/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220623.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, June 23, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 119

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Bradley Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: Hoban Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure from AFFF Products
A. BIANCARDI & SONS: Ormello Files Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
ADAPTHEALTH CORP: DeSouza Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
AFRICAN IMPORTS: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

AMAZON.COM INC: Griffith Balks at Misleading Amazon Prime Services
AMERICAN CAR: Faces Gamino Over Support Specialists' Unpaid OT
AMERICAN INCOME LIFE: Smith Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
APYX MEDICAL: Hattaway Sues Over Share Price Decline
ARABIAN OUD: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

ARCARE: Engles Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
ARCARE: Whitkanack Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
ASSURED COMMUNITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Robinson Says
ATHLETIC PROPULSION: Quijada Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
AVENUE ONLINE: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

BBS BEAUTY SYSTEMS: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BEYOND MEAT: Faces Suit Over Misleading Protein Content Labels
BINANCE.US: Faces Securities Suit Over Algorithmic Stablecoin
BIOLIFE PLASMA: $6MM Class Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Romero

CAREDX INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 22 Deadline
CARRENTAL8 LLC: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHINESE LAUNDRY: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CHRIST HOSPITAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Augspurger Alleges
CRST INT'L: Bid to Certify Class in Cervantes Suit Denied in Part

DEERE & CO: Johnson Suit Moved From N.D. Miss. to N.D. Ill.
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Klein Law Firm Reminds of August 1 Deadline
DFS SERVICES: Halawani Sues Over Illegal Collection Practices
DOW CHEMICAL: Guidry Appeals Class Decertification Ruling
EVERGREEN GAS: Fails to Pay Proper Waages, Acosta Suit Alleges

FOOD 4 LESS: Delgado FLSA Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. California
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Vehicles' Fire Risk
FRENSCO BUILDING: Garcia Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
FROZEN DAIQUIRI: Stoltz Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
GOOD FAT: Ryan Files Suit Over Snack Products' False Ad

GOODRX HOLDINGS: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit
HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Chavez Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to N.D. Ga.
HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Fails to Protect Customers' PII, Class Suit Says
HP INC: Court Junks Workers' Fund Shareholder Suit
HP INC: Dismissal of Shareholder Suit Under Appeal

I.A. MKTG DESIGN: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Fievre Suit Claims
INDIANA: MHA Averts Housing Discrimination Class Action
JD PALATINE: Faces Neuman Suit Over Inaccurate Consumer Reports
JUUL LABS: Altoona School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign
JUUL LABS: Amery School Sues Over E-Cigarette Marketing to Youth

JUUL LABS: Causes Youth Health Crisis in Wis., Bloomer School Says
JUUL LABS: Cornell Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Wis.
JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Northwestern School Claims
JUUL LABS: Elk Mound Area Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Alma School Claims

JUUL LABS: Faces Augusta School Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Faces Highlands Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic
JUUL LABS: Faces South Henry Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign
JUUL LABS: Greensburg Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis in Ind.
JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, DeKalb County Says

JUUL LABS: Shoreham-Wading Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Darlington Claims
LIBERTY RESIDENTIAL: Amaya Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
LIFECELL CORPORATION: Strattice Mesh "Defective," Kremer Alleges
LILLY LASHES: Woodard Sues Over Eyelashes' False Advertisements

LMP AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Nguyen Shareholder Suit in FL Court
LWB/STG CARRIER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bell Suit Alleges
MANDARICH LAW: Rosa Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
MEREDITH CORP: Martin Sues Over Unlawful Sharing of Personal Info
MIDLAND CREDIT: Sued for Allegedly Ignoring Validation Request

MISSION TREATMENT: Ryan Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. California
NAUTILUS HYOSUNG: Faces Vercoe Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Cal.
NCR CORP: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Biometric Collection
NCR CORPORATION: Johnson BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
NEWPORT GROUP: Wade Class Suit Moved From E.D. Va. to W.D. Tenn.

NIKE RETAIL: Jones Suit Seeks Proper and Timely Wages
OKTA INC: Faces  MMFPORT Shareholder Suit in CA Court
ORIGINAL MIKE'S: Sept. 16 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
PAPARAZZI LLC: Jewelry Contains Toxic Metals, Teske Suit Says
PULS TECHNOLOGIES: Greenberg Sues Over Unsolicited Sales Calls

RHODE ISLAND: Summary Judgment in Doe v. Education Board Reversed
SOCLEAN INC: Gemelli Balks at Health Risks From Sanitizing Machines
SWN PRODUCTION: Court Answers 4 Certified Questions in Kellam Suit
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Value Drug Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa.
TARGET CORPORATION: Torres Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. Cal.

TENET HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Brewster Says
TILT HOLDINGS INC: Court Approves Settlement in Shareholder Suit
UNITED STATES: Asylum Seekers Sue Over Denied Work Authorization
UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA: Judge Hears Arguments in Title IX Suit
VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Gorlamari Files Suit Over Share Price Drop

VOYETRA TURTLE: Fabricant Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
WALMART INC: Faces Consolidated Stockholder Suit in Delaware Court
ZUORA INC: Discovery Ongoing in Shareholder Suit
ZUORA INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in California Court Over IPO

                            *********

3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Bradley Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN BRADLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01879-RMG
(D.S.C., June 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, says the
suit.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.

Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
         Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
         GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         270 West Main Street
         Sayville, NY 11782
         Telephone: (631) 600-0000
         Facsimile: (631) 543-5450

                  - and –

         Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
         Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
         Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
         ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
         2160 Highland Avenue South
         Birmingham, AL 35205
         Telephone: (205) 328-9200
         Facsimile: (205) 328-9456

3M COMPANY: Hoban Suit Alleges PFAS Exposure from AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN HOBAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-01880-RMG
(D.S.C., June 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, says the
suit.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.

Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
         Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
         GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         270 West Main Street
         Sayville, NY 11782
         Telephone: (631) 600-0000
         Facsimile: (631) 543-5450

                  - and –

         Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
         Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
         Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
         ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
         2160 Highland Avenue South
         Birmingham, AL 35205
         Telephone: (205) 328-9200
         Facsimile: (205) 328-9456

A. BIANCARDI & SONS: Ormello Files Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR ORMELLO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. A. BIANCARDI & SONS, INC., doing business as
BBANCARDI'S MEATS, and ANTHONY BIANCARDI and SALVATORE L.
BIANCARDI, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04695
(S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, seeking to
recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and minimum wages for
hours worked, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid "spread of
hours" premium, liquidated damages, prejudment and post-judgment
interest, and attorney's fees and costs.

Plaintiff, Oscar Ormello, was employed by Defendants in Bronx
County, New York, as a butcher for Defendants' grocery business,
known as "Biancardi's Meats" from 1983, through April 11, 2022,
without interruption.

A. Biancardi & Sons, Inc., owns and operates a specialty meat
market located at 2350 Arthur Avenue, in Bronx, New York, and is in
the business of selling food and other products to the general
public.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          200 Park Avenue-17th Floor
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com  

ADAPTHEALTH CORP: DeSouza Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adapthealth Corp. The
case is styled as Tyler DeSouza, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Adapthealth Corp., Case No.
6:22-cv-01047-RBD-LHP (M.D. Fla., June 14, 2022).

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

AdaptHealth -- https://adapthealth.com/ -- is a full-service home
medical equipment company that uses tailored products and services
to empower patients to live their fullest lives.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy M. Glapion, Esq.
          GLAPION LAW FIRM
          1704 Maxwell Drive
          Wall, NJ 07753
          Phone: (732) 455-9737
          Fax: (732) 965-8006
          Email: Jmg@glapionlaw.com

               - and -

          Bradford Rothwell Sohn, Esq.
          BRAD SOHN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1600 Ponce De Leon Blvd Ste 1205
          Coral Gables, FL 33134-4096
          Phone: (786) 708-9750
          Fax: (305) 397-0650
          Email: brad@bradsohnlaw.com

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan B. Morton, Esq.
          K & L GATES, LLP
          Southeast Financial Center
          200 S Biscayne Blvd Ste 3900
          Miami, FL 33131-2370
          Phone: (305) 539-3300
          Fax: (305) 358-7095
          Email: jonathan.morton@klgates.com


AFRICAN IMPORTS: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against African Imports, LLC.
The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. African Imports, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04967-PAE-KHP (S.D.N.Y., June 13, 2022).

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

Africa Imports -- https://africaimports.com/ -- is the largest
wholesale supplier of Afrocentric and ethnic products in the
US.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMAZON.COM INC: Griffith Balks at Misleading Amazon Prime Services
------------------------------------------------------------------
DENA GRIFFITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00783 (W.D. Wash., June 7, 2022) is
brought against the Defendant for unjust enrichment and quasi
contract, negligent misrepresentation, concealment and
non-disclosure, fraud, and for alleged violations of the Washington
Consumer Protection Act, the California's Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law.

Amazon offers a service called Amazon Prime, which is a paid
subscription service that gives users access to additional services
otherwise unavailable or available at a premium to other Amazon
customers. Amazon Prime services include same, one or two-day
delivery of goods and streaming music, video, e-books, gaming and
grocery shopping services.

According to the complaint, one of the advertised benefits of
Amazon Prime is that members will receive "FREE Delivery" and "FREE
2-Hour Grocery Delivery," including grocery deliveries from Whole
Foods Market. Allegedly, Amazon's "Free Delivery" advertisements
are false and misleading because Amazon charges a $9.95 service fee
for grocery deliveries. Amazon engages in a bait-and-switch
advertising scheme by not disclosing the service fee along with the
advertised price of the Whole Foods grocery items, says the suit.

The Plaintiff and the Class suffered loss in an amount equal to the
deceptively advertised service fees they paid for Whole Foods
grocery deliveries, the suit adds.

Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company
which focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming,
and artificial intelligence.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manish Borde, Esq.
          BORDE LAW PLLC
          600 Stewart St., 400
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 531-2722
          E-mail: mborde@bordelaw.com

               - and -

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
          Lilach Halperin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  mike@consumersadvocates.com
                  lilach@consumersadvocates.com

AMERICAN CAR: Faces Gamino Over Support Specialists' Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL GAMINO, individually, on behalf of herself and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN CAR CENTER, LLC, a
Tennessee Limited Liability Company, AMERICAN FINANCIAL, INC., a
Tennessee Corporation, RAC DEALERSHIP, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, RAC SERVICER, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-02347-TLP-atc (W.D. Tenn.,
June 6, 2022) brings claims for overtime violations as a collective
action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act against the
Defendants.

Plaintiff Gamino was employed by American Car Center as an
hourly-paid nonexempt customer account support specialist from July
2020 until March 2022.

The Defendants operate a privately held, integrated automotive
lease and financing business under the name American Car
Center.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
          JACKSON SHIELDS YEISER HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  rmorelli@jsyc.com

AMERICAN INCOME LIFE: Smith Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Income Life
Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Stewart Smith,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
American Income Life Insurance Company, Arias-Dlabik Agency LLC,
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No.
2:22-cv-02345 (E.D. Pa., June 14, 2022).

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

American Income Life Insurance Company -- https://www.ailife.com/
-- is an insurance company that provides supplemental life
insurance to labor unions, credit unions, and associations.[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


APYX MEDICAL: Hattaway Sues Over Share Price Decline
----------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM E. HATTAWAY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APYX MEDICAL CORPORATION, CHARLES
D. GOODWIN II, and TARA SEMB, Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-01298
(M.D. Fla., June 6, 2022) is a class action on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Apyx securities
between May 12, 2021 and March 11, 2022, inclusive, pursuing claims
against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Apyx claims to be an advanced energy technology company with
products in the cosmetic and surgical markets. Nearly 80% of its
revenue is derived from the Advanced Energy segment, which consists
of the Company's helium plasma technology that is marketed and sold
as Renuvion (in the cosmetic surgery market) and J-Plasma (in the
hospital surgical market).

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose to investors: (1) that a significant number of
Apyx's Advanced Energy products were used for off-label
indications; (2) that such off-label uses led to an increase in the
number of medical device reports filed by Apyx reporting serious
adverse events; (3) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably
likely to incur regulatory scrutiny; (4) that the Company's
financial results would be adversely impacted; and (5) that
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis, alleges the suit.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leo W. Desmond, Esq.
          DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
          Vero Beach, FL 32963
          Telephone: (772) 231-9600
          E-mail: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160

               - and -

          Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 914-5007

ARABIAN OUD: Hanyzkiewicz Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arabian Oud, LLC. The
case is styled as Marta Hanyzkiewicz, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Arabian Oud, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-03480 (E.D.N.Y., June 13, 2022).

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

Arabian Oud -- https://www.arabianoud-usa.com/ -- is the largest
fragrance manufacturer and retailer around the world specializing
in incense, oriental perfumes and oil perfumes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARCARE: Engles Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
--------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jacquita Engles, Jeffery Engles, on behalf of
themselves, and as parent and guardian of minor Marshall Engle and
Ana Molina, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ARcare, Case No. 74CV-22-00043 was removed from the
Woodruff County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas on June 13, 2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00139-LPR to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

ARcare -- https://www.arcare.net/ -- offers medical services across
Arkansas, Kentucky, and Mississippi for every member of the
family.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          Riley W. Prince, Esq.
          BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Phone: (312) 621-2000
          Fax: (312) 641-5504

               - and -

          Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          MASON LLP
          5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Phone: (202) 429-2290

               - and -

          Shawn Bradley Daniels, Esq.
          DANIELS LAW FIRM, PLLC
          129 West Sunbridge Drive
          Fayetteville, AR 72703
          Phone: (479) 521-7000
          Fax: (479) 695-1120
          Email: shawn@danielsfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gary D. Marts, Jr., Esq.
          Laura E. Bates, Esq.
          Scott Andrew Irby, Esq.
          WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS
          200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3699
          Phone: (501) 212-1234
          Fax: (501) 376-9442
          Email: gmarts@wlj.com
                 lbates@wlj.com
                 sirby@wlj.com

               - and -

          Matthew S. Freedus, Esq.
          FELDESMAN TUCKER LEIFER FIDELL LLP
          1129 20th Street, N.W., 4th Floor
          Washington,, DC 20036
          Phone: 466-8960
          Fax: (202) 293-8103


ARCARE: Whitkanack Suit Removed to E.D. Arkansas
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Michael Whitkanack, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. ARcare, Case No. CV-22-00046 was
removed from the Woodruff County Circuit Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on June 13,
2022.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:22-cv-00140-KGB to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

ARcare -- https://www.arcare.net/ -- offers medical services across
Arkansas, Kentucky, and Mississippi for every member of the
family.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Rathod, Esq.
          Kevin Leddy, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Tyler Bean, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP
          412 H Street NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Phone: (202) 470-3520

               - and -

          Joseph D. Gates, Esq.
          GATES LAW FIRM, PLLC
          6020 Ranch Boulevard, Suite C-4, Office #3
          Little Rock, AR 72223
          Phone: (501) 779-8091
          Email: gates@gateslawpllc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gary D. Marts, Jr., Esq.
          Laura E. Bates, Esq.
          Scott Andrew Irby, Esq.
          WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS
          200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3699
          Phone: (501) 212-1234
          Fax: (501) 376-9442
          Email: gmarts@wlj.com
                 lbates@wlj.com
                 sirby@wlj.com

               - and -

          Matthew S. Freedus, Esq.
          FELDESMAN TUCKER LEIFER FIDELL LLP
          1129 20th Street, N.W., 4th Floor
          Washington,, DC 20036
          Phone: 466-8960
          Fax: (202) 293-8103


ASSURED COMMUNITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Robinson Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARKEILA ROBINSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASSURED COMMUNITY SERVICES, LLC, LAQUANA
RICHMOND and ANTHONY BARNES, Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00254
(W.D.N.C., June 6, 2022) is brought by the Plaintiff under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act to
recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime compensation and
straight time wages.

Plaintiff, Markeila Robinson, is domiciled in Guilford County,
State of North Carolina, and was employed by Defendants from
approximately August 2021 until May 2022 as a peer support
specialist who provided mental health support to Defendants'
clients.    

Assured Community Services, LLC operates a mental health support
agency with offices in Graham, Charlotte and Winston-Salem, North
Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
          CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP
          2400 Freeman Mill Road, Suite 200
          Greensboro, NC 27406
          Telephone: (336) 333-9899
          Facsimile: (336) 333-9894
          E-mail: blkinsley@crumleyroberts.com

               - and -

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 925-5297
          Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
          E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                  scott@bohrerbrady.com

ATHLETIC PROPULSION: Quijada Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS QUIJADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ATHLETIC PROPULSION LABS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 0:22-cv-61063-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 6, 2022) is a putative
class action brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act
against the Defendant.

According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in unsolicited
text messaging, including to individuals who have registered their
telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, and to
those who have not provided Defendant with their prior express
written consent as required by the FTSA in an effort to promote its
goods and services.

