.

II. Discussion

Judge Arias-Marxuach finds that it has long been established that
under federal law, ex parte temporary restraining orders "should be
restricted to serving their underlying purpose of preserving the
status quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is
necessary to hold a hearing, and no longer." In the case at bar,
the Plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order that would
provide them "with affirmative relief changing the status quo." The
requested temporary restraining is thus improper, as it would not
preserve the status quo and amount to a determination on the
merits.

III. Scheduling Order

To address the remaining claims of the Verified Complaint, Judge
Arias-Marxuach orders that summons will be issued forthwith, and
the Plaintiffs will serve Usdc4 process upon the Defendants by June
24, 2022. Defendants PRASA, Doriel Pagan-Crespo, and Jose A.
Rivera-Ortiz will plead or otherwise defend regarding the Verified
Complied within 14 days of service of process.

The parties will exchange the Mandatory Initial Disclosures
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) within 21 days of service of
process.

An Initial Scheduling Conference is scheduled for July 22, 2022, at
1:00 p.m. before Judge Arias-Marxuach in the Court, located at 150
Carlos Chardon Avenue, San Juan, Puerto Rico in Courtroom 7. The
counsel will be prepared to discuss the matters listed in Local
Rule 16(a) and whether the preliminary injunction request can be
adjudicated based on a stipulated record.

By July 29, 2022, the parties will file a joint motion containing:
(a) joint stipulations of fact; (b) factual stipulations proposed
by the Plaintiffs and rejected by the Defendants including the
latter's basis for rejecting each proposed stipulation; (c) factual
stipulations proposed by the Defendants and rejected by the
Plaintiffs including the latter's basis for rejecting each proposed
stipulation; (d) the names and summaries of the expected testimony
of the witnesses each party intends to call to testify at a
preliminary injunction hearing; (d) the name, field of expertise
and summaries of the expected testimony of the expert witnesses
each party intends to call to testify during that hearing; (e) a
list of the documents each party intends to call during that
hearing.

The Plaintiffs will serve the Order upon the Defendants personally
and by electronic mail no later than June 24, 2022.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons discussed, Judge Arias-Marxuach denies the
temporary restraining order requested by the Plaintiffs.
Furthermore, the Plaintiffs will comply with the timeline
outlined.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2022 Memorandum &
Scheduling Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bddtpjfy from
Leagle.com.


QYST INC: District Court Approves $25K Settlement in Short Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BILLY SHORT, Plaintiff v. QYST INC., Defendant, Civil
Action No. 21-2730 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
grants the parties' motion to approve the proposed Settlement
Agreement.

Before the Court is an unopposed motion for approval of a
settlement agreement, regarding the claims for overtime
compensation brought by Plaintiff Short under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (the "FLSA") and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
(the "PMWA") against Defendant Qyst.

I. Background

The Defendant operates multiple automotive centers in Southeastern
Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff worked at the Defendant's center in
Media, Pennsylvania, as a mechanic from approximately May 2015 to
June 2020. On June 18, 2021, the Plaintiff filed this civil action,
alleging that the Defendant violated the FLSA and the PMWA by
failing to properly compensate him for all of the hours he worked.
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that he typically worked 50
hours per week but did not receive overtime pay for the weeks that
he worked over 40 hours.

In its answer, the Defendant maintains that the Plaintiff did not
typically work 50 hours per week and was an overtime-exempted
employee. Following the initial exchange of disclosures under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and discovery requests, the
parties, each represented by the counsel, engaged in arms-length
settlement negotiations. The negotiations culminated in the
memorialized proposed Settlement Agreement currently pending the
Court's approval. The Settlement Agreement provides for the
Plaintiff to receive $16,250 and for the Plaintiff's counsel to
receive $8,750.

II. Discussion

Having reviewed the parties' proposed Settlement Agreement, Judge
Alejandro is satisfied that it is a "fair and reasonable resolution
of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions" and, further, does not
impermissibly frustrate implementation of the FLSA in the
workplace.

Judge Alejandro is satisfied that a bona fide dispute exists as to
both the Defendant's liability and the Plaintiff's damages under
the FLSA. As evidenced by the Plaintiff's complaint and the
Defendant's answer, the action involves disputed issues of fact as
to whether the Plaintiff worked over 40 hours per week and whether
the Plaintiff was an overtime-exempt employee. Based on the
pleadings, it is clear that a bona fide dispute exists regarding
the validity of the Plaintiff's claims and the Defendant's defenses
thereto.

When determining whether a proposed settlement is fair and
reasonable, Judge Alejandro Court must consider the Third Circuit's
nine-factor test for evaluating proposed class action settlement
agreements, i.e., the Girsh factors. The Girsh factors include: (1)
the complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation; (2)
the reaction of the class to the settlement; (3) the stage of the
proceedings and the amount of discovery completed; (4) the risks of
establishing liability; (5) the risks of establishing damages; (6)
the risks of maintaining the class action through the trial; (7)
the ability of the defendants to withstand a greater judgment; (8)
the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of the
best possible recovery; and (9) the range of reasonableness of the
settlement fund to a possible recovery in light of all the
attendant risks of litigation. No one factor, however, is
dispositive. Because Girsh was a class action, some of the factors
are of "little help, if not irrelevant in the single-plaintiff
context."