The Defendant's telephonic sales calls have caused Plaintiff and
the Class members harm, including violations of their statutory
rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of
their privacy, alleges the suit.

Athletic Propulsion Labs, LLC designs men's and women's athletic
footwear and apparel.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street Suite 1744
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301

AVENUE ONLINE: Cromitie Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avenue Online LLC.
The case is styled as Seana Cromitie, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Avenue Online LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04959 (S.D.N.Y., June 13, 2022).

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

Avenue Stores LLC -- http://www.avenue.com/-- is a specialty
retailer in the United States offering plus-size clothing to women
who wear larger-size clothing.[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


BBS BEAUTY SYSTEMS: Maddy Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BBS Beauty Systems,
Inc. The case is styled as Veronica Maddy, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. BBS Beauty Systems, Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-04944 (S.D.N.Y., June 13, 2022).

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

BBS Beauty Systems, Inc. is doing business as Brighton Beauty
Supply -- https://brightonbeautysupply.com/ -- carry a wide variety
of cosmetics and professional items for the beauty and barber
industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com


BEYOND MEAT: Faces Suit Over Misleading Protein Content Labels
--------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria G Myers, writing for Progressive Farmer, reports that it's
not easy being green. Beyond Meat and its founder, Ethan Brown,
continue to fight lawsuits on multiple fronts in defense of their
product line. The latest suit is a proposed consumer class action
filed at the end of May in Illinois.

Named representatives of the suit included Angelique Roberts,
Hannah Offutt, Dylan Rushing, Orlandra Hawthorne, Nisha Albert and
Adam Sorkin, all of Illinois. The complaint was filed in the U.S
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.

This is a civil action on behalf of all consumers who bought Beyond
Meat products for personal or household use. The complaint lists
seven actions, including false and misleading statements regarding
some of the maker's products' protein content levels.

From the complaint, plaintiffs allege: "Beyond Meat Products'
labels, and Defendant's related marketing claims, are false and
misleading because Defendant (1) miscalculates and overstates the
Products' protein content, which is measured in grams per serving
determined by nitrogen testing; (2) miscalculates and overstates
the quality of the protein found in its products, which represented
as a percentage of daily value and calculated by the Protein
Digestibility Amino Acid Corrected Score method; and (3) misleads
consumers into believing that the products provide equivalent
nutritional benefits to that found in traditional meat-based
products."

The plaintiffs' counsel commissioned testing of Beyond Meat's
products, according to the complaint, which showed, for example,
that the Beyond Beef Plant Based Ground 16-ounce patties, labeled
as having 20G per serving and a 40% DV (daily value) for protein,
actually contain 19G protein per serving and just 7% DV for
protein. This, states the complaint, is an "underfill of 5% for
protein content and an underfill of 33% for percent DV of
protein."

The complaint doesn't just pertain to the 16-ounce Beyond Beef
patties, but also to Beyond Chicken tenders, Beyond Meatballs
Italian-style meatballs and Beyond Breakfast sausage patties and
breakfast links. Plaintiffs aver that, "Defendant knew that the
claims are false and misleading, yet still advertised, labeled, and
packaged the products with false and misleading claims."

The complaint seeks compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages,
and requests a jury trial. Representing the proposed class were
attorneys from Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC.

EARLIER LITIGATION

This class action falls on the heels of complaints from Don Lee
Farms, which also alleged overstatement of protein values, as well
as false representations regarding a lack of synthetic ingredients,
misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, fraud and
negligence.

Don Lee Farms and Beyond Meat have a history. Don Lee Farms,
established in California in 1982, had been an exclusive supplier
to Beyond Meat. They were the first organic plant-based burger and
crumble company in the U.S. The company sued Beyond Meat and
founder/CEO Brown in 2017. Beyond Meat countersued Don Lee Farms,
alleging that company breached its supply agreement and failed to
address serious food safety concerns. Final judgments on many of
the major issues remain pending.

Media reports have quoted a spokesperson for Beyond Meat as saying
the allegations lack merit and that they will fight them vigorously
in court.

INVESTOR DISAPPOINTMENT

Beyond Meat went public in 2019 and was the most successful initial
public offering (IPO) of stock since the 2008 financial crisis,
according to a report in Bloomberg. The report, released at the end
of last year, summed up the feelings of many investors when it said
that "two-and-a-half years later the company is still struggling to
turn that buzz into products on the shelf, leaving Wall Street
disappointed and some customers empty-handed as the competition
closes in."

Last year saw Beyond's sales slump, and the company forecast of
$120 million to $140 million in sales was reduced by October to
$106 million.

Editor's Note: Attempts to reach a Beyond Beef spokesperson to
respond to these allegations prior to our deadline were not
successful. We will continue to follow the case and update readers
as additional information becomes available. [GN]

BINANCE.US: Faces Securities Suit Over Algorithmic Stablecoin
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andjela Radmilac, writing for Cryptoslate.com, reports that a group
of investors has filed a class-action lawsuit against Binance.US
and its CEO for allegedly failing to comply with federal and state
securities laws.

According to the filing, Binance.US falsely advertised UST, the
algorithmic stablecoin tied to Terra's LUNA, as a safe, stable, and
fiat-backed asset, leading to "disastrous consequences" for its
customers.

Binance's US arm faces major class-action lawsuit
Binance.US has been accused of misleading investors and violating
several federal and securities laws in the U.S. in a class-action
lawsuit.

Filed on June 13, the lawsuit alleges that the exchange allowed
U.S. residents to buy and sell TerraUSD (UST) without the approval
of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Plaintiffs accused Binance.US of failing to disclose that UST was,
in fact, a security and that it was enabling the buying and selling
of this security without a formal registration statement. In
addition, Binance has refused to register with the SEC as a
securities exchange or broker-dealer.

According to the filings:

"Binance.US's failure to comply with the securities laws, and its
false advertisement of UST, have led to disastrous consequences for
[its] customers,"

While the exchange has delisted both UST and LUNA since Terra's
collapse in May, the plaintiffs claim that it still hasn't stopped
selling securities issued by Terraform Labs, Terra's parent
company. Instead, Binance.US's parent company began selling Luna
2.0 at the end of May -- a token hard forked from the original
Terra (LUNA) that's also centrally controlled y Terraform Labs.

Aside from failing to disclose that what it was selling was a
security, Binance.US is also accused of misleading investors
through false advertising. The plaintiffs claim that UST was
advertised and sold to investors as a "safe" and "stable" asset
that would give substantial returns.

The exchange also falsely advertised UST as "fiat-backed," not
informing its customers that the stablecoin algorithmically derived
its peg from the price of LUNA.

The lawsuit against Binance.US will be the first of many
The class-action lawsuit was filed by Roche Freedman, a New York
law office known for its controversial case against Craig Wright.

In an interview with CryptoSlate, FatManTerra said he helped the
office gather a class of around 2,000 people that have suffered
losses from UST's collapse. He will continue to reach out to more
investors that have suffered losses and connect them with law
offices working on the case but won't have any particular roles in
the lawsuits.

While Roche Freedman could not be reached for comment, FatManTerra
said the class-action suit against Binance.US will be the first of
many that UST investors intend to file.

In the lawsuit against Binance.US, plaintiffs seek damages from the
exchange for UST losses. FatManTerra said another class-action suit
in the works will also seek restitution from Terraform Labs and
Jump Crypto -- one of Terra's most prominent backers.

It's unclear how the suit will affect Brian Shroder, the CEO of
Binance.US, as he was named a defendant in the lawsuit alongside
the exchange.

The trial will have long-lasting implications on the crypto
industry. If successful, the lawsuit against Binance.US could set a
precedent that would drastically alter the regulatory landscape in
the U.S.

The SEC has long been seeking more control over the crypto market
and warning investors about the risks and dangers involved with
DeFi products. Having an exchange, the size of Binance.US lose a
case for breaking securities laws could set off a ripple effect
that could lead to a global overhaul of crypto regulations.

FatManTerra told CryptoSlate:

"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."

"In free markets, you can buy and sell whatever you like (fairly),
but the moment you try to sell someone a copper bar claiming its
gold, you will be penalized. It is a wonder to me that the same
principles do not apply to centralized exchanges, who are supposed
to operate under the rule of the law. Many exchanges are morally
bankrupt and will lie for money at every turn - we need to take
them to task and show them that when you prey on the innocent via
misleading marketing, there are repercussions." [GN]

BIOLIFE PLASMA: $6MM Class Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a Cook
County judge has cleared the way for thousands of BioLife plasma
donors to get their share of a $6 million settlement resolving
their litigation over fingerprint scans and alleged violations of a
state biometrics privacy law.

David Fish and Mara Baltabos, of the Naperville firm of Fish Potter
Bolanos, representing the class, alleged BioLife violated the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act when it collected
fingerprint scans from "tens of thousands" of plasma donors without
providing required disclosures or collecting informed, written
consent.

Cook County Judge Thaddeus Wilson on June 6 entered a final
approval order concerning the settlement, under which the attorneys
will collect almost $2.1 million in fees and $7,200 in litigation
costs, about 35% of the total pool. Class representatives James
Phillips and Joseph Vierra will get $7,500 each as service awards,
while settlement administrator Analytics Counseling will get about
$142,000.

The settlement class includes two subclasses, which will split the
remaining $3.75 million. The first covers donors who provided a
fingerprint scan from Sept. 8, 2015, through March 5, 2020; the
second covers donors who presented only from March 6, 2020, through
Nov. 15, 2021. Wilson granted final approval of 26,643 claim forms.
Only five class members asked to be excluded, while no one
objected.

Although that averages about $140 per claimant, the individual
payouts are prorated based on subclass. The delineation between the
two reflects when BioLife updated its consent forms. About 89% of
the settlement will be prorated to those who gave plasma before
March 2020, with 11% left for subclass two. Although BioLife
maintains the March 2020 consent forms comply with BIPA, the
plaintiffs argued BioLife still fell short by only posting the
updated forms in their facilities and not online.

Ultimately, subclass one claimants will get about $324 each and
subclass two members will get $25. Money from any settlement checks
uncashed within 150 days is targeted for the Northern Illinois Food
Bank.

The deal ended a lawsuit brought by Phillips and Vierra in
September 2020.

"The response from class members has been very positive and many
have contacted class counsel looking forward to when their checks
will arrive," Fish Potter Bolaños wrote in its memorandum in
support of final approval. "This complete lack of opposition is no
surprise, considering the amount of monetary relief provided under
the settlement and how favorably it compares against other
settlements of similar structure and size."

BioLife Plasma, a division of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, has
locations in 35 states including Illinois collection facilities in
Addison, Bolingbrook, DeKalb, Harwood Heights, Joliet and Villa
Park. It has been defended by attorney Richard Tilghman, of the
firm of Nixon Peabody, of Chicago. During litigation, class
representatives identified up to 57,525 plasma donors who might be
eligible to join the class

Class counsel argued the settlement protects class members'
interests because BioLife might have prevailed at a trial by
arguing exemption from BIPA under the law's clause regarding a
"patient in a health care setting" or a similar exemption invoking
data protected under the federal Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act. The class also noted BioLife might have argued
plasma centers are governed by federal law and the Food and Drug
Administration, which may pre-empt BIPA regulations.

BioLife did raise some of those arguments in its initial motion to
dismiss the complaint from Cook County Circuit Court, while also
indicating the claims exceeded BIPA's statutory limitations.

"Neither this final order and judgment, nor the settlement
agreement, nor the payment of any consideration in connection with
the settlement shall be construed or used as an admission or
concession by or against (BioLife) or any of the releasees of any
fault, omission, liability or wrongdoing or of the validity of any
of the released claims," Judge Wilson wrote in his final approval
order. [GN]

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Romero
---------------------------------------------------------------
California Rehabilitation Institute, LLC filed an appeal from a
court ruling in Elsie Romero et al. v. Select Employment Services,
Inc. et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-06369-TJH-AGR, in the United States
District Court for the District of California.

The suit was removed from the Superior Court of California, County
of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on July 23, 2019.

The complaint and first amended complaint allege 10 causes of
action: (1) Failure to Provide Meal Periods, (2) Failure to
Authorize and Permit rest Periods, (3) Failure to Pay Minimum
Wages, (4) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages, (5) Failure to Pay All
Wages Due to Discharged and Quitting Employees, (6) Failure to
Maintain Required Records, (7) Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized
Wage Statements, (8) Failure to Indemnify Employees for Necessary
Expenditures Incurred in Discharge of Duties, (9) Unfair and
Unlawful Business Practices, and (10) Representative Action for
Penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorney's General Act.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 6, 2022, the Hon.
Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. entered an order holding that the
renewed motion for class certification is granted as follows:

  -- The Class shall be defined as follows:

     "All persons employed by Defendant California
     Rehabilitation Institute, L.L.C. as non-exempt employees at
     any time between May 31, 2016, and May 23, 2022."

  -- Nine subclasses, defined as follows:

     Subclass 1: All persons employed by California
     Rehabilitation Institute, L.L.C. as non-exempt employees
     between May 31, 2016, and May 23, 2022, who were required
     to carry a communication device and be available during
     their meal breaks.

     Subclass 2: All persons employed by California
     Rehabilitation Institute, L.L.C. as non-exempt employees
     between May 31, 2016, and May 23, 2022, who were required
     to carry a communication device and be available during
     their rest breaks.

     Subclass 3: All persons employed by California
     Rehabilitation Institute, L.L.C. as non-exempt employees
     between May 31, 2016, and May 23, 2022, who (i) worked a
     shift of 3.5 hours or more and received no rest breaks;
     (ii) worked a shift of more than six hours and received
     fewer than two rest breaks; or (iii) worked a shift more
     than 8 10 hours and received fewer than three paid rest
     breaks.

     Subclass 4: All persons employed by California
     Rehabilitation Institute, L.L.C. as non-exempt employees
     between May 31, 2016, and May 23, 2022, who worked a shift
     over 12 hours for which California Rehabilitation
     Institute, L.L.C.'s time records do not show a second 30-
     minute meal period.

     Subclass 5:

     "All persons employed by California Rehabilitation
     Institute, L.L.C. as non-exempt employees between
     May 31, 2016, and May 23, 2022, who received at least one
     meal or rest break premium.

     Subclass 6:

     "All persons employed by California Rehabilitation
     Institute, L.L.C. as non-exempt employees between May 31,
     2016, and May 23, 2022, who worked an overnight shift
     followed by a shift that began the same calendar day and
     were not paid overtime for all time worked in excess of
     eight hours in a 24-hour period, or, if they worked an
     alternative workweek schedule, in excess of 12 hours in a
     24-hour period.

     Subclass 7:

     "All persons employed by California Rehabilitation
     Institute, L.L.C. as non-exempt employees between May 31,
     2016, and May 23, 2022, who used their personal cell phones
     for work purposes and were not compensated for that
     expense."

     Subclass 8: All persons employed by California
     Rehabilitation Institute, L.L.C. as non-exempt employees
     between May 31, 2016, and May 23, 2022, who dry cleaned
     or separately laundered their uniforms and were not
     compensated for those expenses.

     Subclass 9: All persons employed by California
     Rehabilitation Institute, L.L.C. as non-exempt employees
     between May 31, 2016, and May 23, 2022, who received a
     wage statement from California Rehabilitation Institute,
     L.L.C.

  -- Plaintiff Elsie Romero is, appointed as class
     representative for Subclasses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and
  -- Plaintiff Ricardo Ibarra is appointed as class
     representative for Subclasses 1, 2, 3, and 9.

  -- Plaintiff Lauren Lindsay is appointed as class
     representative for Subclasses 1, 2, 3, 7, and 9.

  -- Matthew J. Matern and Launa Adolph are appointed as class
     counsel.

The Defendant seeks a review of Judge Hatter's Class Certification
ruling.

The appellate case is captioned as ELSIE ROMERO, RICARDO IBARRA,
and LAUREN LINDSAY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Respondents v. CALIFORNIA
REHABILITATION INSTITUTE, LLC, Defendant-Petitioner, Case No.
22-80054, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on June 6, 2022.[BN]

Defendant-Respondent California Rehabilitation Institute, LLC is
represented by:

          Ndubisi A. Ezeolu, Esq.
          Edward W. Racek, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          515 South Flower Street Forty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-3400
          E-mail: ndubisi.ezeolu@tuckerellis.com
                  edward.racek@tuckerellis.com

CAREDX INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of July 22 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of CareDx, Inc. (NASDAQ: CDNA) between
February 24, 2021 and May 5, 2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important July 22, 2022 lead plaintiff deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased CareDx 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 CareDx class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=2700 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 July 22, 2022. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.

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

To join the CareDx class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=2700 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]

CARRENTAL8 LLC: Davis Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CarRental8, LLC. The
case is styled as Kevin Davis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CarRental8, LLC, Case No.
1:22-cv-04928 (S.D.N.Y., June 13, 2022).

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

Carrental8.com LLC -- https://www.carrental8.com/ -- provides car
rental services. The Company offers car booking, scheduling,
pickup, and other services.[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


CHINESE LAUNDRY: Velazquez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chinese Laundry
Lifestyle, LLC. The case is styled as Bryan Velazquez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Chinese Laundry
Lifestyle, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-04965 (S.D.N.Y., June 13, 2022).

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

Chinese Laundry -- https://www.chineselaundry.com/ -- manufacture,
distribute, and sell a variety of footwear including sandals,
sneakers, boots, and heels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHRIST HOSPITAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Pay, Augspurger Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON AUGSPURGER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CHRIST HOSPITAL, INC. d/b/a
THE CHRIST HOSPITAL HEALTH NETWORK, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00334-MRB (S.D., Ohio, June 10, 2022) is an action against
the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Augspurger was employed by the Defendant as staff.

THE CHRIST HOSPITAL CORPORATION provides healthcare services. The
Hospital offers audiology center, behavioral health services,
cancer center, colorectal cancer care, critical connections,
emergency services, health and aging center, heart and vascular
center, orthopedic services, outpatient clinics, palliative care
consultation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Corey Asay, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          333 W. Vine St., Ste. 1200
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 286-8368
          Facsimile: (859) 286-8384
          Email: casay@forthepeople.com

               - and -

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

CRST INT'L: Bid to Certify Class in Cervantes Suit Denied in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTHONY CERVANTES and MIKE CROSS, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. CRST
INTERNATIONAL, INC. and CRST EXPEDITED, INC., Defendants, Case No.
20-CV-75-CJW-KEM (N.D. Iowa), Judge C.J. Williams of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids
Division, holds in abeyance in part and denies in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Counts 2-6 as Rule 23(b)(3) Class
Actions.

I. Background

The Plaintiffs are former truck drivers for CRST Expedited, a motor
carrier. The Defendants are CRST Expedited and CRST International
(collectively, "CRST" or Defendants).

The Plaintiffs allege that CRST Expedited classified plaintiffs and
other truck drivers as independent contractors, not as employees.
They allege that at the start of their working relationship, CRST
Expedited required the Drivers to sign an Equipment Lease and an
Independent Contractor Operating Agreement ("ICOA").  The Lease
gave the Drivers the option to lease a truck from CRST Lincoln
Sales, Inc., which the Plaintiffs allege is a subsidiary of CRST
International. The Plaintiffs allege that the ICOA required Drivers
to lease their trucks to CRST Expedited for use in hauling its
loads. Thus, the Plaintiffs claim, this resulted in many but not
all Drivers leasing a truck from CRST Lincoln only to lease it back
to CRST Expedited.

The Plaintiffs allege the ICOA misclassified Drivers as independent
contractors in part so that CRST could shift the costs of operating
the trucks on to the Drivers. They allege this framework resulted
in Drivers often earning less than the minimum wage or receiving no
payment at all. They allege CRST International was complicit in
this scheme because it provided management and operational services
to CRST and was involved in setting the Drivers' wages, working
conditions, and classification. In sum, the Plaintiffs conclude
they and other Drivers were not independent contractors but rather
employees of CRST.

The Third Amended Complaint asserts the following six claims on
behalf of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated Drivers: (1)
failure to pay minimum wage in violation of Title 29, United States
Code, Section 206 of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); (2)
failure to pay minimum wage in violation of Iowa Code Section
91D.1; (3) failure to pay all wages due and unlawful deductions in
violation of Iowa Code Section 91A.5; (4) unjust enrichment under
Iowa law; (5) fraud under Iowa law; and (6) violation of the Truth
in Leasing Act ("TILA"), Title 49, United States Code, Section
14704.

On Oct. 23, 2020, the Plaintiffs moved to conditionally certify a
collective action on Count 1, their FLSA claim. The Court granted
the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the collective.

On Dec. 4, 2020, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
claims for fraud, the TILA violations, and unjust enrichment for
failure to state a claim, and to dismiss CRST International as a
defendant. The Court granted the Defendants' motion as to the
Plaintiffs' TILA claim under Section 376.12(d). It denied the
Defendants' motion as to the Plaintiffs' claims for fraud, TILA
claims under Sections 376.12(g) and 376.12(h), and unjust
enrichment, and CRST International's status as a defendant.

On Dec. 15, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Certify
Counts 2-6 as Rule 23(b)(3) Class Actions.

They seek to certify the following class: "All Lease Operators who
drove for CRST Expedited Inc. as a Team Driver, Lead Driver, or
Solo Driver pursuant to an Equipment Lease to lease a truck from
CRST Lincoln Sales, Inc. and an Independent Contractor Operating
Agreement (ICOAs) with CRST Expedited, Inc. and who have not leased
more than one truck at a time to CRST during the applicable
limitations period, subject to any equitable tolling and equitable
estoppel."

Judge Williams now considers this motion, addressing each count in
turn.

II. Discussion

1. Class Action Certification Standard

To show that class certification is appropriate, the named
plaintiff must satisfy all Rule 23(a) prerequisites for a class
action, and demonstrate that one of Rule 23(b)'s class-action types
applies. The plaintiffs "must affirmatively demonstrate compliance
with Rule 23.

A. Rule 23(a) Prerequisites

One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative
parties on behalf of all members only if (i) the class is so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (ii) there
are questions of law or fact common to the class; (iii) the claims
or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims
or defenses of the class; and (iv) the representative parties will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. These are
commonly referred to as the numerosity, commonality, typicality,
and adequacy requirements.

Judge Williams finds that (i) the proposed class has approximately
2,000 members well beyond the typical 40-person threshold for
numerosity; (ii) the Plaintiffs will adequately protect the class
interests as the class representatives; and (ii) the Defendants do
not resist the Plaintiffs' motion on typicality ground. His
discussions of commonality also serve as a discussion of
typicality.

B. Rule 23(b) Requirements

In addition to the Rule 23(a) prerequisites for class
certification, the proposed class must also satisfy the
requirements of one subsection of Rule 23(b), thereby demonstrating
that the suit is the type of case the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure deem appropriate for class action resolution. The
Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule 23(b)(3).

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs cannot show predominance
or superiority as to several claims. In assessing the Defendants'
arguments as to superiority, Judge Williams focuses on the likely
difficulties in managing a class action on the relevant claim. The
Defendants base their superiority arguments on this factor and he
does not find that any of the other enumerated factors show a lack
of superiority based on the record.

Judge Williams finds Count 2 appropriate for certification, but
holds in abeyance the certification. He finds Count 3 inappropriate
for class certification for failure to satisfy Rule 23(a)(2) and
Rule 23(b)(3). He finds Counts 4-6 inappropriate for class
certification for failure to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3).

2. Count 2 - Minimum Wage

The Plaintiffs seek class certification of their claim that CRST
failed to pay minimum wage under Section 91D.1 of the Iowa Code.

Judge Williams finds that class certification of this claim is
appropriate. Because Section 91D.1's minimum-wage requirement only
applies to employees as defined in the FLSA, the first question in
the Plaintiffs' claim is whether the threshold issue of the named
plaintiffs and putative class members' status as independent
contractors or employees is a common question that satisfies Rule
23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). The Plaintiffs must show there is evidence
showing that they are not independent contractors and can thus be
considered employees for purposes of Section 91D.1, and that the
same evidence will also suffice for each class member to make a
prima facie showing that he or she is also an employee.

A. Rule 23(a)(2) Commonality

With regard to the remaining elements of the Plaintiffs'
minimum-wage claim, Judge Williams finds that the Plaintiffs
satisfy all three prongs of the commonality requirement. First,
they show that common questions of law and fact exist between their
claim and the proposed class members' claims. Second, they show
that a common contention exists between the class members' claims.
Third, they show that CRST's minimum-wage violations caused them to
suffer the same injury as their proposed class members. In sum,
Judge Williams finds the Plaintiffs satisfy the commonality
requirement. Thus, he finds that the Plaintiffs meet all four Rule
23(a) prerequisites for class certification.

B. Rule 23(b)(3) Requirements

The Plaintiffs show common evidence to make a prima facie showing
of their allegations that they and class members are employees for
purposes of Section 91D.1. Namely, as in their motion for
conditional certification under the FLSA, they highlight the ways
CRST controlled the use of their trucks and their location and
travel speed, and ensured their economic dependence on CRST, and
prevented Drivers from working for other motor carriers, despite
provisions to the contrary.

Judge Williams finds that the Plaintiffs satisfy Rule 23(b)(3) and
that class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) as to Count 2 is
appropriate. However, he nevertheless holds in abeyance its
certification of the Plaintiffs' minimum-wage claim pending the
Plaintiffs' agreement to modify the purported class as follows:
"All Lease Operators who drove for CRST Expedited Inc. as a Team
Driver, Lead Driver, or Solo Driver pursuant to an Equipment Lease
to lease a truck from CRST Lincoln Sales, Inc., and an Independent
Contractor Operating Agreement (ICOA) with CRST Expedited, Inc.
signed before July 1, 2020, and who have not leased more than one
truck at a time to CRST Expedited, Inc. during the applicable
limitations period, subject to any equitable tolling and equitable
estoppel."

This class, which slightly modifies the Plaintiffs' requested
language, prevents the Court from managing the Plaintiffs' claim
under two analyses determining whether the employee or
independent-contractor classification applies.

3. Count 3 - Unlawful Deductions

The Plaintiffs next seek class certification of their claim that,
in violation of Section 91A.5 of the Iowa Code, CRST failed to pay
all wages due and made unlawful deductions from their pay. The
issues and arguments as to the Plaintiffs' unlawful-deductions
claim are much the same as those in their minimum-wage claim.

The Defendants' argument against certification of the putative
classes' unlawful-deductions claim hinges on their assertions that
(1) the Plaintiffs lack common proof as to CRST's misclassification
of Drivers as independent contractors instead of employees, and (2)
Section 91A.5 applies only to work performed inside Iowa.

Judge Williams holds that class certification of this claim is
inappropriate because the Plaintiffs fail to satisfy the Rule
23(a)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) requirements. First, he finds that
concerns with individual questions overtaking common ones and the
lack of superiority of resolution by class action as to the issue
of employment under Chapter 91A are sufficient grounds to deny
certification. Second, he finds that common questions do not
predominate as to whether the expenses deducted from the class
members' wages accrued to the benefit of the class members or CRST.
Third, he says the Plaintiffs fail to show that a common contention
exists between the class members' claims, so class certification
under Rule 23(b)(2) as to Count 3 is not appropriate. Last, he
cannot find it self-evident that resolution by class-action
resolution is superior. In sum, Judge Williams finds class
certification under Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) as to Count 3
is not appropriate.

4. Count 4 - Unlawful Enrichment

The Plaintiffs seek class certification of their claim that CRST
was unjustly enriched by their unlawful deductions from the
Plaintiffs' and the Drivers' wages and unconscionable fees paid by
Drivers.

Judge Williams holds this Count inappropriate for class
certification; the Plaintiffs have satisfied the Rule 23(a)
requirements but not the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements. First, he
finds that choice of law issues would not prevent class
certification. Next, common evidence could make a prima facie
showing of unjust enrichment for both plaintiffs and class members.
Third, the Plaintiffs satisfy the commonality requirement. Fourth,
the Plaintiffs fail to satisfy the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements
because he does not find superiority to be self-evident.

5. Count 5 - Fraud

The Plaintiffs seek class certification of their claim that CRST
defrauded plaintiffs by making false representations to Drivers
about the amount of money they would make as Drivers. They claim
that CRST made false representations to Drivers in the form of: a
standardized sales pitch; recruiting materials which repeated the
contents of the standardized sales pitch; representations at the
mandatory orientation, including via an income chart; and the ICOAs
themselves.

The Defendants argue class certification of the Plaintiffs' fraud
claim is not appropriate because they cannot meet the commonality,
predominance, or superiority requirements. They also urge the Court
that class certification is inappropriate because certain Drivers
quit their jobs with CRST and later returned to work for CRST
again.

Judge Williams finds class certification inappropriate; the
Plaintiffs satisfy the Rule 23(a) requirements but do not satisfy
the Rule 23(b)(3) requirements. He finds that (i) the Plaintiffs
show whether CRST made a false representation is a common question
appropriate for class resolution; (ii) it does not mean the
Plaintiffs' fraud claim is appropriate for class certification,
because Iowa law also requires that the class members' reliance be
justifiable; (iii) the Plaintiffs have not shown that common
questions predominate as to whether the class members' reliance was
justifiable; (iv) the Plaintiffs show that common questions of law
and fact exist between plaintiffs' claim and the proposed class
members' claims; and (v) he does not find superiority to be
self-evident. For these reasons, Judge Williams finds class
certification under Rule 23(b)(3) motion as to Count 5 is not
appropriate.

6. Count 6 - Truth in Leasing Act

The Plaintiffs seek class certification of claims that CRST
violated Sections 376.12(g) and 376.12(h) of the TILA. They assert
that "the issue of whether the ICOA and Lease violate the TILA is
subject to generalized proof and applicable to the class as a whole
because CRST entered into substantively identical Agreements with
all Plaintiffs" and subjected class members to uniform policies and
practices.

The Defendants argue that class members must show actual damages to
succeed in a TILA claim and the Plaintiffs fail to show that any
plaintiff sustained such damages. They also argue that individual
damage determinations would overwhelm any common questions of law
or fact because they fail to show any method of demonstrating that
each putative class member sustained actual damage from CRST's
purported violations.

Judge Williams finds that this count is not appropriate for class
certification; the Plaintiffs satisfy the Rule 23(a) requirements
but not the Rule 23(b) requirements. He finds that the Plaintiffs
satisfy the commonality requirement. He also finds that class
certification under Rule 23(b)(3) as to Count 6 based on Section
376.12(g) and Section 376.12(h) of the TILA is not appropriate.

In total, Judge Williams finds class certification under Rule
23(b)(3) is appropriate only to Count 2. Before granting any part
of the Plaintiffs' motion, however, the Court must determine
whether the Plaintiffs' motion complies with Local Rules.

7. Local Rule Compliance

Regarding the claims certified by the Court, Judge Williams finds
that the Plaintiffs' motion sets forth the factual basis for a
class action under Rule 23(a) and complies with 23(b)(3). The
Plaintiffs' motion, however, does not include a proposal for the
appointment of class counsel. Additionally, their brief does not
discuss appointment, though it mentions class counsel in its
discussion of adequacy. Judge Williams finds no earlier-filed
motion including a proposal for the appointment of class counsel.
Thus, the Plaintiffs fail to comply with Local Rule 23(a)(3).

In sum, the Plaintiffs' motion fails to fulfill all requirements of
Local Rule 23(a). Therefore, Judge Williams will hold in abeyance
its certification of the class for Count 2 until the Plaintiffs
comply with Local Rules.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons he stated, Judge Williams holds in abeyance in part
and denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Counts 2-6 as
Rule 23(b)(3) Class Actions. The Plaintiffs are given 14 days to
submit a modified proposed class definition consistent with this
ruling.

No claim, however, will be certified until the Plaintiffs comply
with Local Rule 23(a). The Plaintiffs are given 14 days to file a
supplemental pleading complying with Local Rule 23(a) requiring a
proposal for appointment of class counsel. Thus, Judge Williams
holds in abeyance its certification of the minimum-wage claim
(Count 2). Certification of the unlawful-deductions claim (Count
3), unjust-enrichment claim (Count 4), fraud claim (Count 5), and
Truth in Leasing Act claim (Count 6) is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2p8fh6xb from Leagle.com.


DEERE & CO: Johnson Suit Moved From N.D. Miss. to N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BLAKE JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. DEERE & CO. d/b/a JOHN DEERE, Case No.
1:22-CV-047-SA-RP, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Mississippi to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on June 13, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-50204 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of Sections
1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and unjust enrichment by monopolizing
the repair service market for John Deere brand agricultural
equipment with onboard central computers known as engine control
units (ECUs). John Deere has deliberately monopolized the market
for repair and maintenance services of its agricultural equipment
with ECUs by making crucial software and repair tools inaccessible
to farmers and independent repair shops. As a result of the
Defendant's monopolization, John Deere and its dealerships have
derived supracompetitive profits from the sale of repair and
maintenance services, says the suit.