In the case, Judge Alejandro finds that factors 1, 3-5, and 8-9 are
relevant to the single-plaintiff action. After considering these
factors, he finds that they weigh in favor of approving the
proposed Settlement Agreement. She finds that (i) had the parties
not reached this settlement, this matter would have proceeded to
further discovery (Factor 1); (ii) the parties had an opportunity
to identify and grasp the strengths and weaknesses of each party's
case (Factor 3); (iii) the proposed Settlement Agreement avoids the
risk that Defendant may not be found liable (Factor 4); (iv)  the
proposed settlement amount of $25,000 -- which represents
approximately 121% of the $20,670 the Plaintiff claims to be owed
-- is a positive result (Factor 5); and (v) the parties' proposed
Settlement Agreement is a fair and reasonable resolution of the
parties' bona fide disputes (Factors 8-9).

Having determined that the proposed Settlement Agreement is a fair
and reasonable resolution of the parties' disputes, Judge Alejandro
must determine whether the Settlement Agreement furthers or
"impermissibly frustrates" implementation of the FLSA. After
reviewing the proposed Settlement Agreement's confidentiality
provision, she finds that it is sufficiently limited in scope. The
confidentiality provision prohibits the parties from making
statements to the media, with the exception of noting an amicable
resolution and directing the media to the public record, and it
prohibits the parties from disparaging one another. The Plaintiff
is otherwise permitted to discuss the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, and the public will have access to the approved
Settlement Agreement. District courts in this Circuit have found
such confidentiality provisions sufficiently limited in scope. In
sum, neither the release of claims nor the confidentiality
provision impermissibly frustrates the implementation of the FLSA.

As compensation for their legal services and efforts, the
Plaintiff's counsel requests that the Court approves the provisions
of the proposed Settlement Agreement that provide for attorney's
fees and costs in the amount of $8,750. This fee and cost portion
represents 35% of the total settlement amount. Although the
contingency agreement was not filed in support, the Plaintiff's
counsel relies upon the Declaration of Mark Gottesfeld, attached to
the motion, to establish the reasonableness of the fee and to
explain that the Plaintiff's counsel is employed by a pure
contingency fee law firm. Judge Alejandro approves the request for
attorney's fees and costs, which she finds to be reasonable.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons she stated, Judge Alejandro grants the parties'
motion to approve the proposed Settlement Agreement. She finds that
the request for attorney's fees and costs is reasonable, and awards
the Plaintiff's counsel attorney's fees and costs in the amount of
$8,750. An Order consistent with the Memorandum Opinion follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/42btjrjy from Leagle.com.


RIPLEY OPERATOR: Campbell Sues Over Failure to Pay CNAs' Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STACY CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated current, Plaintiff v. RIPLEY OPERATOR, LLC d/b/a RIPLEY
HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-02361-SHL-atc (W.D. Tenn.,
June 10, 2022) brings this complaint as a collective action against
the Defendant for its alleged failure to pay overtime in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid
Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) at the Defendant's Ripley,
Tennessee facility.

The Plaintiff claims that she and other similarly situated CNAs
regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek during their
employment with the Defendant. However, the Defendant did not pay
them overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per
workweek. Instead, they were paid "straight time" without overtime.
The Defendant allegedly calculates overtime bi-weekly rather than
weekly as required by the FLSA, the Plaintiff adds.

On behalf of herself and all other similarly situated CNAs, the
Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid back wages and an equal amount of
liquidated damages, as well as litigation costs, attorneys' fees,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as may be
necessary and appropriate.

Ripley Operator, LLC provides a long-term skilled nursing care and
short-term disability, rehabilitation solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT
            OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Tel: (901) 754-8001
          Fax: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: rturner@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com

RYZE CLAIM: $315K Class Settlement in Billings Suit Wins Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LESLIE BILLINGS, Plaintiff v. RYZE CLAIM SOLUTIONS,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01767-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind.), Judge
Jane Magnus-Stinson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, grants the Plaintiff's
unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and
his unopposed Motion for Attorney's Fees, Cost Reimbursement, and
Enhancement Award.

I. Introduction

On June 10, 2022, the Court held a Fairness Hearing in the matter
and a hearing on Plaintiff Billings' unopposed Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement, and his unopposed Motion for
Attorney's Fees, Cost Reimbursement, and Enhancement Award. The
hearing took place via video conference. The Court heard argument
from the counsel regarding the fairness of the class action
settlement in the matter, and regarding Mr. Billings' unopposed
Motions.

II. Background

Mr. Billings, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, sets forth class claims alleging that Ryze violated
various California statutes related to, among others, the payment
of minimum and overtime wages and compensation for meal and rest
periods.

On Feb. 16, 2022, after the parties had conducted discovery and
participated in settlement conferences, the Court granted the
parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement.

Specifically, the Court conditionally certified the following
Settlement Class: "Consistent with the allegations in the First
Amended Complaint, all individuals who are or have been employed by
Defendant as a claims adjuster within the State of California at
any time from October 20, 2013, to December 15, 2021. The term
employed by Defendant as used in the operative complaint and here
excludes individuals who worked for RYZE exclusively as Form 1099
independent contractors. The Settlement Class consists of only 25
individuals."

The Settlement Agreement provides for payment of a Gross Settlement
Amount of $315,000, which includes: (1) a $15,000 Service Award
paid to Mr. Billings; (2) a payment of $3,000 in settlement
administration costs to the Settlement Administrator; (3)
attorneys' fees not to exceed $78,750 and costs not to exceed
$18,000 paid to Class Counsel; and (4) a pro rata share of the
remainder of the Gross Settlement Amount to participating class
members.