Deere & Co., doing business as John Deere, is an agricultural
equipment manufacturer, headquartered in Moline, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Walter Alan Davis, Esq.
         DUNBAR DAVIS, PLLC
         324 Jackson Avenue East, Suite A
         Oxford, MS 38655
         Telephone: (662) 281-0001
         Facsimile: (662) 281-1201
         E-mail: waltdavis@dunbardavis.com

                 - and –

         Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
         D. Anthony Mastando, Esq.
         MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC
         301 Washington St., Suite 302
         Huntsville, AL 35801
         Telephone: (256) 532-2222
         Facsimile: (256) 513-7489
         E-mail: artrip@mastandoartrip.com
                 tony@mastandoartrip.com

                 - and –

         Richard P. Rouco, Esq.
         QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO LLP
         2-20th Street North, Suite 930
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Telephone: (205) 870-9989
         Facsimile: (205) 803-4143
         E-mail: rrouco@qcwdr.com

                 - and –

         Joe R. Whatley, Esq.
         Tucker Brown, Esq.
         WHATLEY KALLAS, LLC
         2001 Park Place Suite 1000
         Birmingham, AL 35203
         Telephone: (205) 488-1200
         Facsimile: (205) 922-4851
         E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
                 tbrown@whatleykallas.com

DENTSPLY SIRONA: Klein Law Firm Reminds of August 1 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on June 14 disclosed that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Dentsply
Sirona Inc. (NASDAQ: XRAY) alleging that the Company violated
federal securities laws.

This lawsuit is on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased
Dentsply's common stock between June 9, 2021, and
May 9, 2022.

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 1, 2022
No obligation or cost to you.

Learn more about your recoverable losses in XRAY:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/dentsply-sirona-inc-loss-submission-form-2?id=28445&from=4

Dentsply Sirona Inc. NEWS - XRAY NEWS

CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: 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.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a
loss in Dentsply you have until August 1, 2022 to petition the
court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Dentsply securities during the
relevant period, you may be entitled to compensation without
payment of any out-of-pocket fees.

HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information
about the XRAY lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone
at 212-616-4899 or click this link:
https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/dentsply-sirona-inc-loss-submission-form-2?id=28445&from=4.

ABOUT KLEIN LAW FIRM
J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities
litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The
Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a
wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance and
commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys have
achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized
focus. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]

DFS SERVICES: Halawani Sues Over Illegal Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHLOMY HALAWANI, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DFS SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No.
CACE-22-008238 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., June 6,
2022) arises from the Defendant's violations of the Florida
Consumer Collection Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent an electronic
communication to Plaintiff in connection with the collection of a
consumer debt. The communication was sent to Plaintiff between the
hours of 9:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. in the time Plaintiff's zone.
However, the Defendant did not have the Plaintiff's consent to
communicate  with him during those hours, in violation of the
FCCPA, says the suit.

The Plaintiff suffered a legal injury as a result of Defendant's
conduct, the suit asserts.

DFS Services LLC, doing business as Discover Network, provides
customizable payment solutions for merchants and financial
institutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer G. Simil, Esq.  
          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (561) 542-8550
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com

DOW CHEMICAL: Guidry Appeals Class Decertification Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Sheila Guidry, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled SHEILA GUIDRY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, ET AL. v. DOW
CHEMICAL COMPANY, ET AL., Civil Action No. 19-12233, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New
Orleans.

In 2009, a tank at a Union Carbide facility in Taft, Louisiana,
unexpectedly released a quantity of a chemical known as ethyl
acrylate. A class action suit was filed for damages relating to
harms allegedly suffered as a result of that release. More than 12
years later, that case is nearing trial. Before the Court are two
motions by the Defendants seeking to obviate or limit that trial.

The case has a long and complicated procedural history. It was
originally filed in state court, then removed to federal court,
then remanded back to state court. It was nearing trial in state
court when the Plaintiffs sent a settlement demand letter in which
they "mused" that "the parameters of a possible settlement can be
safely couched in terms of a range of $60 million to $275 million."
On the basis of this and other information, the Defendants removed
to federal court a second time, and the Court denied two motions to
remand.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on October 19, 2021, Judge
Martin L. C. Feldman of the Eastern District of Louisiana denied
Defendants Dow Chemical and Union Carbide Co.'s motion for summary
judgment, and
granted their motion for partial judgment on the pleadings.

On February 24, 2022, the Defendant filed a motion to decertify
class which the Court granted on May 24, 2022, through an Order
entered by Judge Susie Morgan.

The Plaintiffs are now seeking a review of Judge Morgan's order.

The appellate case is captioned as Guidry v. Dow Chemical, Case No.
22-90031, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, filed on June 7, 2022.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Sheila Guidry, Ramona Alexander, Henry
Holmes, Bates Whiteside, and Vanessa Wilson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Ron A. Austin, Esq.
          RON AUSTIN LAW
          400 Manhattan Boulevard
          Harvey, LA 70058
          Telephone: (504) 227-8100
          E-mail: raustin@ronaustinlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey P. Berniard, Esq.
          BERNIARD LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
          643 Magazine Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 527-6225
          E-mail: jeff@getjeff.com

               - and -

          Gregory P. DiLeo, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY P. DILEO, A.P.L.C.
          300 Lafayette Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130-0000
          Telephone: (504) 522-3456
          E-mail: contact@gregdileo.com

               - and -

          John Bartholomew Kelly, III, Esq.
          ALVENDIA, KELLY & DEMAREST, L.L.C.
          909 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 200-0000
          E-mail: bart@akdlalaw.com

Defendants-Respondents Dow Chemical Company and Union Carbide
Corporation are represented by:

          David Mark Bienvenu, Jr., Esq.
          BIENVENU, BONNECAZE, FOCO & VIATOR, L.L.C.
          4210 Bluebonnet Boulevard
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 388-5600
          E-mail: david.bienvenu@bblawla.com  

               - and -

          Neil C. Abramson, Esq.
          LISKOW & LEWIS, P.L.C.
          701 Poydras Street
          Hancock Whitney Center
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Telephone: (504) 581-7979
          E-mail: ncabramson@liskow.com

EVERGREEN GAS: Fails to Pay Proper Waages, Acosta Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
ESTRELLA ACOSTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EVERGREEN GAS & FOOD MART, LLC; DEL PRADO
GAS & FOOD MART, LLC; EDISON PETROLEUM, INC.; HAMZA RASHID; and
MUNAF RASHID, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00365 (M.D. Fla., June
10, 2022) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Acosta was employed by the Defendants as cashier.

EVERGREEN GAS & FOOD MART, LLC owns and operates a convenience
stores. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          Jake Blumstein, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          1800 SE 10the Ave, Suite 205
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 871-0050
          Email: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
                 Jake@jordanrichardspllc.com

FOOD 4 LESS: Delgado FLSA Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANNA DELGADO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; and
RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-01465, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on June 10, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-03991-FLA-AS to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Food 4 Less of California, Inc. is an operator grocery store
shopping centers in California.

Ralphs Grocery Company is an operator grocery store shopping
centers in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
         Annaliz Loera, Esq.
         Nicolas W. Tomas, Esq.
         LEBE LAW, APLC
         777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90021
         Telephone: (213) 444-1973
         E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com
                 Annaliz@lebelaw.com
                 Nicolas@lebelaw.com

FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Vehicles' Fire Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ratchet+Wrench reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Ford Motor Co. regarding recent under-the-hood fires that
have resulted in a recall.

According to Top Class Actions, a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Ford Motor Co. by plaintiffs Jessica Stahlman, Jeremy
Sessler and Ronald Smith.

The complaint, which was brought into Michigan federal court,
alleges a breach of warranty and state consumer laws. Plaintiffs
alleged that Ford should have been aware of this fire risk prior to
the launch of the vehicles, but they did nothing to warn drivers
until recently.

The recall was put into place in May of 2022 and affects around
39,000 of 2021 Ford Expeditions and Lincoln Navigator SUVs that
were built over a fourth-month period in late 2020 to early 2021.

"And to this day, Ford has yet to provide a remedy for the defect
or even suggest when it might be able to offer a remedy," the
plaintiffs said in their complaint.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs stated that this issue increases
a driver's risk of accident, injury, death or property damage if
their vehicle catches fire while driving or parked. Plaintiffs
state that this risk is unreasonable.

There have been 16 recorded fires that have occurred. Ford is
currently recommending that drivers park potentially affected
vehicles away from homes and property. Those involved in the recall
are to be contacted by Ford.

"Ford offers no actual remedy for the Spontaneous Fire Defect and
offers no reimbursement to Fire Defect Vehicle owners and lessees
for out-of- pocket expenses, loss of use, and loss of value," the
plaintiffs said in their complaint. [GN]

FRENSCO BUILDING: Garcia Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ERNESTO GARCIA, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. FRENSCO BUILDING
PRODUCTS CORP., and FRENSCO INC., and DANIEL PHUA, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-03358 (E.D.N.Y., June 7, 2022) is a
civil action for damages and other redress over willful violations
that Defendants committed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New York Labor Law.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants' failed to pay minimum
wages, overtime, and spread-of-hours compensation and failed to
furnish accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a forklift driver and
laborer from July 7, 2011 through November 2, 2021 at Defendants'
Queens and Brooklyn locations in New York.

Frensco Building Products Corp. is a New York-based wholesale
distributor of building materials founded in 2009.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew C. Weiss, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 200
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 248-5550
          Facsimile: (516) 248-6027

FROZEN DAIQUIRI: Stoltz Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
DONALD STOLTZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FROZEN DAIQUIRI BAR AND RESTAURANT LLC and
JAMES CLEVELAND, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00955 (N.D. Ohio,
June 6, 2022) challenges the labor practices of Defendants by which
they willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio's
Prompt Pay Act by failing to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked,
failing to reimburse for out-of-pocket expenses, and engaging in
unlawful retaliation.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants between December 2021
and March 2022 as an hourly, non-exempt manager.

Frozen Daiquiri Bar and Restaurant LLC is a bar and restaurant
located in Cleveland, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq.
          4106 Bridge Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 308-1522
          Facsimile: (888) 604-9299
          E-mail: scott@tittlelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Fuchs, Esq.
          24870 Fairmount Boulevard
          Beachwood, OH 44122
          Telephone: (216) 505-7500
          E-mail: josh@fuchsfirm.com

GOOD FAT: Ryan Files Suit Over Snack Products' False Ad
-------------------------------------------------------
Paul Ryan and Michelle Pimentel, individually, and on behalf of
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The Good Fat Co. Ltd.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-mc-80143 (N.D. Cal., June 6, 2022) arises
from the Defendant's practices with respect to its marketing and
sale of its snack products in violation of the California's Unfair
Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, as well as State Consumer Protection Statutes.

According to the complaint, the Defendant manufactures, sells, and
distributes the snack products using a marketing and advertising
campaign focused on claims that appeal to health-conscious
consumers. The Defendant engages in a deceptive marketing campaign
to convince consumers that the products are nutritious and
healthful to consume, and are more healthful than similar products.
However, this is false, misleading, and deceptive because
Defendant's products contain high amounts of unsafe fats which
increase the risk of severe health issues, including coronary heart
disease - the number one killer of Americans every year, says the
suit.

The Plaintiffs seek damages, interest thereon, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, restitution, other equitable relief, and
disgorgement of all benefits Defendant has enjoyed from its
unlawful and/or deceptive business practices, the suit asserts.

The Good Fat Co. Ltd. operates an online diet snack food store. The
Company offers a variety of diet snack bars, milk shakes, and other
diet products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Ryan Gustafson, Esq.
          GOOD GUSTAFSON AUMAIS LLP
          2330 Westwood Blvd., No. 103
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 274-4663
          E-mail: jrg@ggallp.com

               - and -

          Amir Shenaq, Esq.
          SHENAQ PC
          3500 Lenox Road, Ste. 1500
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (888) 909-9993
          E-mail: amir@shenaqpc.com

               - and -

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

GOODRX HOLDINGS: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kendall Heebink, writing for Law Street Media, reports that on June
9, Judge David O. Carter granted GoodRx Holdings, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss a class action suit filed against in the Central District
of California. The complaint for violations of federal securities
laws alleged that GoodRx filed a misleading registration statement
and prospectus, and made misleading statements to their investors.

GoodRx is a "healthcare technology platform that provides consumers
with a free prescription discount card to get discounted pricing on
prescription drugs." The defendant contracts with pharmacy benefit
managers to gain drug discounts for the discount card.

In late September of 2020, the defendant's initial public offering
(IPO) raised over $1 billion in gross proceeds. The plaintiffs
asserted in the complaint that the defendant's IPO was based on a
materially misleading registration statement and prospectus. The
registration statement and prospectus explained GoodRx's
competitive advantage, stating that the company was a "market
leader with significant scale and brand advantage over our
competitors."

Despite these claims, the plaintiffs explained that GoodRx knew but
did not disclose that Amazon was preparing a competing product to
enter the market. After Amazon announced their new prescription
drug savings program, GoodRx's stock price plummeted 23%.

Following the Amazon announcement, the plaintiffs contended that
GoodRx continued to make "materially misleading statements in
conference calls with investors by failing to disclose that Amazon
was continuing to expand its PrimeRx product and would soon
introduce a drug price comparison tool identical to GoodRx's and
add thousands of additional participant pharmacies to its
network."

The competitive risk from Amazon led to GoodRx losing over $600
million of the company's market capitalization. The complaint cited
two counts of violations of the Securities Act and two counts of
violations of the Exchange Act. The plaintiffs were seeking
damages, a trial by jury, litigation fees, and any other relief
that the Court had deemed equitable.

The defendant's motion to dismiss was granted on June 9 by Judge
David O. Carter, who vacated the hearing scheduled for June 10,
2022.GoodRx had argued in their motion to dismiss that there was a
"lack of damages; that Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled facts
establishing the falsity of the challenged statements; and that
Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled facts evidencing scienter."

The plaintiff's false and misleading claim was dismissed due to the
"lack of facts supporting the allegation that Defendants had
concrete knowledge about the risk of Amazon's plans to launch
Amazon Pharmacy." Also dismissed were the plaintiff's securities
act claims. In addition to dismissing each claim with prejudice,
Judge Carter's decision also noted that it would be futile to give
the plaintiff the chance to amend their complaint. The hearing,
which was scheduled to take place on June 10, 2022, was vacated by
the Court.

The plaintiffs were represented in this litigation by Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd, Pomerantz, and Johnson Fistel. The defendants
are represented by Latham & Watkins. [GN]

HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Chavez Suit Moved From N.D. Cal. to N.D. Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARIA CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HORIZON ACTUARIAL SERVICES, LLC, Case
No. 3:22-cv-02858, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia on June 10, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Georgia assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-02322-ELR to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged negligence, breach of
contract, breach of implied contract, and violations of the
California Consumer Privacy Act, the California Customer Records
Act, the Right to Privacy, and California's Unfair Competition Law
by failing to provide reasonable and adequate data security to its
customers' personal information following a data breach.

Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC is a consulting firm, with its
principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

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

HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Fails to Protect Customers' PII, Class Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE I, a minor, by parent and guardian, JANE DOE II,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. HORIZON ACTUARIAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-02358-ELR (N.D. Ga., June 13, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract,
and breach of fiduciary duty.

The Plaintiff brings this action specifically on behalf of all
minors whose personal identifiable information (PII) was
compromised as a result of the Defendant's failure to: (i)
adequately protect the PII of customers; (ii) warn customers of the
Defendant's inadequate information security practices; and (iii)
effectively secure hardware containing protected PII using
reasonable and effective security procedures free of
vulnerabilities. In November 2021, unauthorized group stolen data
from the Defendant's computer servers which include sensitive
information of current and former customers. The Defendant's
customers face a lifetime risk of identity theft, which is
heightened by the loss of their social security numbers as a result
of the Defendant's negligent acts and omissions, says the
Plaintiff.

Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC is a consulting firm, with its
principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

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

HP INC: Court Junks Workers' Fund Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------
HP 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 3, 2022, that the court granted HP's motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint of a class action in September
2021.

On February 19, 2020, Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103,
I.B.E.W. filed a putative class action complaint against HP, Dion
Weisler, Catherine Lesjak, and Steven Fieler in U.S. District Court
in the Northern District of California, captioned "Electrical
Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. v. HP Inc., et al." The
court appointed the State of Rhode Island, Office of the General
Treasurer, on behalf of the Employees' Retirement System of Rhode
Island and Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds as Lead Plaintiffs.

Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which additionally
named as defendants Enrique Lores and Christoph Schell. HP and the
named officers filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court
granted HP's motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to
amend the complaint.

Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, which no longer names
Christoph Schell as a defendant, alleges, among other things, that
from February 23, 2017 to October 3, 2019, HP and the named
officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by
making false or misleading statements about HP's printing supplies
business. It further alleges that Dion Weisler and Enrique Lores
violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act by allegedly
selling shares of HP common stock during this period while in
possession of material, non-public adverse information about HP's
printing supplies business.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other relief. HP and the
named officers filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. On September 15, 2021, the court granted HP's motion.
Plaintiffs are appealing the decision.

HP Inc. is a provider of personal computing and other access
devices, imaging and printing products, and related technologies,
solutions, and services based in California.


HP INC: Dismissal of Shareholder Suit Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------
HP 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 3, 2022, that the company was a defendant in a
class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Exchange Act.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and other relief. HP and the
named officers filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On March 3,
2022, the court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice.
Plaintiffs are appealing the decision.