The Court preliminarily found that the Settlement Agreement
resulted from arm's-length negotiations, that the Settlement
Agreement is "sufficient to warrant notice of the Settlement and
the Final Approval Hearing to the members of the Settlement Class,"
and that the terms of the Settlement Agreement are "fair,
reasonable, and adequate." It also preliminarily found that the
settlement class met the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The
Court approved the form of notice proposed by the parties, and the
procedure by which notice would be given.

After administering the settlement, Mr. Billings filed an unopposed
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and an
unopposed Motion for Attorney's Fees, Cost Reimbursement, and
Enhancement Award.

III. Discussion

A. Class Certification

1. Rule 23(a) Analysis

Mr. Billings argues that his class meets all four requirements of
Rule 23(a). The Supreme Court has instructed that the district
court must perform a "rigorous analysis" to determine whether the
prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied because "'actual,
not presumed, conformance with Rule 23(a) remains indispensable.'"
It is the plaintiff's burden to prove first that an identifiable
class exists that merits certification under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a). The four prerequisites under Rule 23(a) are: "(1)
that the class is so numerous that joinder of all its members is
impracticable; (2) that there are questions of law or fact common
to the class; (3) that the claims or defenses of the representative
parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4)
that the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class." Class certification is not appropriate
unless the named plaintiff establishes all four prerequisites.

First, Judge Magnus-Stinson finds that Mr. Billings has met the
numerosity requirement. The parties agree that the class consists
of 25 members, which is sufficient to satisfy Mr. Billings' burden
of showing that the class is so numerous that joinder of all
members would be impracticable.

Second, she finds that there are questions of law or fact common to
the class. The common question is whether Ryze violated various
California statutes by misclassifying claims adjusters; failing to
pay overtime and double time premiums; failing to adopt a policy
regarding, to provide, and to pay for meal and rest periods; and
failing to pay for certain business expenses. The Class members'
claims are the same, and their injuries are likely the same as
well.

Third, she finds that Mr. Billings' claims are typical of the
claims of the class. Mr. Billings has the same claims as the class
members -- violations of various California labor statutes.

Fourth, she finds that Mr. Billings and his counsel will adequately
represent the interests of the class.

2. Rule 23(b) Analysis

Finally, Judge Magnus-Stinson finds that Mr. Billings has met the
requirements of Rule 23(b)(3). Under Rule 23(b)(3), a class action
may be maintained if the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) are satisfied
and if the Court finds that the questions of law or fact common to
class members predominate over any questions affecting individual
class members, and that a class action is superior to other
available methods of adjudicating the controversy.

Having already found that Mr. Billings has satisfied the
commonality prerequisite of Rule 23(a)(2), Judge Magnus-Stinson
concludes that the common questions in this case predominate over
any individual questions because the class members' claims are
based upon the same legal theories, and resolution of one class
member's claim will resolve the claims of all class members.

B. Fairness of Settlement Agreement and Appropriateness of
Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service Awards

After reviewing the Settlement Agreement and information presented
regarding the administration of the settlement, and considering the
information presented by counsel at the hearing, Judge
Magnus-Stinson finds that the settlement in the matter was reached
in good faith and at arm's length, and is a reasonable compromise
of the vigorously disputed issues in the case.

As for the amount of attorneys' fees and costs requested, she finds
that a ratio of 27.05% -- representing the percentage of the total
settlement value that the attorneys' fee request comprises -- is
reasonable. The total settlement amount paid into the fund for
distribution to the class is $315,000. After subtracting attorneys'
fees requested ($78,750), litigation costs ($14,935.35), the
service award paid to Mr. Billings ($15,000), and the settlement
administration costs paid to the Settlement Administrator ($3,000),
the resulting amount is $203,314.65. The ratio of the fee requested
by Mr. Billings' counsel ($78,750) to the fee plus what the class
members would receive ($78,750 + $203,314.65 = $282,064.65) is
27.92%.

Judge Magnus-Stinson further finds that a service award of $15,000
to Mr. Billings is reasonable. She says, the $78,750 in attorneys'
fees, $14,935.35 in costs, a $15,000 service award to Mr. Billings
for serving as the class representative, and a $3,000 payment to
the Service Administrator are reasonable taking into account the
circumstances of the case and the relevant ratio.

IV. Conclusion

In sum, Judge Magnus-Stinson grants Mr. Billings' unopposed
Motions, to the extent that she finally approves the Settlement
Agreement; finally certifies the class defined; appoints Mr.
Billings as the class representative; appoints David P. Myers,
Robert M. Kitson, and Jason Hatcher of The Myers Law Groups, APC as
the class counsel; and awards $78,750 in attorneys' fees and
$14,935.35 in costs, a service award of $15,000 to Mr. Billings,
and $3,000 in settlement administration costs to the Settlement
Administrator, all to be paid from the $315,000 settlement fund.

The matter is dismissed with prejudice and without fees, costs or
disbursements to any party, except as provided in the Settlement
Agreement and the Order as to the Plaintiff's counsel's fees and
costs, the service award to Mr. Billings, and the settlement
administration costs to the Settlement Administrator. Final
judgment will be entered accordingly.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4dwes6zs from Leagle.com.


SAVE OLD GROWTH: Class Suit Mulled Against Road Blockades' Protests
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Arnold, writing for MyCampbellRiverNow, reports that a
class-action lawsuit is being considered by a group to prevent
protests against old growth logging through road blockades that
were slated to run June 13.

Organizers of the Clear the Road campaign are gathering information
to see if it is a viable option for their mission. An organizer
Tamara Meggitt says anyone harmed by the disruptions taking place
after Monday, June 13, is asked to document and submit
information.

"Are you a tradesperson who lost work? Were you unable to tend to
your store? Did merchandise being delivered spoil or fail to reach
its destination, causing your business a loss?" asks Meggitt in a
press release. "If any of these things apply, we would like to hear
from you."

This follows the news that a logging protest group called Save Old
Growth was set to be running blockades on Monday, June 13, to, as
they say on their website, "disrupt business as usual."

The group aligns themselves with the A22 Network, which they say is
a nine country coalition that has a distinct policy demand from
governments in each. The Canadian chapter's demand is that BC
Premier Horgan pass legislation to immediately end all logging of
old growth forests in the province.

Save Old Growth has run blockades and other protests in cities
across the province since January of this year. On the island their
presence has been felt most in the south-central in Nanaimo with
weekly blockades and occasionally in Langford delaying traffic
heading up-island from Victoria. They have local chapters in
Nanaimo, Victoria, and Vancouver that meet weekly.

Most recently their supporters glued themselves to goalposts during
the June 10 soccer match at BC Place between Canada and Caracao.
They disrupted the game for a couple of minutes before play
returned.

June 13th has been marked on the organization's calendar for a
while. On their website, they say that from June 13th on they are
planning to occupy critical infrastructure "day after day until we
get legislative change to ban all old-growth logging in BC."

Meggitt says that Save Old Growth is purely a nuisance campaign.

"British Columbia already has world-leading standards in place for
protecting rare ecosystems," says Meggitt. "It isn't
environmentalism to block roads and force hundreds of drivers to
burn extra fuel idling in an artificial traffic jam. That's
hypocrisy, and has a real impact on people's lives."

She asks anyone stalled in traffic by a blockade to document the
"harm they suffer" and share that with Clear The Road by email at
drive@cleartheroad.ca.

"Evidence of damages is necessary so we can work with a law firm to
get a class-action lawsuit underway," says Meggitt.

She hopes the protest will be a peaceful deterrent to protesters.

"These blockaders state they wish to provoke and anger the public
to create physical conflicts that are then filmed for viral videos.
What a horribly misguided idea," says Meggitt. "We also hope a
class-action suit can provide a peaceful release valve for the
frustration caused to folks just going about their day." [GN]

SPICE ALLIANCE: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spice Alliance LLC.
The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Spice Alliance LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04913-PGG (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2022).

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

The Spice Alliance -- https://thespicealliance.com/ -- is a creator
of Small Batch, Organic Dry Rubs and Seasonings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


STEIFF NORTH AMERICA: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Steiff North America,
Inc. The case is styled as Cristian Sanchez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Steiff North America,
Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-04911-ER (S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2022).

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

Steiff -- https://www.steiffusa.com/ -- is the world's premier
manufacturer of high-end toys and collectibles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI & KROUB LLP
          200 Vesey Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 11201
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Value Drug Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VALUE DRUG COMPANY, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-mc-13 (S.D. Ohio), Magistrate Judge
Stephanie K. Bowman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Western Division, grants Value Drug's Motion to
Transfer Venue.

I. Background

On Aug. 5, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action
complaint in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that in
2014, Takeda and three generic pharmaceutical companies (Par,
Watson, and Amneal) conspired to reduce competition for Colcrys (a
gout drug) by entering into agreements delaying the entry of
competing generic drugs into the market even after Takeda's period
of exclusivity expired on July 29, 2016. Value Drug brings claims
under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act on behalf of a class of
direct purchasers of brand and generic Colcrys, including AG
Colcrys.

The amended complaint in the underlying Pennsylvania action asserts
that Prasco, LLC dba Prasco Laboratories started selling AG Colcrys
on Jan. 11, 2015. Notably, Prasco is a private pharmaceutical
company headquartered in Mason, Ohio. Value Drug served a subpoena
on Prasco on Sept. 13, 2021. Value Drug's subpoena seeks Prasco's
colchicine transactional sales data. Despite extensive meet and
confer efforts, Value Drug was unable to reach agreement with
Prasco. After several meet and confer calls, the parties were
unable to reach an agreement relating to the information requested
by the subpoena.

Thereafter, on April 4, 2022, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 45, Value Drug Company filed the instant action asking
the Court to compel Prasco Laboratories to produce
transaction-level sales data for authorized generic ("AG") Colcrys,
as requested by Request No. 11 in Value Drug's Subpoena Duces Tecum
served on Sept. 13, 2021. That same day, it also filed a motion to
transfer its motion to compel to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

II. Discussion

The issue in the case is whether the Court should, within its
discretion, transfer Value Drug's motion to compel to the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f). Value
Drug, as the proponent of transfer, "bears the burden of showing
that such [exceptional] circumstances are present." It argues,
inter alia, that transfer is appropriate because the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania is a more efficient venue to adjudicate
Value Drug's Motion to Compel against Prasco.