In November 5, 2020, York County, on behalf of the County of York
Retirement Fund, filed a putative class action complaint against
HP, Dion Weisler, and Catherine Lesjak in federal court in the
Northern District of California. The court appointed Maryland
Electrical Industry Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff.

Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint, which additionally
names as defendants Enrique Lores and Richard Bailey. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that from November 5, 2015 to June 21,
2016, HP and the named current and former officers violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material
information and making false statements about HP's printing
supplies business.

HP Inc. is a provider of personal computing and other access
devices, imaging and printing products, and related technologies,
solutions, and services based in California.


I.A. MKTG DESIGN: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Fievre Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
AURELIE FIEVRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff vs. I.A. MKTG DESIGN & MGMT, INC. d/b/a TATIS &
TACOS, Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-008504 (Fla., Cir., June 10,
2022) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited
calls.

I.A. MKTG, DESIGN & MGMT, INC. d/b/a TATIS & TACOS operate as a
restaurant, serving tacos and other meals. [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
          Email: Spam-Pleadings@attorneysoftheinjured.com
                 Jdover@attorneysoftheinjured.com

INDIANA: MHA Averts Housing Discrimination Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Balfour, Esq. -- rbalfour@smithamundsen.com -- and Eric
Samore, Esq. -- esamore@smithamundsen.com -- of Smith Amundsen
report that in a substantial victory for municipal Defendants, a
federal judge in Indiana struck the class allegations raised by a
plaintiff alleging housing discrimination.

Mary Beth Wright, a disabled individual, sued the Mishawaka Housing
Authority and its former director, arguing that the Housing
Authority discriminated against her when it terminated her lease
and removed her property. Wright alleged that her eviction was part
of a pattern or practice of denying reasonable accommodations to
disabled tenants that was appropriate for class treatment. The
Court disagreed, finding that Plaintiff's claim relied on specific
factual allegations that could not establish claims on behalf of a
putative class.

The Court further found that Wright was not entitled to re-plead
her class allegations because she was necessarily atypical of any
purported class: any similar failure-to-accommodate claims would
also rely on the specific facts surrounding their accommodation
requests, requiring exactly the kind of case-by-case inquiry that
prevents class certification. [GN]

JD PALATINE: Faces Neuman Suit Over Inaccurate Consumer Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT NEUMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JD PALATINE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-00820-CB (W.D. Pa., June 6, 2022) arises from the
Defendant's violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of hundreds, if not
thousands, of employees and employment applicants throughout the
country who have been the subject of unfair, prejudicial,
misleading and illegal background reports performed by Defendant
and sold to employers. The Defendant has adopted and maintained a
policy and practice of knowingly, intentionally, recklessly and
willfully reporting offense types in consumer reports that are not
accurate and that cause damage to the subjects of the reports, says
the suit.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant's practice harms consumers
seeking employment by harming their reputations by disseminating
misleading and inaccurate information about them to third parties,
prejudicing their employers and prospective employers with
inaccurate information, and also harms interstate commerce as a
whole, the suit adds.

JD Palatine LLC is a consumer reporting agency based in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
          Joseph L. Gentilcore, Esq.
          FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
          1600 Market St., Suite 2510
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jgentilcore@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Andrew L. Weiner, Esq.
          Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq.
          WEINER & SAND LLC
          800 Battery Avenue SE, Suite 100
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (404) 205-5029
          Facsimile: (866) 800-1482
          E-mail: aw@wsjustice.com
                  js@wsjustice.com

JUUL LABS: Altoona School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign
--------------------------------------------------------------
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ALTOONA, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03463-WHO (N.D. Cal., June 13, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Wisconsin Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

School District of Altoona is a public school district with its
administrative offices located in Altoona, Wisconsin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

JUUL LABS: Amery School Sues Over E-Cigarette Marketing to Youth
----------------------------------------------------------------
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF AMERY, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03465 (N.D. Cal., June 13, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Wisconsin Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

School District of Amery is a public school district with its
administrative offices located in Amery, Wisconsin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

JUUL LABS: Causes Youth Health Crisis in Wis., Bloomer School Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF BLOOMER, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03471 (N.D. Cal., June 13, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Wisconsin Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

School District of Bloomer is a public school district with its
administrative offices located in Bloomer, Wisconsin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

JUUL LABS: Cornell Sues Over Youth's Nicotine Addiction in Wis.
---------------------------------------------------------------
CORNELL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03470 (N.D. Cal., June 13, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Wisconsin Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Cornell School District is a public school district with its
administrative offices located in Cornell, Wisconsin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

JUUL LABS: E-Cigarette Ads Target Youth, Northwestern School Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NORTHWESTERN SCHOOL CORPORATION, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03430-WHO (N.D. Cal., June 10, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Northwestern School Corporation is a public school district with
its offices located in Kokomo, Indiana.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

JUUL LABS: Elk Mound Area Sues Over E-Cigarette's Risks to Youth
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELK MOUND AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03477-WHO (N.D. Cal., June 13, 2022)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Wisconsin Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Elk Mound Area School District is a public school district with its
administrative offices located in Elk Mound, Wisconsin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarettes, Alma School Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALMA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:22-cv-03462 (N.D. Cal., June 13, 2022) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of the Wisconsin Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Alma School District is a public school district with its
administrative offices located in Alma, Wisconsin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

JUUL LABS: Faces Augusta School Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
------------------------------------------------------------------
AUGUSTA AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03466 (N.D. Cal., June 13, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Wisconsin Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Augusta Area School District is a public school district with its
administrative offices located in Augusta, Wisconsin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

JUUL LABS: Faces Highlands Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Epidemic
---------------------------------------------------------------
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF HIGHLANDS COUNTY, FLORIDA, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.
F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03473 (N.D. Cal., June 13,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of the Florida Public Nuisance Law
and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

The School Board of Highlands County is a public school district
with its administrative offices located on School Street in
Sebring, Florida.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 - and –

         Steven R. Maher, Esq.
         THE MAHER LAW FIRM
         631 West Morse Boulevard, Suite 200
         Winter Park, FL 32789
         Telephone: (407) 839-0866
         Facsimile: (407) 425-7958
         E-mail: smaher@maherlawfirm.com

JUUL LABS: Faces South Henry Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Campaign
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SOUTH HENRY SCHOOL CORPORATION, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03442 (N.D. Cal., June 10, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

South Henry School Corporation is a public school district with its
offices located in Lewisville, Indiana.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

JUUL LABS: Greensburg Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis in Ind.
----------------------------------------------------------------
GREENSBURG COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A
PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03443 (N.D. Cal., June 10,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public Nuisance Law
and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Greensburg Community School Corporation is a public school district
with its offices located in Greensburg, Indiana.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

JUUL LABS: Promotes E-Cigarette Use Among Youth, DeKalb County Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DEKALB COUNTY EASTERN COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS,
INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS
PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA
CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP
MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03437 (N.D. Cal.,
June 10, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, gross negligence, and violations of the Indiana Public
Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.

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

DeKalb County Eastern Community School District is a public school
district with its offices located in Butler, Indiana.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

JUUL LABS: Shoreham-Wading Sues Over Deceptive E-Cigarette Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHOREHAM-WADING RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.
F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03475 (N.D. Cal., June 13,
2022) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of the New York Public Nuisance
Law and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Shoreham-Wading River Central School District is a school district
with its administrative offices are located on Route 25A in
Shoreham, New York.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 - and –

         Steven Gacovino, Esq.
         GACOVINO, LAKE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
         270 West Main Street
         Sayville, NY 11782
         Telephone: (631) 543-5400
         Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
         E-mail: s.gacovino@gacovinolake.com

                 - and –

         Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
         WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
         4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
         Kansas City, MO 64112
         Telephone: (816) 701-1102
         E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com

                 - and –

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

JUUL LABS: Triggers Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, Darlington Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
DARLINGTON COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03474 (N.D. Cal., June 13, 2022) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of the Wisconsin Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

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

Darlington Community School District is a public school district
with its administrative offices located in Darlington, Wisconsin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

                 - and –

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

LIBERTY RESIDENTIAL: Amaya Labor Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled NATALI AMAYA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LIBERTY RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC.;
LIBERTY HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; and DOES 1 – 100, inclusive, Case
No. 37-2022-00014913-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court
of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California on June 10, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:22-cv-00859-BEN-MDD to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay overtime, failure to pay meal period
premiums, failure to pay rest period premiums, failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to timely pay final wages, failure to timely
page wages during employment, failure to provide compliant wage
statements, failure to keep required payroll records, failure to
reimburse business expenses, and unfair business practices.

Liberty Residential Services, Inc. is a provider of residential
care services based in Pennsylvania.

Liberty Healthcare Corporation is a health and human services
management company based in Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Graham M. Cridland, Esq.
         Corey E. Krueger, Esq.
         ERICKSEN ARBUTHNOT
         835 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 500
         Los Angeles, CA 90017-2603
         Telephone: (213) 489-4411
         Facsimile: (213) 489-4332
         E-mail: gcridland@ericksenarbuthnot.com
                 ckrueger@ericksenarbuthnot.com

LIFECELL CORPORATION: Strattice Mesh "Defective," Kremer Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
DIANE KREMER, individually and as personal representative for the
estate of Richard Kremer, Plaintiff v. LIFECELL CORPORATION;
ALLERGAN, INC.; ALLERGAN USA, INC.; and ABC CORPORATION(S) 1-10
(Fictitious Entities), Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-03731-BRM-LDW
(D.N.J., June 14, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for design defect, failure to warn, negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranties, violation of consumer protection laws, and
punitive damages.

The case arises from the Defendants' manufacturing, promotion, and
distribution of a defective medical device known as Strattice mesh.
The Defendants failed to warn patients about the risk of using
Strattice mesh. The Defendants knew or should have known the
product was dangerous and would injure patients. As a result of the
Defendants' negligent acts and omissions, Plaintiff Richard Kremer
returned to the hospital for a revision surgery after a Strattice
mesh implantation. The Plaintiff has suffered and will suffer
physical injury, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life,
disfigurement, and economic and non-economic losses, says the
suit.

LifeCell Corporation is a manufacturer of medical devices, with its
principal place of business in New Jersey.

Allergan, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company headquartered in
Ireland.

Allergan USA, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company headquartered in
Irvine, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Derek T. Braslow, Esq.
         Brian D. Ketterer, Esq.
         Justin Browne, Esq.
         Robert Price, Esq.
         Whitney J. Butcher, Esq.
         THE BRASLOW FIRM, LLC
         KETTERER BROWNE & ASSOCIATES, LLC.
         230 Sugartown Road, #20
         Wayne, PA 19087
         Telephone: (484) 443-4558
         Facsimile: (855) 334-5626
         E-mail: Derek@KBAattorneys.com
                 Brian@KBAattorneys.com
                 Justin@KBAattorneys.com
                 Robert@KBAattorneys.com
                 Whitney@KBAattorneys.com

                 - and –

         Chad Ihrig, Esq.
         Brad W. Beskin, Esq.
         Nick Marr, Esq.
         NIX PATTERSON, LLP
         8701 Bee Cave Road
         Building 1, Suite 500
         Austin, TX 78746
         Telephone: (512) 328-5333
         Facsimile: (512) 328-5335
         E-mail: cihrig@nixlaw.com
                 bbeskin@nixlaw.com

                 - and –

         Edward "Ned" Mulligan V, Esq.
         Jonathan A. Knoll, Esq.
         COHEN & MALAD, LLP
         One Indiana Square; Suite 1400
         Indianapolis, IN 46204
         Telephone: (317) 636-6481
         Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
         E-mail: nmulligan@cohenandmalad.com
                 jknoll@cohenandmalad.com

LILLY LASHES: Woodard Sues Over Eyelashes' False Advertisements
---------------------------------------------------------------
HAYLEE WOODARD, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lilly Lashes, LLC, and
DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 22STCV18692 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., June 7, 2022) is brought against the Defendants for
unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and for violations of
the California Business and Professions Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made false advertisement
of their eyelashes as being "cruelty free." She asserts that the
Defendants know that its products are created in a way that is
harmful to animals. In addition to falsely advertising its mink
lashes as "cruelty free", Lilly's posts fake customer reviews on
its website to entice buyers into purchasing the lashes. Lilly's
employees draft these reviews and so Lilly's expressly knows that
such reviews are fake, the Plaintiff adds.

The Plaintiff would not have purchased Defendant's Products had she
known the processes used to manufacture the mink lashes was not
cruelty-free. As a result, Plaintiff suffered injury in fact when
she spent money to purchase products she would not otherwise have
purchased absent Defendant's alleged misconduct, the suit says.

Lilly Lashes, LLC is an operator of an online women's accessories
platform. The company offers a range of products including
eyelashes, mink eyelashes, mascara and other beauty products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley Grombacher, Esq.
          Lirit King, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270-7100
          Facsimile: (805) 618-2939
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
                  lking@bradleygrombacher.com

LMP AUTOMOTIVE: Faces Nguyen Shareholder Suit in FL Court
---------------------------------------------------------
LMP Automotive Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report for
the current report dated May 31, 2022, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2022, that a class action
shareholder complaint was filed against the company alleging
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On May 31, 2022, LMP Automotive Holdings, Inc., a Delaware
corporation became aware of a class action shareholder complaint
filed on May 27, 2022 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida against the Company, Sam Tawfik, the
company's Chief Executive Officer and Robert Bellaflores, the
company's Chief Financial Officer, captioned "Nguyen v. LMP
Automotive Holdings, Inc., Samer Tawfik and Robert Bellaflores,"
Case 0:22-cv-61019-XXXX (S.D. Fl.).

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the 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 in violation of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 in connection with company's previously disclosed
intent to restate its financial statements for the quarterly
periods in 2021 primarily due to (i) the improper identification
and elimination of intercompany transactions, (ii) incorrect
estimates of chargeback reserves for finance and insurance products
and (iii) certain financial statement misclassifications impacting
various balance sheet and income statement financial statement
captions in the relevant periods. The court has yet to certify the
class. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory
damages.

LMP Automotive Holdings, Inc. is a retailer of auto dealers and
gasoline stations based in Florida.


LWB/STG CARRIER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bell Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LWB/STG CARRIER LP, Defendant, Case No.
3:22-cv-00157-TMR-PBS (S.D., Ohio, June 10, 2022) seeks to recover
from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Bell was employed by the Defendant as machine operator.

LWB/STG CARRIER LP developed and manufactured an automatic table
stamping machine and the associated tools to produce metal carrier.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
          Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Rd Suite #126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
                 agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
                 khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com

MANDARICH LAW: Rosa Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM R. ROSA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MANDARICH LAW GROUP, LLP; and JOHN DOES
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04720 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2022)
is an action brought by the Plaintiff for statutory damages and
declaratory relief arising from the Defendants' violation of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act which prohibits debt collectors
from engaging in abusive, deceptive and unfair practices.

According to the complaint, Mandarich Law engaged in a policy and
practice of sending written collection communications which violate
the FDCPA, by inter alia: (a) making a false representation of the
character, amount, or legal status of any debt; (b) using false,
deceptive or misleading representations or means in connection with
the collection of a debt; and (c) using unfair or unconscionable
means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.

The Plaintiff and others similarly situated have suffered harm
redressable under the FDCPA as a direct result of the abusive,
deceptive and unfair collection practices, says the suit.

East Amherst, New York-based Mandarich Law Group, LLP provides debt
collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
          JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
          One Grand Central Place
          60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (646) 459-7971
          Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
                  bwolf@legaljones.com

MEREDITH CORP: Martin Sues Over Unlawful Sharing of Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM J. MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEREDITH CORPORATION, MEREDITH
HOLDINGS CORPORATION, IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, DOTDASH MEDIA, INC., and
DOTDASH MEREDITH, INC, Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-04776
(S.D.N.Y., June 7, 2022) seeks redress for Defendants' unlawful
sharing of highly sensitive personal information in violation of
several laws, including the Video Privacy Protection Act, the
California Civil Code, and the consumer protection statutes of
several states.

According to the complaint, Dotdash Meredith serves video content
on its People.com website to visitors for the latest in
entertainment news, celebrity gossip, and other tabloid fodder.
Unbeknownst to the viewers of these videos, Dotdash Meredith has a
hidden agenda: tracking and recording each viewer's
video-consumption habits, and having that information with
Facebook, and potentially other third parties. Dotdash Meredith's
invasive disclosures violate the VPPA, which explicitly prohibits
the disclosure of video-viewing records to a third party without
the express written consent of the consumer of the video; and they
are violations of other privacy laws as well, says the suit.

The Plaintiff has been an active subscriber of People.com since at
least November 2020, and he watches videos on their website daily.

The Defendants are American media and marketing companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric M. George, Esq.
          Carl Alan Roth, Esq.
          Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq.
          Ryan Q. Keech, Esq.
          ELLIS GEORGE CIPOLLONE O'BRIEN ANNAGUEY LLP
          801 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 725-9800
          E-mail: egeorge@egcfirm.com
                  croth@egcfirm.com
                  sbogdanovich@egcfirm.com

               - and -

          Brett D. Katz, Esq.
          ELLIS GEORGE CIPOLLONE O'BRIEN ANNAGUEY LLP
          152 West 57th Street, 28th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 413-2600
          E-mail: bkatz@egcfirm.com

MIDLAND CREDIT: Sued for Allegedly Ignoring Validation Request
--------------------------------------------------------------
AccountsRecovery.net reports that a class-action complaint has been
filed in federal court in Massachusetts, accusing a company of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by not responding
to a dispute request that was submitted by an individual after
receiving a collection letter from the defendant.

A copy of the complaint in the case of Kayla Lee, also know as
Kayla Bell v. Midland Credit Management can be accessed by clicking
here.

The plaintiff received a collection letter from the defendant last
October. In November, within the 30-day window to dispute a debt or
request original creditor information, the plaintiff requested
validation of the debt. The defendant did not respond to the
request for original creditor information and continued to attempt
to collect on the debt.

The complaint accuses the collector of violating Section 1692g(b)
of the FDCPA by not ceasing collecting efforts until it provided
the validation information requested by the consumer. The plaintiff
is seeking to include anyone who lives in Massachusetts, received a
collection letter from the defendant, disputed the debt and
requested validation information, which ultimately was not provided
to those individuals.

In asserting that the plaintiff had standing to sue, the complaint
states that the plaintiff expended time to ascertain what her
options and possible responses could or should be. She was also
allegedly deprived of her "legally protected" right not to be
mislead or treated unfairly as a result of the "material"
misrepresentations allegedly made by the defendant. If not for the
alleged violations of the defendant, the plaintiff "would have
pursued a different course of action," according to the complaint.
[GN]

MISSION TREATMENT: Ryan Labor Code Suit Goes to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PATRICIA J. RYAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MISSION TREATMENT SERVICES, INC.;
ACADIA HEALTHCARE COMPANY, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 22STCV15217, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on June 10,
2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-cv-04013 to the proceeding.

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

Mission Treatment Services, Inc. is a drug treatment center located
in San Diego, California.

Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. is an American provider of
behavioral healthcare services, headquartered in Tennessee. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Kevin D. Reese, Esq.
         Michael D. Thomas, Esq.
         Buck N. Haddix, Esq.
         JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
         725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
         Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
         Telephone: (213) 689-0404
         Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
         E-mail: Kevin.Reese@jacksonlewis.com
                 Michael.Thomas@jacksonlewis.com
                 Buck.Haddix@jacksonlewis.com

NAUTILUS HYOSUNG: Faces Vercoe Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH VERCOE, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NAUTILUS HYOSUNG AMERICA, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-00683-JLT-SAB
(E.D. Cal., June 6, 2022) is a class action for wage and labor
violations under California's Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law
arising out of Defendant's failure to pay wages for all time
worked, failure to provide timely and uninterrupted meal and rest
periods, failure to furnish timely and accurate wage statements,
and failure to pay all wages due upon termination.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt,
hourly-paid ATM technician in Fresno, California, and surrounding
areas, from approximately May 2021 to July 2021.

Nautilus Hyosung America, Inc. manufactures ATM self-service. The
Company offers distribution of automated teller machines for
financial and retail industries, recycling, branch transformation,
software solutions, and maintenance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David R. Markham, Esq.
          Maggie Realin, Esq.
          Lisa Brevard, Esq.
          THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
          888 Prospect Street, Suite 200
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (619) 399-3995
          Facsimile: (619) 615-2067
          E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com
                  mrealin@markham-law.com
                  lbrevard@markham-law.com

               - and -

          Walter Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
          5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (888) 474-7242
          Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
          E-mail: walter@uelglaw.com

NCR CORP: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Biometric Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Vittorio, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a maker of
cash register technology is being accused of collecting restaurant
workers' fingerprints without permission, in violation of a state
privacy law in Illinois.

NCR Corp. faces a potential class action lawsuit from former
employees of the Wingstop restaurant chain in the US District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois. The case was moved there
from state court, according to a June 10 filing.

The Wingstop workers allege violations of Illinois' Biometric
Information Privacy Act, which governs information such as
fingerprints and faces. Their complaint says restaurant employees
had to scan their fingerprints to access NCR's point-of-sale. [GN]

NCR CORPORATION: Johnson BIPA Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHELLE JOHNSON and CHRISTINA SKELDON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NCR
CORPORATION, Case No. 2022-CH-04265, was removed from the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on June 10, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-03061 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Biometric Information Privacy Act by collecting, storing and/or
disseminating its employees' fingerprints.

NCR Corporation is a software company, with its principal place of
business in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Kathleen L. Carlson, Esq.
         Andrew F. Rodheim, Esq.
         SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
         One South Dearborn
         Chicago, IL 60603
         Telephone: (312) 853-7000
         Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
         E-mail: kathleen.carlson@sidley.com
                 arodheim@sidley.com

                  - and –

         Brain W. Tobin, Esq.
         SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
         555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
         Los Angeles, CA 90013
         Telephone: (213) 896 6000
         Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
         E-mail: btobin@sidley.com

NEWPORT GROUP: Wade Class Suit Moved From E.D. Va. to W.D. Tenn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled REV. DERRELL WADE and REV. REUBEN J. BOYD, JR.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
NEWPORT GROUP, INC., SYMETRA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, AFRICAN
METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, REV. DR. JEROME V. HARRIS, BISHOP
SAMUEL L. GREEN, SR., ESTATE OF BISHOP MCKINLEY YOUNG, BISHOP JAMES
DAVIS, AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, AMERICAN EXPRESS CO.,
SAFECO INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA, RSM MCGLADREY, DOE CORPORATIONS
1-10, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 3:22-cv-00179, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on
June 13, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Tennessee assigned
Case No. 1:22-cv-01126-STA-jay to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary
duty, negligence, and conversion by failing to adequately manage
the African Methodist Episcopal Church Pension Fund, resulting to
millions of dollars of losses in career retirement savings.

Newport Group, Inc. is a provider of retirement plans, insurance
and consulting services, with its headquarters in Walnut Creek,
California.

Symetra Financial Corporation is an insurance company, with its
headquarters in Bellevue, Washington.

African Methodist Episcopal Church is an African-American Methodist
denomination located in Tennessee.

American Express Co. is a provider of payment card services
headquartered in New York, New York.

Safeco Insurance Co. of America is an insurance firm, headquartered
in Seattle, Washington.

RSM McGladrey is an audit, tax, and consulting firm headquartered
in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         David Hilton Wise, Esq.
         Joseph M. Langone, Esq
         WISE LAW FIRM, PLC
         10640 Page Avenue, Ste. 320
         Fairfax, VA 22030
         Telephone: (703) 934-6377
         Facsimile: (703) 934-6379
         E-mail: dwise@wiselaw.pro
                 jlangone@wiselaw.pro

NIKE RETAIL: Jones Suit Seeks Proper and Timely Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
NAGID JONES and DAKOTA PEMBLETON, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NIKE RETAIL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-03343 (E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2022) seeks to
recover liquidated and other damages for Defendant's violations of
New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant paid Plaintiffs and other
manual workers on a biweekly basis, which violates the NYLL
requirement that manual workers be paid on a weekly basis.

Plaintiff Jones worked for Defendant as a sales associate in
Riverhead, New York, from approximately January 2017 through June
2018, while Plaintiff Pembleton worked for Defendant as a sales
associate in Niagara Falls, New York, from approximately August
2013 to April 2017.

Nike Retail Services, Inc. is an Oregon corporation founded in
1985. The Company's line of business includes the retail sale of
men's, women's and children's footwear.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          447 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (800) 616-4000
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

OKTA INC: Faces  MMFPORT Shareholder Suit in CA Court
-----------------------------------------------------
Okta, 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 3, 2022, that a class action lawsuit was filed
against the company asserting claims under Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

On May 20, 2022, a purported shareholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company, its Chief Executive
Officer, its current and former Chief Financial Officers, and its
Chief Security Officer, captioned "City of Miami Fire Fighters' and
Police Officers' Retirement Trust v. Okta, Inc., et al.," Case No.
3:22-cv-02990.

The lawsuit arises out of a threat actor's attempt to compromise
the account of a third-party customer support engineer working for
one of the Company's sub-processors and disclosures related to that
incident. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that the
defendants made false or misleading statements or omissions
concerning the company's cybersecurity controls, vulnerability to
data breaches, and the circumstances surrounding the aforementioned
incident. The complaint seeks an order certifying the lawsuit as a
class action and unspecified damages, plus interest.

Okta, Inc. is an independent identity provider based in
California.


ORIGINAL MIKE'S: Sept. 16 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Original Mike's agreed to pay over
$974,000 to resolve claims it violated California law by denying
workers overtime wages and other benefits.

The settlement benefits California Original Mike's employees in
non-overtime-exempt positions between Dec. 26, 2012, and Dec. 16,
2016.

Original Mike's is a restaurant with locations in California.
According to a 2016 class action lawsuit against the company,
Original Mike's fails to pay their workers the overtime and regular
wages they deserve.

On top of wage violations, Original Mike's allegedly failed to
provide their employees with meal and rest breaks, compensate for
missed breaks, accurate wage statements and a complete payment of
wages upon termination.

According to plaintiffs in the Original Mike's class action
lawsuit, these actions violated California labor laws. California
has some of the strictest protections for employees in the entire
country which can result in steep penalties for employers in
violation of state laws.

Plaintiffs in the case filed their wage-and-hour class action
lawsuit to recover the wages and benefits they are allegedly owed
by the company. The court certified a class of affected workers in
October 2019.

Original Mike's and other defendants haven't admitted any
wrongdoing but agreed to resolve these allegations with a class
action settlement of $974,092.67.

Plaintiffs in the Original Mike's wage-and-hour class action
lawsuit supported this resolution, noting that a settlement secures
payouts for the Class while also avoiding the risks and costs of
allowing these claims to go to trial.

Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive a cash
payment. No documentation is needed to benefit from the settlement.
Payments will be distributed based on the number of workweeks each
class member was employed at Original Mike's.

No payment estimates are available on the settlement website, but
class members who received a mailed notice from the settlement
administrator may have been given individual payment estimates
based on the number of weeks they worked.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 20, 2022.

The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for
Sept. 16, 2022. Class members are not required to attend this
hearing, but have the opportunity to do so with prior notice.

No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class
Members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive
their share of the settlement fund.

Who's Eligible
The settlement benefits California workers who were employed by
Original Mike's in a non-overtime exempt position between Dec. 26,
2012 and Dec. 16, 2016.

Potential Award
Varies


Proof of Purchase
No proof of purchase applicable

Opt Out Deadline
06/20/2022

Case Name
Segui v. Original Mike's Enterprises LLC, et al., Case No.
30-2016-00893360-CU-BT-CXC, in the Orange County Superior Court

Final Hearing
09/16/2022

Settlement Website
OriginalMike'sClassAction.com

Claims Administrator
CPT GROUP, INC.
50 Corporate Park
Irvine, CA 92606
Originalmikesclassaction@cptgroup.com
888-281-3978

Class Counsel
Jeffrey Spencer
THE SPENCER LAW FIRM INC

Bradley Gage
LAW OFFICES OF GOLDBERG & GAGE

Defense Counsel
Leonard W Stitz Esq
LEONARD W STITZ PC [GN]

PAPARAZZI LLC: Jewelry Contains Toxic Metals, Teske Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
LORI TESKE and TERRI FRANKLIN Plaintiffs v. PAPARAZZI, LLC, MISTY
KIRBY, TRENT KIRBY, CHANTEL REEVE, and RYAN REEVE, Defendants, Case
No. 4:22-cv-00035-DN-PK (D. Utah, June 6, 2022) is brought by the
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly
situated under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
against the Defendants for breach of implied warranty, breach of
contract, and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing as
well as for violation of the Lanham Act.

The case arises from the Defendants' conduct of falsely
representing to its sellers, known as "Consultants" within the
company, that its jewelry and accessories were "lead and nickel
free" and were in compliance with state rules limiting the amount
of dangerous toxins in consumer products. Unknown to Paparazzi's
Consultants, Paparazzi's jewelry contains astonishingly high levels
of lead, nickel, cadmium, and/or other toxic metals, says the
suit.

The Plaintiffs and Class members bring this action to recover money
damages for the harms Paparazzi has caused through its
misrepresentations and deceptions about the composition, quality,
and safety of Paparazzi products.

Plaintiffs Teske and Franklin signed up to be Paparazzi Consultants
on October 24, 2020 and June 30, 2019, respectively.

Paparazzi, LLC is a jewelry and accessory multilevel-marketing
company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam Alba, Esq.
          MAGLEBY CATAXINOS & GREENWOOD, P.C.
          141 W. Pierpont Avenue
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Telephone: (801)-359-9000
          E-mail: alba@mcg.law

               - and -

          Jason L. Lichtman, Esq.
          Daniel E. Seltz, Esq.
          Daniel R. Leathers, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500

               - and -

          Andrew R. Kaufman, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          222 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1640
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 313-9000

PULS TECHNOLOGIES: Greenberg Sues Over Unsolicited Sales Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES GREENBERG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PULS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. CACE-22-008220 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial,
Broward Cty., June 6, 2022) is a class action brought by the
Plaintiff against the Defendant under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant engaged in aggressive
telephonic sales calls to consumers to promote its goods and
services without having secured prior express written consent as
required under the FTSA, and with no regards for consumers' rights
under the TCPA.

The Defendant's telephonic sales calls have caused Plaintiff and
the Class members harm, including violations of their statutory
rights, statutory damages, annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of
their privacy, says the suit.

Puls Technologies, Inc. is a California corporation that connects
homeowners with its network of handyman technicians through its
tech-enabled platform. It offers services such as home warranty
coverage, home installations and repairs, and phone repairs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                  gberg@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          Christopher Gold, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (786) 289-9471
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915   
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                  chris@edelsberglaw.com

RHODE ISLAND: Summary Judgment in Doe v. Education Board Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, L DOE, S DOE, and A DOE, on behalf of their children,
X DOE, Y DOE, and Z DOE, and on behalf of similarly situated
children in the Providence School District v. RHODE ISLAND BOARD OF
EDUCATION, COUNCIL ON ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, AMY
BERETTA, COLLEEN A. CALLAHAN, BARBARA COTTAM, KAREN DAVIS, GARA
BROOKE FIELD, JO EVA GAINES, MARTA V. MARTINEZ, DANIEL P.
McCONAGHY, and LAWRENCE PURTILL, in their official capacities as
members of the RHODE ISLAND BOARD OF EDUCATION, COUNCIL ON
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, and PROVIDENCE SCHOOL DISTRICT,
C.A. No. PC-2020-2619 (R.I. Super.), Judge Netti C. Vogel of the
Superior Court of Rhode Island reverses the decision of the Rhode
Island Council on Elementary and Secondary Education affirming a
March 8, 2019 Ruling on the parties' Cross-Motions for Summary
Judgment.

I. Introduction

Petitioners L. Doe, S. Doe, and A. Doe, on behalf of their
children, X. Doe, Y. Doe, and Z. Doe, bring this appeal from a
March 3, 2020 Decision by the Council affirming a March 8, 2019
Ruling on the parties' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. In that
Ruling, the Hearing Officer found that the Providence School
District's Collaboration/Consultation Model for the provision of
English Language Learner (ELL) services does not violate the Rhode
Island Regulations Governing the Education of English Language
Learners.

The Court exercises jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to G.L.
1956 Sections 42-35-15 and 16-39-4.

II. Background

During the time period at issue in this appeal, the Petitioners and
their children resided in Providence, and the children were
enrolled in schools within the District. All three children
qualified as ELLs and spoke Spanish at home. As students with
disabilities, the children also received special education services
under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), 20 U.S.C. Section 1400, et seq.

With respect to the individual children, as of July 2016, X. Doe
was an eleventh-grade student with learning disabilities who
"scored 324 SS on her most recent STAR reading assessment placing
her at the 1st percentile when compared with typical peers."

Y. Doe was a ninth-grade student with learning disabilities who
scored 284 on the STAR reading assessment. School records described
Y. Doe's "Model of Services" as "sheltered content instruction" for
the 2013-2014 school year, and as "Collaborative ESL and sheltered
content" for the 2015-2016 school year. However, the school records
further revealed that Y. Doe did not receive any hours of ELL
services and did not have an ELL teacher of record during those
same two school years.

Z. Doe was a second-grade student whose mother signed a waiver of
ELL services on March 13, 2013. The stated reason for the "waiver"
was "Student Placed by Special Ed Dept." School records listed Z.
Doe as "eligible but not enrolled" in ELL and indicated that Z. Doe
did not receive ELL services during the 2013-2014, 2014-2015, and
2015-2016 school years.