Prasco opposes the motion, asserting that transfer should be denied
because this dispute does not present the "exceptional
circumstances" that Rule 45 requires. It contends that the dispute
is not so intertwined with the issues in the EDPA Litigation as to
require that court's participation. Moreover, as a local nonparty
uninvolved in the underlying case, Prasco should not be required to
defend in a distant venue. Prasco also raises concerns about the
confidentiality of the documents sought.

Contrary to Prasco's assertions, Judge Bowman finds that Value Drug
has met its burden to prove that exceptional circumstances exist
warranting transfer of the matter to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. As noted by Value Drug, the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania has experience with the facts of the complex
underlying case. A Special Master has been appointed to resolve
discovery disputes, and he has already evaluated the relevance of
certain documents, ruling on one motion to compel.

Furthermore, Value Drug is seeking the production of
transaction-level sales data from Prasco that is relevant to Value
Drug's class certification expert reports that are due on July 21,
2022. As such, Value Drug asserts exceptional circumstances warrant
transfer because Prasco's transaction-level sales data are
undisputedly relevant to these reports as they are relevant to,
inter alia, damages, identifying class members, and other class
certification issues.

Moreover, judicial economy warrants transferring this matter to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania because there "is a very real
possibility that the Court's ruling could conflict with any ruling
issued by" the Pennsylvania Court. The Pennsylvania court has
knowledge of the underlying issues surrounding Value Drug's
attempts to secure the records sought by its non-party subpoena.
Accordingly, "judicial economy will be best served by having all of
these disputes resolved by the same court."

III. Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, Judge Bowman grants Value Drug's motion
to transfer, and the matter is transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for all further
proceedings, including ruling on Value Drug's pending Motion to
Compel.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/34wwn2fk from Leagle.com.


TELADOC HEALTH: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 5 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attention Teladoc Health, Inc. ("Teladoc") (NYSE: TDOC)
shareholders:

The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 13 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased
between October 28, 2021 and April 27, 2022.

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

https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/teladoc-health-inc-loss-submission-form-2?prid=28396&wire=4
ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Teladoc includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) increased
competition, among other factors, was negatively impacting
Teladoc's BetterHelp and chronic care businesses; (ii) accordingly,
the growth of those businesses was less sustainable than Defendants
had led investors to believe; (iii) as a result, Teladoc's revenue
and adjusted EBITDA projections for FY 2022 were unrealistic; (iv)
as a result of all the foregoing, Teladoc would be forced to
recognize a significant non-cash goodwill impairment charge; and
(v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

DEADLINE: August 5, 2022

Aggrieved Teladoc investors only have until August 5, 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]

TP APPAREL: Faces Maddy Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
VERONICA MADDY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TP Apparel, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-04632-KPF (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website teepublic.com/ to be fully accessible to, and independently
usable by, the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired
people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New
York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights
Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engaged in acts of
intentional discrimination due to the inaccessibility of its
website, and seeks a permanent injunction to cause Defendant to
change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually
impaired consumers.

TP Apparel LLC, doing buisness as TeePublic, provides e-commerce
services. The Company offers t-shirts, hoodies, tank tops,
sweatshirts, stickers, phone cases, mugs, notebooks, pillows, tote
bags, tapestries, and magnets. TeePublic serves customers in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
          108-26 64th avenue, Second Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Telephone: (929) 324-0717
          Facsimile: (929) 333-7774
          E-mail: mars@khaimovlaw.com

TWITTER INC: Faces Privacy Class Action Lawsuit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Twitter is
accused of peddling its users phone numbers and email addresses to
advertisers in violation of the law.

Plaintiff Lauren Price filed a proposed class action lawsuit May 31
in California federal court, nine days after Twitter reached a
settlement of those allegations with the Federal Trade Commission
worth $150 million. She is represented by Morgan & Morgan Complex
Litigation Group.

Though the phone numbers and email addresses were collected "under
the guise" they would be used for security-related reasons, Twitter
instead used them to allow advertisers to target specific groups of
users, the suit says.

"Twitter's relationship with its users is governed by the Twitter
Terms of Service and the Twitter Privacy Policy," the suit says.
"The Twitter Privacy Policy repeatedly promises Plaintiff and Class
members that Twitter respects their information and discloses such
information only with users' consent."

The suit makes claims for breach of contract, breach of implied
contract, violation of California laws and unjust enrichment.

"Defendant breached the implied contracts it made with Plaintiff
and the Class by utilizing and profiting from their personal
information via the marketing and advertising purposes the
information was put to," the suit says. [GN]

USAA GENERAL: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Berardi and Smith Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, ERNEST J. BERARDI, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons v. USAA GENERAL INDEMINTY
COMPANY. SAMANTHA SMITH, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons v. USAA CASUALTY COMPANY, Civil Action
Nos. 22-813, 22-832 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Michael M. Baylson of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants
Defendants USAA General Indemnity Co. and USAA Casualty Insurance
Co.'s Motions to Dismiss.

I. Introduction

Defendants USAA General and USAA Casualty (collectively, the
"USAA") have filed Motions to Dismiss in the case arising from a
dispute over vehicle insurance. Plaintiff Ernest J. Berardi and
Plaintiff Samantha Smith each bring a putative class action on
behalf of USAA customers who were allegedly defrauded and charged
wrongful premiums by USAA. USAA moves to dismiss all claims.

Although Berardi and Smith have brought separate actions, the cases
are virtually identical; the Defendant in each case is essentially
the same, the Plaintiff in each case is represented by the same
counsel, and the briefs contain the exact same arguments and
assertions. Judge Baylson therefore discusses and decides the cases
together.