On April 12, 2016, the Petitioners filed a Complaint (Agency
Complaint) against the District "on behalf of their own children,
X. Doe, Y. Doe, and Z. Doe, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated children in the Providence School District." Through the
Agency Complaint, the Petitioners alleged that the District was not
providing ELL services consistent with state and federal law and
sought to enforce the pertinent provisions of those laws and the
State Regulations. The Petitioners brought other claims in the
Agency Complaint that later settled by way of a Consent Judgment
and that are not pertinent to this appeal.

On July 20, 2016, the parties entered into a Joint Stipulation of
Facts and filed Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. Thereafter, on
Dec. 15, 2016, the parties entered into a Second Joint Stipulation
of Facts and filed new Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. Through
the Second Joint Stipulation of Facts, the parties agreed upon the
description of the Collaboration/Consultation Model.

Before resolution of the parties' Cross-Motions for Summary
Judgment, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) concluded
its separate investigation of the District's ELL services program.
It found that the District's Collaboration/Consultation Model
"failed to provide ELL students any direct ELL services from an
instructor qualified to provide those services and is devoid of any
curriculum that is distinct from the regular education curriculum."
On Aug. 9, 2018, the DOJ and the District entered into a settlement
agreement regarding the DOJ's investigation.

On Aug. 28, 2018, the counsel for the Petitioners brought the DOJ
Settlement to the Hearing Officer's attention and stated that the
DOJ Settlement resolved all disputed issues of federal law.
Specifically, the counsel argued that the DOJ Settlement should be
binding on issues of federal law.

On Sept. 21, 2018, the Hearing Officer denied both motions, ruling
that the DOJ Settlement was not relevant to the Petitioners' claims
based on state law and that he had avoided learning any information
regarding the DOJ Settlement.

On March 8, 2019, the Hearing Officer issued his Ruling on the
parties' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. After noting that "the
parties agreed to defer the issue of whether the Commissioner of
Education has jurisdiction to entertain a request for class-wide
relief,] the Hearing Officer found that "viewed in their entirety,
the ELL Regulations do not support the Petitioners' claim that all
ELL instruction must be delivered by an 'ELL teacher'" and that the
"Petitioners have failed to establish that the
Collaboration/Consultation Model does not comply with the minimum
hours of ELL instruction required by the State Regulations."

The Hearing Officer also found that the State Regulations' minimum
time requirements for periods of ELL instruction may be satisfied
by non-ELL general and/or special education teachers who meet and
consult with ELL-endorsed or certified teachers on how to provide
ELL instruction. Additionally, the Hearing Officer found
"sufficient evidence" that the Collaboration/Consultation Model
contains components from the "approved models" listed in the State
Regulations. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer granted the
District's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to the
issue of whether the Collaboration/Consultation Model for ELL
services violated the State Regulations.

The Petitioners filed a timely appeal of the Hearing Officer's
Ruling to the Council, asserting that the Ruling contradicted the
plain language of the State Regulations and that the Hearing
Officer erred by failing to reopen the record and consider the DOJ
Settlement as evidence that the Collaboration/Consultation Model
violates federal law and therefore also violates the State
Regulations as a matter of law. They also argued that the Hearing
Officer's Ruling had sanctioned overt discrimination against
children with disabilities in violation of state and federal law
and therefore could not be a correct interpretation of the State
Regulations. The Petitioners asked the Council to reverse the
Ruling and order the District to develop a plan for compensatory
education for ELLs.

In its subsequent decision, the Council upheld the Hearing
Officer's "determination that not all ELL instruction must be done
directly by an ELL Teacher under the Regulations." Having found no
error "that rises to the level for the Council to reverse" the
Hearing Officer's Ruling "and remand for a calculation of damages,"
the Council affirmed the Ruling "with one modification directing
the Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education to begin the
process of revising the current Regulations Governing the Education
of English Language Learners, including, but not limited to,
addressing the Consultation Model."

The Petitioners timely appealed the Council Decision to the
Superior Court.

III. Analysis

A. Motion to Add to the Record

On June 22, 2021, while this appeal was pending in the Superior
Court, the Council filed a Motion to Add two documents to the
Record on appeal:

      1. A letter dated March 30, 2020 from the Commissioner of the
Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to
the Superintendent of the Providence Public School Department,
confirming that "utilization of mere consultation is not an
acceptable substitute for implementing all aspects of the
Collaboration Model"; and

      2. A memorandum dated April 14, 2020 from the Deputy
Commissioner of the Rhode Island Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education to "Superintendents and School Leaders"
throughout Rhode Island, reminding all schools and districts that
use of the "Consultation only approach is not allowed in our
state."

According to the Council, these documents demonstrate that the
Petitioners' appeal is now moot because the challenged model of ELL
education is no longer in use. The Petitioners objected to the
motion to expand the record and argued that the Council's proposed
exhibits are insufficient to establish mootness.

After consideration thereof, Judge Vogel denies the Defendants'
Motion to Add to the Record. He says, consideration of the proposed
exhibits would not alter the Court's determination of any issue in
the case, including mootness.

B. Mootness

The Council maintains that the Petitioners' appeal is moot because
the District has not employed the Collaboration/Consultation Model
since at least 2018 and states it no longer intends to use that
model going forward. The Petitioners note that their original
Agency Complaint sought compensatory services for the deprivation
of ELL instruction pursuant to the State Regulations; however,
because the Hearing Officer ruled that the District had not
violated the State Regulations, those compensatory claims were
never addressed.

Judge Vogel holds that the Court's "opinion on the merits of this
appeal would indeed have a 'practical effect on the controversy'
currently on review and, therefore, the case before the Court at
present is not moot." She says, although the Council disputes that
compensatory services are appropriate for Petitioners' children, as
long as "the possibility of some remedy for a proven past violation
is real and not remote," the Petitioners' "cases remain live and
justiciable." For these reasons, she declines to dismiss the appeal
as moot.

C. Class Action

Having determined that the appeal is not moot, Judge Vogel proceeds
to the District's contention that the action may not be maintained
as a class action. The Complaint filed by the Petitioners purports
to bring the action "on behalf of their own children, X. Doe, Y.
Doe, and Z. Doe, and a class of similarly situated children in the
Providence School District."

The District asserts that a class action is not appropriate because
the matter never was certified as a class action and because the
APA does not provide the Court with jurisdiction to determine or
certify a class in the first instance.

In the instant matter, when ruling on the parties' Cross-Motions
for Summary Judgment, the Hearing Officer noted that "the parties
agreed to defer the issue of whether the Commissioner of Education
has jurisdiction to entertain a request for class-wide relief." The
Petitioners have not requested a hearing seeking to have the
Superior Court certify any such class on appeal; consequently, it
is not necessary for it to consider whether class certification
would be appropriate or permissible with respect to this agency
appeal.

D. Compliance with State Regulations

Next, the Petitioners argue that the Council erred in upholding the
Hearing Officer's Ruling that the District's
Collaboration/Consultation Model does not violate the State
Regulations. Specifically, they argue that the
Collaboration/Consultation Model violates the plain language of the
State Regulations requiring that the District provide specialized
language instruction in specific amounts by appropriately certified
and endorsed teachers.

In response, the Council argues that the Court should defer to the
Board of Education's interpretation of the State Regulations.
Substantively, it argues that the Collaboration/Consultation Model
is valid because it contains components of the six educational
models listed in the State Regulations, which allow school
districts to choose and employ individual components of those
models.

Judge Vogel finds that the District violated the clear and
unambiguous language of the State Regulations through its use of
the Stand-Alone Consultation model to provide ELL services to
Dually Identified students such as Petitioners. Specifically, and
despite the State Regulations' provision that any choice of
components from the Approved Models be used "to provide the most
appropriate program for each" ELL, the District failed to "respect
the rights" of ELLs to receive special education "so as to ensure
that the students' educational needs are met on a basis equal to
that provided to other students" and failed to "ensure that
programs for English Language Learners are based on sound
educational theory and appropriately supported, with adequate and
effective staff and resources, so that the program may reasonably
be expected to be successful."

Having so found, Judge Vogel also concludes that the services that
the District provided to Petitioners' children under the
Stand-Alone Consultation model were insufficient to satisfy the
"Time Requirements" of 200 RICR 20-30-3.7, as the Court can
conceive of no rational means by which an instructional program
that otherwise fails to comply with the substantive requirements of
the State Regulations could still be considered "ESL instruction"
for purposes of the "Time Requirements" provision.

E. Compensatory Services

The Petitioners' claims for compensatory services have not yet been
addressed at the agency level. Accordingly, and as that
determination will necessarily involve the consideration of facts
not currently in the record, the issue of compensatory services for
the Petitioners' children initially must be determined by the Board
of Education on remand.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Vogel reverses the Hearing
Officer's Ruling and the Council's Decision upholding the Hearing
Officer's Ruling, and remands the case to the Board of Education
for further proceedings on the issues of compensatory services for
the Petitioners' children and the potential certification of a
class of similarly situated students.

The counsel will prepare the appropriate order for entry.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2022 Decision is available
at https://tinyurl.com/32whkfdb from Leagle.com.

Ellen M. Saideman, Esq. -- esaideman@gmail.com -- Veronika Kot,
Esq. -- vkot@rils.org -- for the Plaintiff.

Paul V. Sullivan, Esq., for the Defendant.

Andrew Henneous, Esq. -- ahenneous@hcllawri.com -- for Interested
Party.


SOCLEAN INC: Gemelli Balks at Health Risks From Sanitizing Machines
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RALPH GEMELLI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOCLEAN, INC., Defendant, Case No.
8:22-cv-01312-CEH-CPT (M.D. Fla., June 7, 2022) is brought against
the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud by
omission, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and for
violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act.

SoClean manufactured and marketed devices used to clean continuous
positive airway pressure machines (CPAP) since approximately 2012.

According to the complaint, SoClean concealed and omitted material
information on the presence and risk of ozone exposure from the
SoClean 2 CPAP Sanitizing Machine, the SoClean 2 Go CPAP Sanitizing
machine, and their predecessor devices. SoClean's marketing
materials fail to disclose that its devices emit ozone, which is a
longstanding requirement of federal law. Instead, SoClean falsely
represents that its devices use "activated oxygen" to clean CPAP
machines. SoClean markets the devices as "safe" and "healthy,"
which is false given that they generate toxic ozone gas at levels
that substantially exceed federal regulations, says the suit.

These misrepresentations, omissions, concealment, and half-truths
pose a threat to individual and public health because the SoClean
devices are designed and marketed for use on the consumer's bedside
table and because CPAP users, including Plaintiff, suffer from many
symptoms that ozone exposure exacerbates - making the falsehoods
especially reprehensible and dangerous, adds the suit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katherine Earle Yanes, Esq.
          KYNES MARKMAN & FELMAN
          P.O. Box 3396
          Tampa, FL 33601-3396
          Telephone: (813) 229-1118
          E-mail: kyanes@kmf-law.com

               - and -

          Ruth Anne French-Hodson, Esq.
          Sarah T. Bradshaw, Esq.
          SHARP LAW FIRM
          4820 W. 75th St.
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901-0505
          E-mail: rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com
                  sbradshaw@midwest-law.com

               - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
          MASON LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Ave., Suite 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
                  dperry@masonllp.com

               - and -

          Ronald Verdell Johnson, IV, Esq.
          Russell L. Johnson, Esq.
          P.O. Box 2072
          Hattiesburg, MS 39403
          Telephone: (601) 544-0631
          E-mail: rljohnson@djlawms.com
                  rvjohsnon@djlawms.com

SWN PRODUCTION: Court Answers 4 Certified Questions in Kellam Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SWN PRODUCTION COMPANY, LLC, and EQUINOR USA ONSHORE
PROPERTIES INC., Defendants Below, Petitioners v. CHARLES KELLAM,
PHYLLIS KELLAM, and all other persons and entities similarly
situated, Plaintiffs Below, Respondents, Case No. 21-0729 (W. Va.),
the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia issued an Opinion
answering the four questions the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia has certified to it.

I. Background

In August 2007, Respondents Charles and Phyllis Kellam entered into
an oil and gas lease agreement (the "Kellam Lease") with Great
Lakes Energy Partners, LLC. Sometime thereafter, Great Lakes
assigned the lease to Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC from whom
Petitioners SWN Production Company, LLC and Equinor USA Onshore
Properties Inc. acquired working interests in the lease. SWN now
operates oil and gas wells, and production units within which the
Kellams' leased lands are included. Since SWN and Equinor acquired
working interests in the Kellam Lease, the parties have all engaged
in oil and gas production efforts under the terms of that lease.

Paragraph 10 of the Kellam Lease addresses unitization and provides
that, if the leased premises are consolidated with other lands to
form a development unit, "the Lessor agrees to accept, in lieu of
the one-eighth (1/8) oil, gas, and/or coalbed methane gas royalty
hereinbefore provided, that proportion of such one-eighth (1/8)
royalty which the acreage consolidated bears to the total number of
acres compromising said development unit." Finally, Paragraph 11 of
the Kellam Lease provides that, "in case the Lessor owns a less
interest in the above described premises than the entire and
undivided fee simple therein, then the royalties and rentals herein
provided for will be paid to the Lessor only in the proportion
which such interest bears to the whole and undivided fee."

According to the Kellams, SWN and Equinor "each have deducted
postproduction costs from royalty checks due and payable to [the
Kellams] and other similarly situated persons and/or entities." As
such, on April 28, 2020, the Kellams instituted the underlying
civil action—a putative class action -- in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, arguing that
those deductions were in contravention of the Supreme Court of
Appeals' holdings in Tawney v. Columbia Natural Resources, LLC.,
219 W.Va. 266, 633 S.E.2d 22 (2006), and Wellman v. Energy
Resources, Inc., 210 W.Va. 200, 557 S.E.2d 254 (2001), because the
terms of the lease lack the specificity required under Tawney to
permit the deduction of post-production costs. While acknowledging
that the royalty language provides for the deduction of certain
charges for "transportation, dehydration, and compression," they
argue the lease fails to include a "method of calculating the
amount to be deducted from the royalty share for such
post-production costs" as required by Tawney.

After a short delay in the proceedings caused by a stay issued
pending the resolution of Chesapeake's voluntary Chapter 11
petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of Texas, SWN and Equinor filed answers to the Kellams'
complaint in July 2021. Contemporaneously, SWN and Equinor moved
for judgment on the pleadings, seeking dismissal of all of the
Kellams' claims with prejudice. In so doing, SWN and Equinor argued
that the Kellam Lease satisfied the requirements set forth in
Tawney. Once briefing was complete, on Sept. 13, 2021, the district
court, sua sponte, certified four questions. The Supreme Court of
Appeals accepted the certified questions and placed the matter on
the docket for argument under Rule 20 of the West Virginia Rules of
Appellate Procedure.

II. Discussion

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
has certified four questions to the Supre Court of Appeals, which
seek to clarify whether, in payment of royalties under an oil and
gas lease, the lessor may be required to bear a portion of the
post-production costs incurred in rendering the oil and gas
marketable.

First, the district court poses this overarching question: Is
Estate of Tawney v. Columbia Natural Resources, LLC., 219 W.Va.
266, 633 S.E.2d 22 (2006), still good law in West Virginia?

The Supreme Court of Appeals answers this question in the
affirmative.

The District Court then asks the Supreme Court of Appeals to
expound upon its holding in Tawney by posing the following three
questions: What is meant by the method of calculating the amount of
post-production costs to be deducted? Is a simple listing of the
types of costs which may be deducted sufficient to satisfy Tawney?
If post-production costs are to be deducted, are they limited to
direct costs or may indirect costs be deducted as well?

The Supreme Court of Appeals finds that these are questions of
contract interpretation which may only be answered by the Court and
a factfinder, as appropriate, upon consideration of the lease in
question and other relevant evidence, through application of the
holdings in Tawney, its predecessor, Wellman v. Energy Resources,
Inc., 210 W.Va. 200, 557 S.E.2d 254 (2001), and applicable contract
law.

In this regard, it recognizes its authority to reformulate
questions certified to it: When a certified question is not framed
so that the Supreme Court of Appeals is able to fully address the
law which is involved in the question, then it retains the power to
reformulate questions certified to it under the Uniform
Certification of Questions of Law Act found in W. Va. Code,
51-1A-1, et seq.
Syl. Pt. 3, in part, Kincaid v. Mangum, 189 W.Va. 404, 432 S.E.2d
74 (1993); see also W. Va. Code Section 51-1A-4 (2018) ("The
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia may reformulate a
question certified to it.").

The Supreme Court of Appeals exercises its authority to reformulate
and more succinctly phrase these three questions into a single
question as follows: What level of specificity does Tawney require
of an oil and gas lease to permit the deduction of post-production
costs from a lessor's royalty payments, and if such deductions are
permitted, what types of costs may be included?