II. Background and Factual Allegations

Ernest J. Berardi and Samantha Smith are Pennsylvania residents who
purchased automobile insurance from, respectively, USAA General and
USAA Casualty. The companies are both based in Texas and are
wholly-owned subsidiaries of USAA. Berardi and Smith each own a
single vehicle that is covered by the USAA insurance policy, and no
one in either Berardi's or Smith's household owns any other
vehicles or policies.

In purchasing the USAA policies, Berardi and Smith each elected
stacked uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage, for
which they were each charged an additional premium. UM/UIM
insurance is a form of coverage that comes into play when a
tortfeasor injures an insured person and the tortfeasor's own
insurance coverage is either nonexistent or insufficient to fully
compensate the injured insured person. The injured insured person
may then draw upon UM/UIM coverage provided by their own insurer.

"Stacking" is the practice of allowing insurance coverage of
individual vehicles to be combined to increase the total amount of
coverage available to the insured; coverage for one vehicle can be
"stacked" on the coverage for another vehicle.

The Plaintiffs now bring suit against the Defendants, alleging
that, as single-vehicle owners with no other household policies,
they do not benefit from stacked UM/UIM coverage and therefore
should not have to pay a premium for it. They allege that USAA knew
or should have known at the time it issued the policies that
Berardi and Smith were single-vehicle owners with no other policies
in their households. USAA should have accordingly advised Berardi
and Smith that they would not benefit from stacked UM/UIM coverage,
avers the Plaintiff, but failed to do so.

The Plaintiffs each bring their action on behalf of a putative
class of similarly situated USAA customers—single-vehicle owners
with no other household policies -- who elected and paid for
stacked UM/UIM coverage. They filed their suits in the Philadelphia
Court of Common Pleas, and Defendants, pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act, removed both to federal court.

The Plaintiffs bring the following Counts in each Complaint, some
of which are styled as Counts but are actually requests for
particular remedies: Count I: Declaratory relief; Count II: Return
of premiums; Count III: Unjust enrichment; Count IV: Violation of
the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL), 73
P.S. Section 201-1, et seq.; Count V: Fraud; and Count VI:
Injunctive relief.

The Defendants seeks to dismiss both Complaints. The Plaintiffs
filed Responses, and the Defendants filed Replies.

The Court held oral argument on the Motions on May 25, 2022. The
counsel was well-prepared and reiterated the legal arguments made
in the briefs. The Plaintiffs' counsel helpfully clarified the
scope of the Plaintiffs' sought-after relief, explaining that the
Plaintiffs' requested declaratory and injunctive relief would not
require the Court to rewrite vehicle insurance contracts but only
to say whether those contracts actually provide stacking benefits.

III. Discussion

The Plaintiffs request that the Court issues a declaration stating
that single-vehicle owners with no other household policies who
purchased stacked UM/UIM coverage from USAA do not benefit from
that coverage and that USAA is required to return to these
customers the premiums they paid for stacked UM/UIM coverage. In
the same vein, Count II of their Complaints requests that the Court
orders USAA to return stacked UM/UIM coverage premiums paid by
putative class members, and Count VI of the Plaintiffs' Complaints
requests an injunction prohibiting USAA from charging premiums for
stacked UM/UIM coverage in policies purchased by single-vehicle
owners with no other household policies.

First, Judge Baylson declines to adopt the Plaintiffs' expansive
reading of Generette v. Donegal Mutual Insurance Company, 957 A.2d
1180 (Pa. 2008), which did not distinguish between "household" and
"non-household" policies at all. The Plaintiffs have not cited,
either in their briefs or at oral argument, any cases in the 14
years since Generette was decided that have interpreted Generette
as the Plaintiffs do. In light of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's
clear precedent, the Court must dismiss Counts I, II, and VI.

Next, Judge Baylson concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to
state a claim for unjust enrichment. In the present case, each
Plaintiff has clearly alleged that there is a contract -- the
insurance policy at issue -- between the parties. The Plaintiffs'
claims concern matters very much within the scope of the insurance
policies; the basic premise of each Plaintiff's action is that they
are not not benefitting from a form of coverage provided for in the
policy and therefore should not have to pay a premium provided for
in the policy.

Judge Baylson also cannot agree that USAA made a false material
representation by failing to adopt the Plaintiffs' novel
interpretation of Generette and inform Berardi and Smith that --
contrary to the MVFRL -- their policies would not actually provide
stacked coverage. "Each insured has the right and obligation to
question his insurer at the time the insurance contract is entered
into as to the type of coverage desired and the ramifications
arising therefrom. Once the insurance contract takes effect,
however, the insured must take responsibility for his policy."
Judge Baylson will dismiss the Plaintiffs' fraud claims.

Lastly, the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the
catchall provision. Judge Baylson finds that the Plaintiffs may
receive less value from the stacked UM/UIM coverage they elected
than if they owned multiple vehicles or possessed multiple
household policies. However, "Pennsylvania courts have often
stressed that the insured has both the capacity and the duty to
inquire about the scope of insurance coverage, rather than rely on
'hand holding and substituted judgment.'"

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Baylson grants the Defendants'
Motions and dismisses the Plaintiffs' Complaints. An appropriate
Order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2022 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/nh7bbcw2 from Leagle.com.