The answer to this question necessarily involves the exploration of
contractual language, the possible need for interpretation of said
language, and the development of facts to assist either the court
or the factfinder, as appropriate. Therefore, the Supreme Court of
Appeals declines to answer the reformulated question.

III. Disposition

Based upon its analysis, the Supreme Court of Appeals answers the
certified questions as follows:

     a. Question One: Is Estate of Tawney v. Columbia Natural
Resources, LLC., 219 W.Va. 266, 633 S.E.2d 22 (2006), still good
law in West Virginia?

        Answer: Yes.

     b. Question Two: What level of specificity does Tawney require
of an oil and gas lease to permit the deduction of post-production
costs from a lessor's royalty payments, and if such deductions are
permitted, how are the deductions to be calculated?

        Answer: The Supreme Court of Appeals declines to answer the
reformulated certified question because it presents a question of
contract interpretation which may only be answered by referencing
the individual lease and applicable principles of law.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/467a3um9 from Leagle.com.

Marc S. Tabolsky, Esq. -- mtabolsky@shjlawfirm.com -- SCHIFFER
HICKS JOHNSON PLLC, Houston, Texas, Elbert Lin, Esq., HUNTON
ANDREWS KURTH LLP, in Richmond, Virginia, Timothy M. Miller, Esq.,
Jennifer J. Hicks, Esq., Katrina N. Bowers, Esq., BABST, CALLAND,
CLEMENTS, & ZOMNIR, P.C., in Charleston, West Virginia, Counsel for
the Petitioners.

James G. Bordas III, Esq., Richard A. Monahan, Esq., BORDAS &
BORDAS, PLLC, in Wheeling, West Virginia, Counsel for the
Respondents.

Scott A. Windom, Esq., WINDOM LAW OFFICES, PLLC, Harrisville, West
Virginia, Anthony J. Majestro, Esq., POWELL & MAJESTRO, PLLC, in
Charleston, West Virginia, Counsel for Amici Curiae West Virginia
Land and Mineral Owners Association and West Virginia Association
for Justice.

W. Henry Lawrence, Esq. -- hank.lawrence@steptoe-johnson.com -- Amy
M. Smith, Esq. -- amy.smith@steptoe-johnson.com -- STEPTOE &
JOHNSON PLLC, in Bridgeport, West Virginia, Counsel for Amici
Curiae American Petroleum Institute, Gas and Oil Association of WV,
Inc., and West Virginia Chamber of Commerce.

Howard M. Persinger, III, Esq., Persinger & Persinger, L.C., in
Charleston, West Virginia, Counsel for Amici Curiae West Virginia
Royalty Owners' Association, West Virginia Farm Bureau, Bounty
Minerals LLC and Siltstone Resources, LLC.

Michael W. Carey, Esq. -- mcarey@cdkrlaw.com -- David R. Pogue,
Esq. -- dpogue@cdkrlaw.com -- Carey, Douglas, Kessler & Ruby, PLLC,
in Charleston, West Virginia, Marvin W. Masters, Esq. , April D.
Ferrebee, Esq., The Masters Law Firm LC, Charleston, West Virginia,
Counsel for Amicus Curiae National Association of Royalty Owners,
Appalachia.


TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Value Drug Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled VALUE DRUG COMPANY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A.,
INC., PAR PHARMACEUTICAL INC., WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., TEVA
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., and
AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on June 10, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:22-mc-00033-MAK to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged conspiracy to delay
competition, reduce output, and maintain monopoly prices for brand
gout drug Colcrys in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman
Act.

Value Drug Company is a wholesale distributor of pharmaceuticals
and health-related products, headquartered in Duncansville,
Pennsylvania.

Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. is a pharmaceutical company
headquartered in Massachusetts.

Par Pharmaceutical Inc. is a pharmaceutical company headquartered
in New York.

Watson Laboratories, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in
Illinois.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. is an Israeli multinational
pharmaceutical company, headquartered in Petah Tikva, Israel.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company
headquartered in North Wales, Pennsylvania.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC is a pharmaceutical company
headquartered in New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Emily E. St. Cyr, Esq.
         VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
         301 East Fourth Street, Suite 3500
         Great American Tower
         Cincinnati, OH 45202
         Telephone: (513) 723-4674
         Facsimile: (513) 852-7851
         E-mail: eestcyr@vorys.com

                 - and –

         Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC
         1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 875-3000
         Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
         E-mail: ccoslett@bm.net

TARGET CORPORATION: Torres Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to E.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALICIA TORRES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 34-2022-00316991, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on June 10, 2022.

The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:22-at-00604 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code, the California's Fair Employment and Housing
Act, the California's Public Policy, and the California's Business
and Professions Code including unfair competition, failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide
meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure
to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to reimburse
business expenses, failure to timely pay wages owed upon separation
from employment, discrimination and retaliation, and wrongful
termination.

Target Corporation is an American big box department store chain
headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Julie A. Dunne, Esq.
         Matthew Riley, Esq.
         Alberto Corona, Esq.
         DLA PIPER LLP (US)
         401 B Street, Suite 1700
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (619) 699-2700
         Facsimile: (619) 699-2701
         E-mail: julie.dunne@us.dlapiper.com
                 matthew.riley@us.dlapiper.com
                 alberto.corona@us.dlapiper.com

TENET HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Brewster Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROB BREWSTER; and ANITA GOFFMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. TENET HEALTHCARE
CORPORATION, d/b/a TENET, Defendant, Case No. 151298203 (Fla.,
Cir., Broward Cty., June 10, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the
sensitive personally identifiable information (PIT) and protected
health information (PHI) of individuals, including but not limited
to current and former patients and employees, whose PII and PHI it
stored on its internal systems.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendant failed to
comply with industry standards to protect information systems that
contain PII and PHI and, as a result, the Defendant's systems
containing patient PII and PHI and electronic health records
("EHR") experienced unauthorized access and activity.

Plaintiff seek, among other things, orders requiring Defendant to
fully and accurately disclose the nature of the information that
has been compromised, to adopt reasonably sufficient security
practices and safeguards to prevent incidents like the disclosure
in the future, to destroy information no longer necessary to retain
for purposes for which the information was first obtained from
Class Members, and to provide a sum of money sufficient to provide
to Plaintiffs and Class Members identity theft protective services
for their respective lifetimes as the Plaintiffs and Class Members
will be at an increased risk of identity theft due to the conduct
of Tenet as described herein, says the suit.

TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION through its subsidiaries, owns or
operates general hospitals and related health care facilities
serving communities in the United States. The Company operates
rehabilitation hospitals, specialty hospitals, long-term care
facilities, psychiatric facilities, and medical office buildings
near its general hospitals, as well as ancillary health care
businesses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick A. Barthle II, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin St.,
          7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone:(813) 229-4023
          Facsimile:(813) 222-4708
          Email: PBarthle@ForThePeople.com

TILT HOLDINGS INC: Court Approves Settlement in Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TILT Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-12G/A Report, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2022, that a
settlement for a class action lawsuit was approved in November
2021.

In July 14, 2020, the company was served with a claim filed in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice against it and certain of its
former directors and officers. The plaintiff claimed and sought to
claim on behalf of a proposed class, an unspecified amount of
damages for alleged misrepresentations made by the Defendants about
the company's business in its public disclosure during the proposed
class period of October 12, 2018 to May 1, 2019.

Prior to any hearings in the matter, the parties reached a
settlement of the proposed class action. The settlement was
approved by the Ontario Court, on behalf of a defined certified
class of investors, by order dated November 29, 2021. The plan for
the distribution of the settlement funds is ongoing.

TILT Holdings Inc. operates through selling vape and accessory
products and services based in Arizona.


UNITED STATES: Asylum Seekers Sue Over Denied Work Authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that the
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) unlawfully denies
asylum seekers work authorization beyond the time allowed while
their asylum and withholding claims are pending, a new class action
lawsuit alleges.

A group of four asylum seekers from Mexico, El Salvador and
Honduras claim the USCIS denies work authorization for asylum
seekers beyond the six month period allowed by the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA).

The asylum seekers claim the inability to obtain work authorization
while their status is pending forces them to "rely on the goodwill
of others to support themselves and their families" while they
await a decision.

"Due to Defendants' unlawful policies and practices preventing them
from qualifying for employment authorization, Plaintiffs and
proposed class members are in dire financial straits," the asylum
seekers' class action states.

Class action alleges 'asylum EAD clock' unlawfully prevents asylum
seekers from obtaining work authorization

In instances where it is not possible to process an asylum
application within six months, asylum seekers have a right, granted
by Congress, to obtain an Employment Authorization Document (EAD)
if their application has been pending for more than 180 days,
according to the asylum class action.

The asylum seekers argue, however, that the USCIS has "adopted
uniform nationwide policies and practices to regulate what is
referred to as the "asylum EAD clock" and that these practices
"unlawfully prevent" asylum applicants who are "otherwise
statutorily eligible for work authorization on account of meeting
the 180-day mark."

"Plaintiffs and proposed class members are at Defendants' mercy as
to how Defendants administer the asylum EAD clock because there is
no notice requirement and no viable mechanism to challenge when the
clock starts, stops or does not restart," the class action states.


The asylum seekers claim the USCIS is in violation of the due
process clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative
Procedure Act.

They want to represent a nationwide class of asylum seekers who
have had work authorization withheld from them by the USCIS for
longer than what is allowed by the INA.

The plaintiffs also demand a jury trial and request declaratory and
injunctive relief for themselves and all class members.

A separate class action lawsuit filed against the U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement in February claims the agency unnecessarily
holds onto immigrants' identification documents.

The plaintiffs are represented by Matt Adams, Leila Kang and Aaron
Korthuis of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project and Mary Kenney,
Trina Realmuto and Kristin Macleod-Ball of the National Immigration
Litigation Alliance.

The Asylum seekers work authorization class action lawsuit is
Perez, et al. v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al.,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00806, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington. [GN]

UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA: Judge Hears Arguments in Title IX Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Skylar Rispens, writing for Longview News-Journal, reports that
attorneys sparred in federal court on June 13 over a sex-based
discrimination lawsuit against the University of Montana involving
more than 70 current and former employees alleging the university
fostered a hostile workplace environment for women.

U.S. District Judge Brian Morris has not yet decided if the
plaintiffs will be granted class-action status in their suit
against UM and the Montana University System, the focus of the June
13 hearing.

"We just hope for the opportunity to advocate for as many women as
possible," said Hillary Carls, of Blackford Carls P.C. of Bozeman,
after the June 13 hearing.

Catherine Cole, Barbara Koostra, Mary-Ann Sontag Bowman and Rhondie
Voorhees filed the federal lawsuit last August describing treatment
from the university they say is part of a "good ol' boys' club."
They specifically claimed UM President Seth Bodnar created a campus
environment adverse to women.

The plaintiffs' legal team requested class certification after 18
more women came forward with similar allegations of gender
discrimination and harassment. Carls said attorneys identified more
than 70 other current or former female UM employees as eligible
class-action members.

Morris asked Carls what factual evidence their team has to
establish a culture of discrimination on the basis of sex at the
university.

"Culture is habits and routines," Carls replied.

In March, lawyers representing the MUS and UM moved to deny the
class-action request. On June 13, attorney Susan Miltko argued that
the claims brought by the plaintiffs are separate, unique
allegations not eligible for class-action status.

"Theory of culture is not enough," Miltko said, noting that the
plaintiffs hadn't identified specific discriminatory university
policies or expert testimony to assert their claims.

Miltko and her team offered a slideshow of their arguments
identifying "wide-ranging" claims of discrimination asserted by
each of the four original plaintiffs.

Miltko also claimed that there are conflicts between the named
plaintiffs and who might be possible class-action members, namely
Lucy France, UM's General Counsel. Miltko questioned how people
identified as possible perpetrators of discrimination against
female employees could be class-action members seeking damages.

Chief Judge Morris did not agree that the conflicts identified by
Miltko in court were justified and argued that they could be going
along with the discriminatory culture argued by the plaintiffs.

Carls noted during her rebuttal that France is not a defendant in
the case, but is considered a witness.

"The University of Montana has presented evidence to the court
showing these accusations are not based in fact," said Dave Kuntz,
UM's director of strategic communications. "In regard to the
arguments, we strongly believe these false and inflammatory
allegations fail to meet the requisite requirements necessary to
secure class status."

Morris is expected to rule regarding the class action status
request before the case's amendment deadline on July 30. [GN]

VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Gorlamari Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KRANTHI GORLAMARI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., TED
WHITE, P. TERENCE KOHLER JR. and A. BRIAN DAVIS, Defendants, Case
No. 2:22-cv-02226 (E.D. Penn., June 6, 2022) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Verrica securities between May 28,
2021 and May 24, 2022, inclusive, pursuing claims against the
Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Verrica is a dermatology therapeutics company developing medication
for skin diseases that require medical treatment. Its lead product
candidate, VP-102, is a drug device combination of Verrica's
topical solution, cantharidin, administered through a single-use
precision applicator. The Company is developing VP-102 for the
treatment of molluscum contagiosum.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose to investors: (1) that there were manufacturing
deficiencies at the facility where Verrica's contract manufacturer
produced bulk solution for VP-102; (2) that these deficiencies were
not remediated when Verrica resubmitted its NDA for VP-12 for
molluscum; (3) that the foregoing presented significant risks to
Verrica obtaining regulatory approval of VP-102 for molluscum; and
(4) 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, says
the suit.

As a result of the 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, the suit asserts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee Albert, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Avenue, Suite 348
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: lalbert@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Charles H. Linehan
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160

               - and -

          Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ   
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 914-5007

VOYETRA TURTLE: Fabricant Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VOYETRA TURTLE BEACH, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:22-cv-04052-FMO-PD (C.D. Cal., June 13, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant transmitted telemarketing
calls to telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry,
including the Plaintiff's number, without prior express written
consent.

Voyetra Turtle Beach, Inc. is a commercial company, headquartered
in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
         KAUFMAN P.A.
         237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor
         Coral Gables, FL 33133
         Telephone: (305) 469-5881
         E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com

WALMART INC: Faces Consolidated Stockholder Suit in Delaware Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Walmart 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 3, 2022, that a consolidated class action was
filed against the company alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.

The company is the subject of two securities class actions alleging
violations of the federal securities laws regarding the company's
disclosures with respect to opioids, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware on January 20, 2021 and March 5,
2021 purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who acquired
Walmart stock from March 30, 2016 through December 22, 2020. Those
cases have been consolidated. On October 8, 2021, the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated securities action, the
lead plaintiff responded to the motion on January 10, 2022 and the
defendants filed their reply brief on February 10, 2022.

Walmart Inc., based in Arkansas, is engaged in the operation of
retail and wholesale stores and clubs, as well as eCommerce
websites.


ZUORA INC: Discovery Ongoing in Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Zuora, 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 3, 2022, that the company and certain of its
officers were named defendants in a putative class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Discovery is ongoing.

In June 2019, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
naming Zuora and certain of its officers as defendants. The
complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of stockholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired Zuora's securities between April
12, 2018 and May 30, 2019.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements about Zuora's business, operations and prospects in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and
costs.

In November 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting the same claims. In April 2020, the court
denied defendants' motion to dismiss. On March 15, 2021, the court
granted plaintiff's motion to certify a class consisting of persons
and entities who purchased or acquired Zuora common stock between
April 12, 2018 and May 30, 2019 and who were allegedly damaged
thereby. Discovery in this case is ongoing.

Zuora Inc. provides a cloud-based subscription management platform
based in California.


ZUORA INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in California Court Over IPO
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zuora, 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 3, 2022, that a class action was filed against
the company alleging claims under the Securities Act of 1933.
Discovery is ongoing.

In April and May 2020, two putative securities class action
lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo, naming as defendants Zuora and
certain of its current and former officers, its directors and the
underwriters of Zuora's initial public offering (IPO).

The complaints purport to bring suit on behalf of stockholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired Zuora's securities pursuant or
traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with Zuora's IPO and allege claims under Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The suits seek
unspecified damages and other relief.

In July 2020, the court entered an order consolidating the two
lawsuits, and the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting the same claims. In October 2020, the court
denied defendants' demurrer as to the Section 11 and Section 15
claims and granted the demurrer as to the Section 12(a)(2) claim
with leave to file an amended complaint. In November 2020, the lead
plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. Defendants'
demurrer to the Section 12(a)(2) claim was sustained with leave to
amend.

On October 14, 2021, the court certified a class for the Section 11
and Section 15 claims, consisting of persons and entities who
purchased or acquired Zuora common stock pursuant or traceable to
the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
Zuora's IPO. The lead plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Section
12(a)(2) claim without prejudice. Discovery in this case is
ongoing.

Zuora Inc. provides a cloud-based subscription management platform
based in California.



                            *********

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 ***