VERRICA PHARMA: Vincent Wong Law Reminds of August 5 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attention Verrica Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Verrica") (NASDAQ: VRCA)
shareholders:

The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 13 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of investors who purchased
between May 28, 2021 and May 24, 2022.

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

https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/verrica-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=28394&wire=4

ABOUT THE ACTION: The class action against Verrica includes
allegations that the Company made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) there
were manufacturing deficiencies at the facility where Verrica's
contract manufacturer produced a bulk solution for the Company's
lead product candidate, VP-102; (2) these deficiencies were not
remediated when Verrica resubmitted its New Drug Application for
VP-12 for molluscum; (3) the foregoing presented significant risks
to Verrica obtaining regulatory approval of VP-102 for molluscum;
and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

DEADLINE: August 5, 2022

Aggrieved Verrica investors only have until August 5, 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]

VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Robbins LLP Reminds of August 5 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Class: Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP informs
investors that a shareholder filed a class action on behalf of all
persons and entities that purchased Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc.
(NASDAQ: VRCA) securities between May 28, 2021 and May 24, 2022,
for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Verrica is a
dermatology therapeutics company that develops medications for
viral skin diseases requiring medical intervention.

What is this Case About: Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc. (VRCA)
Received a Complete Response Letter from the FDA relating to its
New Drug Application for VP-102

Verrica has spent several years working to bring to market VP-102,
the Company's investigational, proprietary, drug-device combination
for the treatment of molluscum contagiosum. However, several
challenges have prevented this from happening. Verrica received its
first Complete Response Letter (CRL) regarding the New Drug
Application (NDA) in September 2021 due to deficiencies at a
facility of Verrica's contract manufacturer. Verrica resubmitted
the NDA for VP-102 in November 2021, claiming "[t]he resubmission
addresses the successful resolution of inspection deficiencies" at
the manufacturing facility.

On May 24, 2022, Verrica received yet another CRL from the FDA
related to its NDA for VP-102, citing "deficiencies identified
during a general inspection of Sterling Pharmaceuticals Services,
LLC (Sterling) the contract manufacturing organization (CMO) that
manufacture's Verrica's bulk solution drug product." On this news,
the Company's stock price fell 63.85%, to close at $2.01 per share
on May 25, 2022.

According to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose that
there were manufacturing deficiencies at the facility where
Verrica's contract manufacturer produced bulk solution for VP-102
and that these deficiencies were not remediated when Verrica
resubmitted its NDA for VP-102, which presented a significant risk
to Verrica obtaining regulatory approval for VP-102.

Next Steps: If you acquired your shares of Verrica Pharmaceuticals
Inc. (VRCA) securities between May 28, 2021 and May 24, 2022, you
have until August 5, 2022, to ask the court to appoint you lead
plaintiff for the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be
eligible for a recovery.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.

Contact us to learn more:

Aaron Dumas
(800) 350-6003
adumas@robbinsllp.com

About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002. To be notified if a class action
against Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc. settles or to receive free
alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for
Stock Watch today.

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

Contacts:

Aaron Dumas
Robbins LLP
5040 Shoreham Place
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]

WALMART INC: Court Dismisses Brito-Munoz's Amended Class Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FERNANDA BRITO-MUNOZ and TAMIKA WILLIAMS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
WALMART, INC., Defendant, Civil No. 1:21-CV-00903 (M.D. Pa.), Judge
Jennifer P. Wilson of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania grants Walmart's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

I. Background

The named Plaintiffs in the case are Fernanda Brito-Munoz and
Tamika Williams.

Plaintiff Brito-Munoz is a Pennsylvania resident who has a daughter
who "has suffered skin irritation, dermatitis, and/or allergic skin
reaction in the past." To care for her daughter, Brito-Munoz
alleges that she regularly purchased Parent's Choice Baby Wipes and
Parent's Choice diapers from Walmart. Brito-Munoz claims that these
products were labeled as "hypoallergenic," which was "a significant
reason for her purchase" due to her daughter's history of skin
issues.

Similarly, Plaintiff Williams is a resident of California who "has
suffered skin irritation, eye irritation, dermatitis, and/or an
allergic skin reaction in the past." As such, Williams claims that
she purchased Parent's Choice Baby Lotion, Parent's Choice Baby
Laundry Detergent, Parent's Choice Shea Butter Baby Wipes, Parent's
Choice Maximum Strength Diaper Rash Ointment, Parent's Choice Wash
& Shampoo, and Equate Personal Wipes from Walmart, all of which
were labeled as "hypoallergenic." She alleges that this label was
"a significant reason for her purchase."

Both Plaintiffs assert that they purchased these products
regularly.

The Plaintiffs claim that contrary to the "hypoallergenic" labels
on its products, Walmart's products contain "a significant array
and substantial amount of known skin sensitizers (allergens),
agents that cause serious skin damage, chemicals that cause serious
eye damage lasting longer than 21 days, skin irritants, and eye
irritants." Thus, thye allege that "Walmart's body care products
were falsely and misleadingly marketed as 'hypoallergenic' (some of
which were also falsely and misleadingly marketed as 'tear-free')"
since "all of these products contain skin allergens in an amount
known to cause an allergic reaction."

Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim that Walmart improperly labels
the following products as hypoallergenic and/or "tear-free": 2-in-1
Baby Wash & Shampoo; 2-in-1 Cleanser; Antibacterial Hand Wipes;
Anti-Wrinkle Cream; Baby Bath; Baby Laundry Detergent; Baby Lotion;
Baby Oil Cream; Baby Powder; Baby Shampoo; Baby Sunscreen Lotion;
Baby Wash & Shampoo; Baby Wipes; Bath for Nighttime/Nighttime Bath;
Body Wash; Cleansing Towelettes; Daily Moisturizer; Day Cream;
Diaper Rash Ointment; Diaper Rash Paste; Diaper Rash Relief; Facial
Moisturizer; Facial Scrub; Facial Wipes; Feminine Wash; Feminine
Wipes; Kids Sunscreen Lotion; Kids Sunscreen Stick; Lotion; Makeup
Remover Towelettes; Moisturizing Lotion; Personal Wipes; Wash &
Shampoo; and Wipes.

The Plaintiffs assert that if they knew the products they were
purchasing "were not hypoallergenic as promised, they would not
have purchased these products," although Brito-Munoz states that
she would purchase the products if "she had no other available
options due to stock." They also claim that they "purchased,
purchased more of, or paid more for, these products than they would
have had [they] known that the products were not hypoallergenic, as
promised." The Plaintiffs assert that "by deceiving consumers about
the nature, quality, and/or ingredients of its products, Walmart is
able to command a premium price, increasing consumers' willingness
to pay and take away market share from competing products, thereby
increasing its own sales and profits."

On the basis of these facts, the Plaintiffs filed a seven-count
complaint on May 18, 2021, alleging claims for breach of express
warranty; unjust enrichment; unfair and deceptive acts and
practices under California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act;
California's False Advertising Law; California's Unfair Competition
Law; Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law; and breach of contract. Following a motion to dismiss, the
Plaintiffs amended their complaint on Sept. 10, 2021, setting forth
the same claims.

On Sept. 24, 2021, Walmart filed the instant motion to dismiss the
complaint, accompanied by a supporting brief. The Plaintiffs filed
a brief in opposition on Oct. 15, 2021. Walmart timely filed a
reply brief. Accordingly, the motion is ripe for disposition.

II. Discussion

The Plaintiffs' alleged injuries are purely economic. In essence,
Judge Wilson gathers that the Plaintiffs are claiming economic
injury under two theories: Benefit of the bargain and premium
price. To remedy these alleged injuries, the Plaintiffs seek
monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief as well as
restitution.

A. Monetary Damages

In order to allege that the Plaintiffs have suffered an economic
injury as a result of merely purchasing Walmart's products which
they have consumed, the Plaintiffs "must allege facts that would
permit a factfinder to determine that the economic benefit they
received in purchasing the product was worth less than the economic
benefit for which they bargained." It is insufficient "to simply
allege that, although the Plaintiffs purchased hypoallergenic
products at a given price, they later wished they had not done
so."

Judge Wilson holds that although the Plaintiffs characterize their
purchases of Walmart brand hypoallergenic and/or tear-free products
as economic injuries for which they are entitled to relief, they
have failed to allege that the economic benefit they received from
these products was anything less than the price they paid. In
short, they received the benefit of their bargain and they have
failed to allege facts that would indicate that they paid a premium
for these hypoallergenic and tear-free products.

B. Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Pursue Declaratory and Injunctive
Relief

The Plaintiffs also seek declaratory and injunctive relief in this
case. Therefore, in addition to Article III's standing
requirements, they bear the burden of establishing that they are
"'likely to suffer future injury' from the defendant's conduct."
They Plaintiffs assert that they have alleged a future injury on
behalf of the putative class because Plaintiff Brito-Munoz claims
that she "may still purchase Walmart's products in the future if
there are no other available options due to store stock."

However, Judge Wilson finds that Brito-Munoz's contention that she
may be harmed by a future purchase of Walmart brand hypoallergenic
products, particularly a purchase contingent upon future stocking
of Walmart's stores, "is far too speculative to justify injunctive
relief." Brito-Munoz's vague allegation that "store stock" may
impact her decision to repurchase Walmart brand hypoallergenic
products is not the sort of likely future harm that Article III
standing requires.

Moreover, the law presumes that individuals act rationally in light
of the information they possess. To suffer the same injury alleged
in this case from a future purchase, Brito-Munoz would have to
ignore her knowledge and experience regarding Walmart's labeling
practices despite filing this lawsuit in which she has clearly
identified her discontent. "In short, Brito-Munoz asks the Court to
presume she will be fooled again and again."

Judge Wilson declines to make this assumption, and will accordingly
grant the motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory
and injunctive relief for failure to establish a future injury that
is not speculative or contingent.

C. Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Pursue Restitution

In addition to seeking monetary damages, the Plaintiffs seek
disgorgement of Walmart's revenues and profits based on a theory of
unjust enrichment.

Judge Wilson holds that the Plaintiffs' restitution claims are
based on nothing more than mere conjecture. They plead no facts
upon which a factfinder could conclude that Walmart has been able
to sell more products due to the hypoallergenic label than it could
have if it simply removed the hypoallergenic label. Judge Wilson
therefore concludes that the Plaintiffs lack standing to seek
relief in the form of restitution. In light of the Plaintiffs'
failure to establish standing as to any form of requested relief,
she is compelled to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

III. Disposition

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Wilson grants the motion to
dismiss filed by the Defendant. An appropriate order will be
issued.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 10, 2022 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3bw8rspr from Leagle.com.



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2022. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***